Fox News anchor Jesse Watters has ignited a firestorm with a bold assertion that the United States owns the moon during a recent broadcast.
On the panel show "The Five," Watters discussed President Donald Trump's push to acquire Greenland from Denmark, claiming it’s America’s destiny to secure the Arctic territory. His comments extended to a surprising declaration about lunar ownership, drawing both chuckles from his co-panelists and sharp criticism online. Meanwhile, Trump announced a framework for a potential Greenland deal after talks with NATO chief Mark Rutte, emphasizing the island’s importance for U.S. security, while also suspending planned tariffs on Britain and other nations resistant to his proposal.
According to the Daily Mail, the issue has sparked intense debate across the political spectrum, with Watters’ remarks on the moon drawing particular ire from liberal outlets, while some defend his tone as humorous. Critics on social media and publications like HuffPost have slammed his lunar claim as misguided, while others suggest he wasn’t entirely serious. This controversy unfolds against the backdrop of strained diplomatic ties over Greenland, raising questions about NATO’s cohesion.
Watters didn’t hold back on "The Five," arguing that the U.S. must take control of Greenland, whether through economic means or military might. He cited historical examples like Alaska and the Philippines to bolster his point, framing it as a matter of national destiny.
Then came the lunar bombshell, as Watters declared, “We got the moon, I think we own it!” That line, met with laughter from his peers, wasn’t a one-off—he doubled down, insisting he “knows” the U.S. holds ownership. While some online voices argue he was joking, the statement has fueled accusations of overreach.
Turning to Greenland, Watters echoed Trump’s stance that Denmark can’t defend the territory alone, suggesting a hefty $700 billion offer is on the table. He painted a picture of inevitable U.S. dominance, predicting swift action once key figures like Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, and Marco Rubio negotiate with European counterparts.
President Trump has kept the Greenland issue front and center, recently touting a “framework of a future deal” after discussions with NATO’s Mark Rutte. He’s framed the island as critical for American security, even floating a staggering $1 million per resident if Greenlanders vote to join the U.S., according to reports.
Yet, not all allies are on board, with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen firmly stating that U.S. ownership is a “red line” for Copenhagen. NATO military officers have discussed ceding small territories for U.S. bases, akin to British holdings in Cyprus, but resistance remains strong. Trump’s tariff suspension offers a reprieve, though critics mock it as another instance of backing down.
Watters, meanwhile, reinforced his hardline view with, “When the world changes, we change. So globalism's dead, we have to protect our own supply lines.” His dismissal of globalist ideals resonates with those wary of overreliance on international alliances, though it risks further alienating partners.
The Greenland dispute has rattled NATO, with recent tensions plunging Britain’s “special relationship” with the U.S. into uncertainty. Trump’s blunt remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, belittling allies and warning of “bad things” if Europe doesn’t shift on immigration and energy policies, haven’t helped. His claim that America “never got anything from NATO” ignores the sacrifices of allied troops in conflicts like Afghanistan.
Still, Trump’s vision for Greenland as “the ultimate long-term deal” with “no time limit” signals an unyielding pursuit. On Truth Social, he hailed the potential agreement as a win for both the U.S. and NATO, though skepticism lingers among European leaders. Watters’ rhetoric, while polarizing, taps into a frustration with progressive agendas that prioritize global consensus over national interest. His moon comment, whether jest or not, underscores a broader point: America must assert itself unapologetically in a shifting world order.
The backlash against Watters highlights a cultural divide—where some see reckless bravado, others see a refreshing rejection of diplomatic niceties. His Greenland stance aligns with a pragmatic view that America must secure strategic assets, even if it ruffles feathers.
Yet, the risk of fracturing NATO looms large, especially as Trump’s rhetoric at times overshadows the shared sacrifices of allied nations. The Greenland saga, paired with Watters’ provocative commentary, is a litmus test for how far the U.S. can push its weight without breaking vital partnerships.
Ultimately, this debate isn’t just about territory or even the moon—it’s about whether America can lead with strength while maintaining the trust of those who stand beside it. The coming negotiations will reveal if Trump’s “forever” deal can bridge these divides or deepen them further.