Trump Describes the Strait of Hormuz as New American Territory, Highlighting Three Areas He Has Claimed or Identified as Part of US Territory During 2026 Amid Growing Geopolitical Tensions and Controversial Territorial Statements.
Trump Labels Strait of Hormuz as ‘US Territory’: Three Regions He Declared American in 2026.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most strategically important maritime passages, lying between Iran and Oman. It serves as a crucial link between the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, supporting major international shipping and energy routes.
Trump’s Hormuz Claim Puts Strategic Waterway at Centre of Fresh Tensions
US President Donald Trump has made a new and controversial claim concerning the Strait of Hormuz, saying the strategically important waterway could soon be treated as part of US territory. The remarks have added another layer to the already tense confrontation involving Washington, Tehran and the wider Gulf region.
On August 15, Trump said the United States would soon “finish defeating Iran” and suggested that the Strait of Hormuz could become part of American territory. Four days later, he shared a map identifying the waterway as “new US territory”, drawing renewed international attention to his comments.
The statement comes at a particularly sensitive time, following the expiration of a 14-point memorandum of understanding with Iran on August 17. With tensions already high, the president’s latest description of the waterway has intensified debate over who has authority and influence over one of the world’s most important maritime routes.
Why the Strait of Hormuz matters
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow but strategically crucial maritime passage connecting the Arabian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider waters beyond it.
The waterway lies between Iran to the north and Oman to the south. Its geographical position gives it enormous importance for international shipping, particularly the transportation of oil and liquefied natural gas.
Large quantities of the world’s energy supplies move through the strait every day. Around 21 million barrels of oil pass through the waterway, while more than one-fifth of global LNG trade also uses the route.
Because of this, any prolonged disruption in the strait could have consequences well beyond the Middle East. Restrictions on shipping could affect energy markets, transportation costs and international supply chains.
For countries that depend heavily on Gulf energy exports, the uninterrupted movement of vessels through Hormuz is particularly important.
Iran and Oman surround the waterway
The geography of the strait is also central to the dispute.
Iran controls the northern coastline, while Oman’s territory extends along the southern side. Iranian Revolutionary Guards maintain a significant security presence around the Iranian side of the waterway.
The strait itself therefore falls within a highly sensitive area where maritime security, territorial jurisdiction and international shipping interests overlap.
Trump’s description of Hormuz as “new US territory” has consequently attracted attention because the waterway is not geographically part of the United States.
His remarks also contrast sharply with Iran’s long-standing position concerning its role in the strait.
Washington and Tehran disagree over control
The United States and Iran have opposing positions over the strategic corridor.
Trump has repeatedly argued that the United States has the ability to control or secure the waterway, particularly amid the ongoing conflict.
Iran, however, rejects the idea that Washington has authority over the strait.
The disagreement has become more pronounced since the beginning of the US-Israel-Iran conflict, when Tehran effectively closed the waterway.
The development created significant concern for international shipping and energy markets because of the strait’s importance to global trade.
The latest comments from Trump have therefore been interpreted within the context of an already intense confrontation rather than as an isolated statement.
A new description of the strait
Trump’s latest remarks stand out because he did not simply describe the United States as having influence or military control over the waterway.
By referring to Hormuz as “new US territory” on the map he shared, he used language associated with territorial ownership.
That distinction is significant.
The Strait of Hormuz is internationally recognised as a strategically important maritime passage located between Iran and Oman. Calling it US territory introduces a far more direct territorial claim than previous statements about American involvement in securing the route.
The claim has consequently prompted questions about what the president intended by the description and whether it represented a formal change in US policy or was instead a political statement.
The timing has added significance
The latest claim came shortly after the 14-point memorandum of understanding with Iran expired.
The agreement had provided a framework for reducing tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Its expiration has raised concerns that the fragile period of de-escalation could give way to renewed confrontation.
Trump’s comments about the Strait of Hormuz came only two days after the memorandum ended, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the next phase of the conflict.
