Staff Reports
Former President Donald Trump’s push to reclaim control of the Panama Canal has reignited debates over sovereignty, global trade, and national security. At the heart of this effort is a growing concern over China’s influence in the region, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and investments in strategic infrastructure near the canal. While Panama retains official control of the canal, Chinese-owned companies operate key ports at its Atlantic and Pacific entrances, raising alarms about Beijing’s potential leverage over this critical waterway.
The Panama Canal is a vital artery for global commerce, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and facilitating nearly 72% of U.S.-bound cargo. Trump’s assertion that China exerts “unacceptable influence” over the canal underscores fears that Beijing could use its position to disrupt trade or military operations in the event of a conflict. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed these concerns during a recent visit to Panama, warning that China’s presence poses a direct threat to U.S. interests and urging Panama to sever ties with Chinese firms operating in the region. In response, Panama announced its withdrawal from the BRI, signaling a shift toward closer alignment with Washington.
This diplomatic victory for Trump’s administration highlights his broader strategy to counter China’s expanding influence in Latin America. By pressuring Panama to reduce its reliance on Chinese investments, Trump aims to reassert American dominance in a region historically considered within the U.S. sphere of influence. Conservatives view this as a necessary step to safeguard national security and protect critical trade routes from potential Chinese interference. The administration has even floated the idea of reacquiring the canal outright, with legislation like the Panama Canal Repurchase Act gaining traction among Republican lawmakers.
Critics argue that Trump’s rhetoric exaggerates China’s actual control over the canal, which remains under Panamanian administration per a 1977 treaty. However, Chinese investments in nearby ports and infrastructure have undeniably increased Beijing’s strategic foothold in the area. National security experts warn that these dual-use facilities could be leveraged for military purposes or used to block access during a geopolitical crisis. For conservatives, this underscores the urgency of reducing Chinese influence while strengthening America’s economic and military presence in Latin America.
The stakes surrounding the Panama Canal extend beyond trade; they symbolize a larger battle for influence between the United States and China. Trump’s aggressive stance reflects his commitment to putting America first by reclaiming control over vital assets and countering foreign encroachment. While Panama insists on maintaining its sovereignty, the country faces mounting pressure from Washington to prioritize U.S. interests over Beijing’s financial incentives. As tensions escalate, this tug-of-war will likely shape the future of U.S.-Panama relations and set a precedent for how America confronts China’s global ambitions.
