Piers Morgan Jokes Britain Should Buy Back America

British journalist Piers Morgan, never one to shy away from controversy or a good quip, found himself at the center of yet another international debate this weekend. On January 18, 2026, Morgan took to social media, suggesting with his trademark blend of humor and provocation that London should "buy back" America. His comments, reported by UNN and echoed across British and American media, come at a time when US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy maneuvers have already set off diplomatic tremors across the Atlantic.

According to UNN, Morgan’s post on X (formerly Twitter) referenced the historical fact that North America was once under British control, from the founding of Jamestown in 1607 until the American War of Independence concluded in 1776. The United States, he noted, emerged from the British Empire following that war. "Britain should repurchase America. After all, it was once ours, and it would strengthen our security in the North Atlantic. If you don’t sell it to us, we will impose tariffs on the United States and on any country that supports your resistance to this extremely favourable deal. Fair?" Morgan wrote, as cited in both UNN and The South African.

The timing of Morgan’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion was hardly accidental. Just hours before, President Trump had announced a new 10% tariff on goods from NATO countries—including Britain, France, and Germany—in retaliation for their refusal to support his controversial bid to acquire Greenland from Denmark. Trump’s move, as reported by both UNN and The South African, was framed as a response to NATO allies’ military presence in Greenland, a territory of strategic importance in the North Atlantic. The American president’s insistence that this acquisition would "solidify world peace" has left European leaders and the governments of Denmark and Greenland themselves both baffled and indignant.

Morgan’s comments, while clearly satirical, struck a nerve. Over the years, he has maintained a warm—if sometimes contentious—relationship with Donald Trump, frequently defending the president on air and in print across two presidential terms. But this most recent jab risked drawing Trump’s ire, especially as it came amid a period of heightened diplomatic tension. The South African noted that Morgan’s post was "tongue-in-cheek," but the underlying issues it touched on were anything but trivial.

To understand the current standoff, it helps to rewind a bit. President Trump’s interest in Greenland is not new; he had previously floated the idea of purchasing the territory from Denmark during his first term, to widespread disbelief and even ridicule. But this time, his administration has taken concrete steps, sending military representatives to Greenland and openly courting Danish officials. The rationale, according to the White House, is that acquiring Greenland would help the United States secure its interests in the Arctic, counter possible Russian and Chinese influence, and, in Trump’s words, "solidify world peace." Yet, as The South African reports, these justifications have been met with skepticism, especially from Denmark, Greenland, and other European allies. They argue there is no credible threat to Greenland’s sovereignty from Moscow or Beijing, and see Trump’s overtures as a mix of opportunism and geopolitical gamesmanship.

The fallout has been swift. Trump’s threat of a 10% tariff on NATO countries that refuse to support his Greenland ambitions has forced the United Kingdom and other European nations into an uncomfortable position. Do they continue to align themselves with an increasingly unpredictable U.S. administration, or pivot closer to Europe and its defense apparatus? The South African described the situation as "fragile," with the UK and others caught between longstanding alliances and shifting geopolitical realities.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, for his part, has made his own position clear. He insists that the people of Greenland—not foreign powers—should decide their own future. "The people of Greenland must decide its future, rather than any foreign power," Starmer stated, as quoted in The South African. This stance aligns Britain with Denmark and the European Union, who have consistently argued for Greenland’s right to self-determination.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s claim that acquiring Greenland would somehow result in global stability has raised eyebrows on both sides of the Atlantic. European allies, according to The South African, find the argument unconvincing, especially in the absence of any immediate threat from Russia or China. The idea that a land purchase could "solidify world peace" seems, to many, a stretch—if not outright fantasy.

Yet, in the world of high-stakes diplomacy, even jokes can have consequences. Morgan’s suggestion that Britain simply "buy back" America—complete with a playful warning about tariffs—might have been intended as satire, but it reflects deeper anxieties about the current state of transatlantic relations. As The South African observed, "Piers might actually have a point, you know…" Indeed, the trade threats and shifting alliances underscore just how volatile the relationship between the United States and its traditional allies has become in recent years.

For Morgan, the episode is just the latest in a long line of headline-grabbing provocations. But for policymakers in London, Washington, Brussels, and Copenhagen, the stakes are real. The question of Greenland’s future, the role of NATO, and the durability of the so-called "special relationship" between the US and UK are all suddenly back in play.

It’s worth noting that Morgan’s proposal, while obviously unserious, does draw attention to a fundamental truth: the interconnectedness of security, trade, and history in the North Atlantic. The legacy of colonialism, the realities of modern military alliances, and the unpredictability of current leaders all combine to create a diplomatic puzzle that is as complex as it is consequential.

As the standoff continues, all eyes are on the next moves from Washington and London. Will Trump’s tariff threats bring NATO allies to heel, or will they drive a wedge between the US and Europe? Can Britain maintain its balancing act between American friendship and European solidarity? And, perhaps most importantly, will the people of Greenland have the final say over their island’s destiny?

Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: in the age of social media and instant diplomacy, even a joke from a British broadcaster can spark real debate about the future of nations. For now, Morgan’s quip stands as both a reminder of history and a commentary on the uncertainty of the present moment.