With diplomatic prospects already appearing limited, the dispute over Hormuz could become another major point of contention between the two sides.
Hormuz as an energy chokepoint
The strategic importance of the waterway cannot be separated from its role in the global energy system.
Millions of barrels of crude oil and petroleum products move through the strait, making it one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints.
The passage is also crucial for LNG shipments.
Because there are limited alternative routes capable of replacing Hormuz at the same scale, a serious interruption could quickly affect international markets.
For this reason, governments around the world closely monitor developments in and around the strait.
Any threat to its operation can trigger concerns about supply disruptions and higher energy prices.
Why Trump’s claim matters internationally
The United States already maintains substantial military capabilities in the broader Gulf region and has historically played an important role in maritime security.
However, military presence and territorial ownership are two different concepts.
Trump’s use of the term “US territory” therefore represents a particularly striking description.
If interpreted literally, such a claim would raise significant questions about sovereignty, international law and relations with Iran and Oman.
There has been no indication in the information provided that the United States has formally acquired sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
Instead, the description appears in the context of Trump’s public comments and the map he shared.
Iran’s position remains unchanged
Iran has consistently regarded the northern side of the strait as part of its territory and has maintained a strong military presence in the area.
The country’s Revolutionary Guards have a significant role in monitoring activity around the waterway.
Tehran has also rejected American assertions that Washington controls the strait.
The competing positions make Hormuz one of the most sensitive locations in the wider confrontation.
Any military incident involving vessels, aircraft or security forces operating around the passage could quickly escalate tensions between the two countries.
Oman’s role
Oman also has an important geographical position because the southern side of the strait falls within Omani territory.
The country’s location means that developments around Hormuz have direct implications for its security and maritime interests.
The waterway’s geography makes it impossible to discuss questions of control without considering both Iran and Oman.
Trump’s description of the strait as American territory therefore stands in contrast to the existing geographical and political realities surrounding the passage.
A crucial route for global trade
Hormuz is important not only because of oil and LNG.
The waterway also supports broader commercial shipping activity linking Gulf states with international markets.
The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq all have major economic interests connected to Gulf shipping and energy exports.
A disruption could therefore affect multiple economies simultaneously.
For the UAE in particular, the issue is significant because the country is a major regional logistics and trading centre with extensive maritime infrastructure.
Any prolonged uncertainty surrounding the strait could create additional challenges for shipping operators, exporters and importers.
Trump’s earlier territorial statements
The Hormuz claim is also notable because it is not the first occasion on which Trump has spoken about other parts of the world in terms of becoming part of the United States.
His latest statement therefore fits into a broader pattern of controversial territorial rhetoric during 2026.
However, the Strait of Hormuz is particularly sensitive because it is an active international maritime corridor located beside two sovereign states.
The strategic importance of the waterway also means that statements about its ownership can have wider geopolitical consequences.
No clear indication of a formal territorial change
Despite Trump’s comments and the map he shared, there is no indication in the supplied information that the United States has formally changed the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz.
The distinction between political rhetoric and formal territorial policy is important.
A statement by a political leader does not automatically alter the internationally recognised status of a territory or maritime passage.
The strait remains geographically positioned between Iran and Oman, while its waters are subject to established maritime arrangements and international norms.
The comments should therefore be understood in the context of the ongoing conflict and Trump’s public statements rather than as evidence of a completed territorial transfer.
Conflict has raised the stakes
The dispute over Hormuz has become particularly important because the waterway was effectively closed by Tehran during the wider US-Israel-Iran conflict.
The closure created immediate concerns for shipping and energy supplies.
For international markets, even the possibility of a prolonged interruption can be destabilising.
Governments and companies must consider alternative routes, increased security costs and potential delays when the main passage becomes inaccessible or unsafe.
The situation has consequently made Hormuz one of the most closely watched locations in the current regional crisis.
