Annexing the Ocean: The Dangerous Legal Fiction of Trump’s Hormuz Threat

The Logic of Territorial Expansion

President Trump’s latest declaration—a threat to unilaterally designate the Strait of Hormuz as a United States territory—marks a radical departure from established maritime law. According to reporting by Al Jazeera English, the administration is framing this potential move as a response to ongoing tensions with Iran, suggesting that domestic control over the waterway is the only way to ensure the flow of global energy supplies.

Under international law, specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Strait of Hormuz consists of the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. While the U.S. is not a formal party to UNCLOS, it has historically recognized its provisions as customary international law. By suggesting the U.S. can simply annex a waterway thousands of miles from its shores, the administration is not just challenging Iran; it is challenging the very concept of sovereign borders and the international commons.

Who Benefits?

In the short term, the primary beneficiaries are domestic political interests that favor a 'maximum pressure' campaign regardless of the diplomatic cost. By framing global choke points as potential U.S. property, the administration signals to the defense industry and private security contractors that a permanent, hyper-militarized presence in the Persian Gulf is the new baseline for American foreign policy.

Furthermore, certain domestic energy producers may benefit from the resulting volatility. The mere suggestion of such an annexation creates immediate risk premiums in oil markets. For companies looking to justify expanded domestic drilling under the guise of 'energy security,' a manufactured crisis in the Middle East provides the perfect political cover.

Who is Harmed?

The most immediate harm falls upon global stability and the principle of de-escalation. As Al Jazeera English noted, there is currently 'no end to war in sight' in the region. This rhetoric effectively closes the door on diplomatic off-ramps, forcing regional actors like Oman into impossible geopolitical positions and incentivizing Iran to accelerate its own defensive or asymmetric capabilities.

From a progressive perspective, the American taxpayer is also a victim here. Annexation—even in name only—requires a massive expansion of naval and administrative infrastructure. Redirecting billions toward the 'governance' of a foreign waterway drains resources that could otherwise be used for the green energy transition or domestic infrastructure. Moreover, the move sets a terrifying precedent: if the U.S. can claim the Strait of Hormuz, there is no legal argument to stop other superpowers from claiming international waters in the South China Sea or the Arctic.

The Legal Reality

Speculation remains high on whether the administration believes it can actually execute this via executive order. Legal experts point out that U.S. courts generally defer to the President on foreign policy, but 'territory' carries specific constitutional and statutory weight. To treat a strait as a territory would require congressional action or a treaty, both of which face steep hurdles. However, the administration’s strategy often relies on 'policy by announcement,' where the threat itself creates a new status quo before a single legal document is signed.

What to watch next

First, watch for reactions from the International Maritime Organization (IMO). If global shipping bodies begin rerouting or if insurance premiums for the Gulf spike, the economic reality may force the administration’s hand before the legal debate even begins.

Second, observe the halls of Congress. If the administration attempts to use the Defense Secretary to enforce 'territorial' regulations—such as tolls or inspections of foreign vessels—it will trigger an immediate constitutional crisis over the President’s power to expand the nation’s borders without legislative consent.

Finally, monitor the rhetoric from other global powers. If China or Russia use this as a pretext to formalize their own maritime claims, we are witnessing the end of the era of 'freedom of navigation' and the beginning of a new, fractured age of maritime colonialism.