A government claims exclusive rights to part of the Moon

Where things stand (as of 16 Oct 2026)

I found nothing that qualifies since the question opened on 16 Sep 2026. The event the question was probably written around came just before the window. On 6 Sep 2026 President Trump posted an AI image on Truth Social reading "THE MOON IS OURS" with a US flag. It was one of about 40 meme posts in 10 hours, alongside images of annexing Canada and Mexico, claiming the Strait of Hormuz and renaming New Mexico (NY Post, 7 Sep; CNBC-TV18, 7 Sep). No executive order or proclamation followed, and the White House did not say the post was policy. Snopes and the Economic Times called it legally empty, and UNOOSA said that whether a statement is a "claim of sovereignty" depends on its "legal character… and the intent behind" it (Snopes, updated 10 Sep). The post is dated before the opening date, so it cannot count.

Since then the official US line has stayed within the Outer Space Treaty:

• Trump's 8 Oct remarks talked only of "a permanent American presence".
• NASA's Moon Base FAQ handles overlapping interest at the south pole through the Artemis Accords: coordination and preventing interference.
• Isaacman said the base perimeter drones would be "mindful of the Outer Space Treaty" (Space.com, 26 May 2026).
• Executive Order 14369 (Dec 2025) sets goals for a lunar outpost and a reactor but claims no territory.
• The State Department's Sept 2026 Space Catalyst Partnership is built on the Accords, which now have 72–76 signatories.
• The UN space committee's Sept 2026 draft principles on space resources reaffirm non-appropriation and free access (Opinio Juris, 25 Sep 2026).
• Trump settled Greenland with a signed US–Denmark–Greenland agreement rather than annexation.

Base rate

In 59 years under the Outer Space Treaty no government has formally claimed any part of a celestial body. The 1976 Bogotá claim was to the geostationary orbit, which this question excludes, and no treaty has ever divided lunar areas. A plain base rate gives about 2% over five years. I raise it because of a US president who makes territorial claims often, a crewed US landing targeted for 2028 (China's for 2029–30), a south-pole base planned to cover "hundreds of square miles", and a lunar reactor targeted for 2030 with "keep-out zone" worries.

Paths to YES

1. Trump or the White House repeats a statement like "the Moon is ours" and the resolver counts it. I put a repeat before January 2029 at about 45%, most likely around Moon milestones. I put the chance a resolver accepts it at about 20–25%. Against it: the criteria call for an "official assertion" and exclude "nonbinding political declarations". For it: whitehouse.gov sometimes republishes Truth Social posts as official statements, and the criteria say a claim to a whole body counts and need not be lawful. Together about 9–11%.
2. A formal US act (executive order, proclamation, statute, or a NASA/State zone that drops free access): about 3–4% over the window.
3. Other states (China presents itself as the treaty's defender) and a treaty dividing areas: about 1.5–2% combined.

Shape of the hazard

About 1% a quarter through Trump's term, rising to 1.4% in late 2028 around the possible Artemis IV landing. I put only about a third chance on that landing happening before 20 Jan 2029, given past slips. After that, about 0.4–0.5% a quarter (base Phase Two, a Chinese landing, reactor zones). I computed cumulative p = 1 − ∏(1−h) over 21 quarterly hazards in Python. The result is about 9% by end-2028 and 14% by end-2031.

Strongest case against

• Lower: a meme is almost certainly not an "adopted governmental act", every US agency keeps affirming the treaty, and the strict list of official sources means only a formal act would count. That would put this nearer 5%.
• Higher: a literal resolver could count any new presidential "the Moon is ours" post, and Trump posts often. That could justify 25% or more.

I weight the strict reading more heavily.

Sources: snopes.com/fact-check/trump-moon-us-territory; nypost.com 2026/09/07; cnbctv18.com (7 Sep 2026); economictimes "Trump's Moon claim isn't a joke"; nasa.gov/moon-base-frequently-asked-questions; space.com Moon Base article (26 May 2026); whitehouse.gov EO 14369; newsweek.com (Oct 2026); opiniojuris.org 2026/09/25; moneycontrol.com (5 Oct 2026); newsnationnow.com Isaacman interview; thehill/AOL Whittington opinion (Sept 2026).