A potential flashpoint
The waterway could remain a major flashpoint as long as the confrontation between Washington and Tehran continues.
The combination of military activity, competing claims of control and the absence of a stable diplomatic agreement creates significant uncertainty.
Trump’s latest remarks could further complicate efforts to reduce tensions.
Iran has shown no indication that it accepts the US claim of control, while Washington continues to emphasise its ability to secure the route.
The disagreement could therefore become increasingly important in future discussions between the two sides.
What the claim means for the region
For countries across the Gulf, the immediate concern is less about the wording itself and more about what could happen if the dispute leads to further military escalation.
Any confrontation affecting commercial vessels could have consequences for the entire region.
Higher shipping costs, insurance premiums and energy prices could affect economies far beyond the Gulf.
The UAE and Oman, in particular, have strong maritime and commercial interests connected to the region’s waterways.
Maintaining safe and predictable shipping routes is therefore a major economic priority.
Diplomacy remains uncertain
The expiration of the 14-point memorandum has already reduced confidence in the possibility of immediate diplomatic progress.
Trump’s comments suggest that relations between Washington and Tehran remain deeply strained.
Without an active diplomatic mechanism, disagreements over issues such as the Strait of Hormuz may become more difficult to resolve.
The waterway could consequently remain at the centre of political and military discussions in the coming weeks.
A strategically important passage under pressure
The Strait of Hormuz has long been one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.
Its location between Iran and Oman, combined with the enormous volume of energy passing through it, gives the waterway importance far beyond its relatively narrow geographical size.
Trump’s decision to describe the strait as “new US territory” has added an unprecedented political dimension to the debate over its control.
Iran rejects the idea of US ownership, while the existing geographical reality places the waterway between Iranian and Omani territory.
With the wider regional conflict continuing and the previous memorandum with Iran having expired, tensions surrounding Hormuz are likely to remain high.
For global energy markets, shipping companies and Gulf states, the most important issue will be whether the waterway can remain open and secure.
For Washington and Tehran, however, the dispute over the strait represents something larger: another point of confrontation in an already escalating conflict.
Until diplomatic relations improve and a clearer understanding is reached between the two sides, the Strait of Hormuz is likely to remain one of the most closely watched strategic locations in the region.
Here’s a look at countries and regions which Trump called a part of US:
Greenland
In January, US President Donald Trump said in an interview with the New York Post that the United States could establish sovereignty over parts of Greenland where American military installations are situated.
Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in bringing Greenland under US control, including through a possible purchase from Denmark. Copenhagen, however, has consistently maintained that the Arctic island is not available for sale.
The US president has also discussed Greenland’s strategic importance and American access to the territory. While he has previously raised the possibility of acquiring the island, he appeared to distance himself from the idea of using military force to take control of it.
Instead, Trump said arrangements had been reached through Nato that would ensure the United States could maintain access to Greenland.
Greenland occupies an enormous area of approximately 2.16 million square kilometres, making it the world’s largest island. Its territory is larger than that of many independent countries, although its population is relatively small because much of the island is covered by ice and has extremely harsh climatic conditions.
Its location in the Arctic gives Greenland considerable strategic importance. The island sits between the North Atlantic and Arctic regions, placing it close to important military and maritime routes.
The presence of US military facilities has also made Greenland an important part of Washington’s Arctic security calculations.
Trump’s interest in the island has therefore been linked not only to territorial ambitions but also to its geopolitical and defence significance.
Denmark and Greenland have continued to reject the idea that the territory could simply be transferred to the United States.
The issue has consequently become a recurring point of discussion between Washington, Copenhagen and Nuuk.
Venezuela
Venezuela has also appeared in Trump’s territorial rhetoric.
In May, the US president shared a map showing part of South America and labelled Venezuela as the “51st state”, with the country depicted under the American flag.
The post generated attention because of the unusual suggestion that a sovereign South American country could become part of the United States.
The reference came amid an already complicated relationship between Washington and Caracas.
