Not taking a stance one way or another, but the reason for remaining somewhere can be wholly different from the reason you acquired that locale in the first place.

It's an oversimplified view of a very complicated situation, though. And it ignores a) the feelings of the residents in those territories themselves (many would like statehood or the status quo, sovereignty is the least popular option in almost every inhabited territory) and b) the fact that they are all US citizens as well.

People always focus on the fact that there is a military base in some of the territories and assume that is the primary reasoning, while ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of US airbases in California alone, along with the marine, naval and army bases. Yet that's hardly the reason California is a part of the US.

There's certainty an argument for the territories' status and where they should end up, but I don't believe the primary motivation is militaristic.

…And then acquired by the Japanese at the outbreak of WWII and then we took it back toward the end of WWII. Its importance lies in its geography. It is a nice base from which to project power. The Spanish knew that, the Japanese knew that and we knew that. Else it’d be like many mid oceanic islands. Or the Orkney islands. The importance is military strategic importance, else they’d be like the Faroe Islands. Some place somewhere.

Hmm: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapa_Flow