Question. By the last day of each quarter, has any government asserted an exclusive claim to a named area or resource deposit on the Moon or another celestial body, or signed a treaty that divides such areas or resources between named states?

Definitions.

• Government: the national government of a state recognized as sovereign by at least one UN member state, including its head of state or government, ministries, and agencies speaking officially on its behalf. Subnational governments, private organizations, and self-proclaimed micronations do not count.
• Celestial body: a naturally occurring body other than Earth, including a planet, moon, asteroid, or comet. Earth territory, orbital slots, radio spectrum, spacecraft, and artificial habitats are excluded.
• Named area or resource deposit: an identifiable location on or within a celestial body, specified by a geographical name, coordinates, map, or other unambiguous designation. A claim to an entire named celestial body counts. A deposit need not have been independently verified, but must be identified as a particular location, not simply a type of resource wherever found.
• Exclusive claim: an official assertion of sovereignty, ownership, or an exclusive entitlement to possess, control, or exploit the specified area or resources still in place, against other states or their nationals. It includes a government asserting such rights for its designated national operator. A right limited in duration counts. International recognition, occupation, enforcement, and compatibility with existing international law are not required.
• Treaty that divides areas or resources: a written interstate agreement intended to be governed by international law that assigns specified areas, deposits, or defined shares of resources still in place to at least two named states. An allocation must appear in the agreement or an incorporated annex; merely establishing a process for future allocation is insufficient. Allocations of separate zones or percentage shares count. At least two states must have signed the instrument; ratification and entry into force are not required.

Resolves YES if a qualifying official source establishes either:

1. A government has made an exclusive claim as defined above, through an official statement, enacted statute, decree, diplomatic communication, or other adopted governmental act; or
2. A treaty satisfying the definition above has been signed.

An assertion need not use the words “sovereignty” or “ownership” if it expressly asserts the defined exclusive entitlement. A disclaimer of territorial sovereignty does not exclude an otherwise explicit exclusive claim to a deposit. No AI involvement is required.

Exclusions (resolve NO).

• Temporary operational safety zones, notification and coordination arrangements, heritage-protection zones, or non-interference requests that do not assert the defined exclusive entitlement. The safety-zone provisions described in NASA’s Artemis Accords overview, which preserve free access, do not by themselves qualify.
• Ownership of extracted materials, returned samples, equipment, or installations; general laws permitting resource extraction; or domestic mission licences that do not assert rights to a specified area or deposit against other states or their nationals.
• Flags, place-naming, landings, occupation, or exclusion in practice without an official claim of entitlement; private land sales or claims not adopted by a government.
• Draft laws, negotiating proposals, campaign promises, hypothetical statements, accusations that another state plans appropriation, unsigned treaty drafts, and nonbinding political declarations.
• Agreements that only divide mission responsibilities, costs, proceeds, or already-extracted materials, or establish joint exploration without allocating the underlying areas or resources.
• Resolve NO for a quarter if neither qualifying branch has been publicly documented by its end.

Resolving source. Official publications of the claiming or signing government: its official gazette or legislation database, head-of-government or head-of-state office, foreign ministry, relevant ministry or space agency, or an official transcript of its authorized representative. Treaty text and signature status may also be established by the treaty’s official depositary or the UN Treaty Collection. Official UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and Legal Subcommittee records published by UNOOSA count when they reproduce or expressly record the government’s own claim or the signed allocation, not merely another delegation’s allegation. These are the narrower resolving sources for this question rather than the general Public confirmation (A2) source list. The Outer Space Treaty, Article II, is legal background, not a requirement that a qualifying claim be lawful. Apply the Resolution window and Resolution date (A3) conventions; use the publication date on which the qualifying official evidence is available, not the underlying signing or assertion date. Later withdrawal or repudiation does not reverse YES.