The political and security relationship between the two countries has remained highly contentious, with Venezuela’s government facing significant pressure from the United States.
The situation took an even more dramatic turn following a US operation targeting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
On January 3, American forces reportedly carried out an operation to capture Maduro.
The mission was described as a highly planned military operation involving elite American personnel.
US special forces, including members of the Army’s Delta Force, were reportedly involved in preparations for the mission.
According to the account, American troops constructed a detailed replica of Maduro’s secure residence as part of their preparation.
The replica was used to rehearse the operation and familiarise personnel with the layout of the heavily protected location.
The preparation reflected the difficulty involved in reaching a high-profile political target inside a strongly secured compound.
Following the operation, Maduro was taken to the United States.
He is now facing criminal proceedings in New York.
The development represented a dramatic escalation in the relationship between the United States and Venezuela and added another major international dimension to Trump’s foreign-policy agenda.
The “51st state” reference
Trump’s description of Venezuela as a potential 51st state was particularly striking because the United States already uses the term “51st state” as a shorthand for territories or countries that might theoretically join the union.
Venezuela, however, is an independent sovereign nation with its own government, territory and institutions.
The map shared by Trump therefore attracted attention because it portrayed the country in a way that suggested possible US incorporation.
The statement also followed other comments in which Trump has discussed territorial expansion or changes in US control.
Taken together, the remarks have contributed to a broader debate about the president’s approach to territorial questions and American influence overseas.
Canada
Canada has been another frequent subject of Trump’s comments about possible US expansion.
The US president has repeatedly suggested that Canada could become the 51st state.
His comments have extended beyond casual political rhetoric and have included arguments about the economic relationship between the two neighbouring countries.
Trump has claimed that the United States provides Canada with what he described as hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies.
The figure appears to refer to the economic relationship and trade imbalance between the two countries rather than a conventional government subsidy.
Using that argument, Trump has questioned whether the existing relationship benefits the United States sufficiently.
He has argued that Canada would be better off as part of the United States, while presenting the proposed arrangement as economically and militarily advantageous.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump described Canada as a potential “51st State”.
He claimed that becoming part of the United States would provide Canadians with benefits including lower taxes and stronger military protection.
He also suggested that Canadians would no longer face tariffs on goods moving between the two countries.
The comments have been controversial because Canada has repeatedly made clear that it is a sovereign country and has no intention of becoming part of the United States.
Canada and the US have maintained a long-standing political, economic and defence relationship, but that relationship is based on two separate sovereign states.
Trade tensions with Canada
Trump’s comments about Canadian statehood have occurred alongside a period of significant trade tension between Washington and Ottawa.
The two countries have been negotiating over tariffs and broader economic arrangements.
On Tuesday, Trump temporarily delayed a planned package of additional tariffs on Canadian imports.
The pause came as officials on both sides indicated that progress was being made towards a broader agreement.
The temporary reprieve reportedly covered a three-day period and came shortly before a midnight deadline.
The proposed duties had included tariffs of as much as 50 per cent on certain Canadian goods.
The decision to postpone the tariff rollout provided both governments with additional time to continue negotiations.
The development also demonstrated how Trump’s comments about Canada’s political future have been closely intertwined with economic disputes between the neighbouring countries.
Three very different cases
Greenland, Venezuela and Canada are very different territories with separate political and geographical circumstances.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and occupies an exceptionally important position in the Arctic.
Venezuela is an independent country in South America with its own government and longstanding political institutions.
Canada is a sovereign North American nation and one of the United States’ closest allies and trading partners.
Yet all three have been mentioned by Trump in the context of expanding American territory or influence.
In Greenland’s case, Trump has discussed the possibility of acquisition and American sovereignty.
With Venezuela, he shared a map depicting the country as a hypothetical 51st state.
Regarding Canada, he has repeatedly suggested that it could become another US state and has promoted the idea as economically beneficial.
