Elon Musk’s bold claim that could trigger an international dispute: “Mars will be part of the U.S.”

Elon Musk, a prominent figure in the business and tech world, has sparked widespread debate and reflection with recent comments about his future, space exploration, and the potential influence of the United States on Mars. 

Speaking to the media, he shared his views ranging from his personal commitment to the U.S. to his ambitious plans for colonizing the Red Planet.

Musk firmly stated his intention to remain in the United States: “I will die in the United States. I'm not going anywhere,” he declared at an event in Wisconsin. 

This statement underscores his deep-rooted connection to the country and his vision of a shared future with the nation. However, his outlook extends far beyond Earth. 

“I might go to Mars, but that will be part of the United States. If the ship of America sinks, we all go down with it,” he added. This symbolic remark suggests a vision in which the future of space expansion and the fate of the U.S. are deeply intertwined.

He also addressed concerns about the current state of the country. “I’m working with others to make sure that ship doesn’t sink,” he said, responding to criticism and calls from some investors urging him to step away from Tesla.

The Outer Space Treaty and Legal Ambiguity

Musk’s remarks about a potential U.S. “conquest” of Mars have raised questions about the international legal framework governing space exploration. 

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, a foundational agreement in this field, outlines key principles regarding sovereignty and ownership of celestial bodies.

Signed by 115 countries, the treaty explicitly states that “outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” 

Its primary goal is to prevent the militarization of space and ensure that it is used for the benefit of all humankind.

However, the treaty focuses primarily on nations and does not explicitly address the role of private companies in space exploration. 

In the 1960s, when the treaty was drafted, the notion of a private company leading the colonization of another planet was considered far-fetched.

This legal gap could create uncertainty in the future. If SpaceX—Musk’s aerospace company—were to establish a significant presence on Mars before government agencies like NASA, questions surrounding sovereignty and control of the Red Planet could become highly complex.

It’s worth noting that Musk’s statements contrast with the official policy of Starlink, another of his companies. Starlink, which provides satellite internet services, has a specific policy regarding services offered on Mars: 

“For services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities,” the policy states.