Greenland’s strategic importance
Greenland occupies a particularly significant position because of its proximity to North America and the Arctic.
As global interest in the Arctic increases, the island’s location has become increasingly important for military planning, shipping and natural resources.
The United States already has a military presence in Greenland, making the territory strategically relevant to American defence policy.
Trump has pointed to this strategic significance when discussing why the United States should have greater control or access to the island.
Denmark, however, remains responsible for Greenland’s foreign and defence affairs within the framework of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Greenland also has its own government and enjoys extensive self-rule.
Any major change in its political status would therefore involve complex questions concerning Greenland, Denmark and the United States.
Venezuela’s geopolitical significance
Venezuela occupies an important position in northern South America and has significant natural resources, particularly oil.
Its political relationship with Washington has been difficult for years.
The country’s large energy reserves and strategic location have made it an important focus of US foreign policy.
The reported capture of Maduro marked a dramatic development in that relationship.
The subsequent criminal proceedings in New York added another layer to the confrontation between the two governments.
Trump’s later reference to Venezuela as the “51st state” therefore came against a backdrop of significant political and military tensions.
Canada’s unique relationship with the US
Canada’s situation is fundamentally different.
The country shares the world’s longest international land border with the United States and maintains extensive economic, cultural and defence connections with its southern neighbour.
Millions of people and enormous quantities of goods move between the two countries every year.
Canada and the United States also cooperate closely on continental defence and security.
Despite this deep relationship, Canada remains a separate sovereign state.
Trump’s repeated suggestion that it should join the United States has therefore been met with resistance from Canadian political leaders and the public.
The issue has also become part of broader discussions about trade, tariffs and economic sovereignty.
Territorial rhetoric and foreign policy
Trump’s comments regarding these three places have attracted attention because they go beyond conventional discussions of diplomatic cooperation.
In each case, he has raised the idea of the United States exercising greater control or influence.
The comments range from proposals involving Greenland to the hypothetical incorporation of Canada and the unusual depiction of Venezuela as a US state.
Whether these statements represent formal policy intentions or political messaging remains an important question.
A public statement or social media post does not automatically change the legal status of another country or territory.
Any actual territorial change would involve complicated diplomatic, legal and political processes.
Economic and security arguments
Trump has generally connected his territorial comments with arguments about national security, economic interests or strategic access.
In Greenland’s case, the Arctic location and existing US military presence are important factors.
With Venezuela, the country’s political situation and strategic resources have long been central to US policy.
For Canada, Trump’s arguments have focused heavily on trade, economic costs and continental defence.
This mixture of economic and security considerations forms a recurring theme in his comments about foreign territories.
Canada tariff negotiations continue
The latest development involving Canada also shows how quickly Trump’s approach can shift between confrontation and negotiation.
The planned tariff increases were paused while discussions continued between the two governments.
The temporary suspension created an opportunity to negotiate a wider agreement and avoid the immediate implementation of some of the proposed duties.
The talks are significant because trade between the United States and Canada is enormous, and tariffs on major categories of goods could affect businesses and consumers on both sides of the border.
For now, the three-day pause has provided additional time for negotiations.
What Trump’s comments mean
The references to Greenland, Venezuela and Canada have generated international attention, but each case must be considered separately.
Greenland’s future involves Denmark, Greenland’s own government and the United States.
Venezuela remains an independent South American country and has been at the centre of a major dispute with Washington.
Canada remains a close US ally despite disagreements over trade and Trump’s repeated comments about statehood.
The three cases therefore illustrate different aspects of Trump’s foreign-policy approach.
They also demonstrate how questions of territory, national security, economic interests and political rhetoric can become closely connected.
For now, none of Trump’s statements alone changes the internationally recognised status of these territories.
Instead, they have become part of a broader conversation about the United States’ role in global affairs and Trump’s vision of American power.
The coming months will determine whether any of these proposals develop into formal diplomatic initiatives or remain primarily political statements.
