Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th President of the United States has been accompanied by controversial statements and bold policies, particularly his sharp rhetoric against China and his unexpected claims over territories such as the Panama Canal, Greenland, and even Canada. Among these, Trump’s fixation on the Panama Canal has stirred a storm in the global political arena, signaling a potential shift in US foreign policy and its approach to international relations. Trump's claims regarding the canal, which he alleges is under increasing "Chinese control," have raised eyebrows globally and prompted intense scrutiny of his administration’s strategies and objectives.
Trump’s criticism of the Panama Canal’s transfer to Panama under the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties reflects his broader theme of "America first" and his disdain for what he views as "foolish" decisions by past administrations. The treaties, which ensured the canal’s neutrality and permitted US intervention for its defense, marked a historic moment in US-Panama relations. By 1999, control of the canal was peacefully ceded to Panama. However, Trump has derided this transfer as undermining US influence and security, further claiming that Panama has violated the spirit of the agreements by overcharging US ships. These allegations, coupled with his suggestion that China’s growing presence in the canal region poses a threat to US interests, have reignited debates over the canal’s strategic significance.
Although Panama has denied Trump’s claims, and experts have clarified that China does not directly control or operate the canal, the reality of China’s expanding economic footprint in Panama cannot be ignored. A subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings manages key ports at the canal’s Caribbean and Pacific entrances, providing logistical support to global trade. Chinese firms have also secured major contracts, such as the $1.42 billion project to build a fourth bridge across the canal. Additionally, Panama’s decision in 2017 to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative has strengthened Beijing’s ties with the country, signaling China’s growing influence in Latin America. While these developments do not equate to control, they provide a backdrop for Trump’s narrative, which frames China’s involvement as a geopolitical threat.
In the weeks leading up to his inauguration, Trump floated the possibility of reclaiming the Panama Canal, even hinting at the use of military force to achieve this objective. His administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has doubled down on this rhetoric, with Rubio proposing the outright purchase of the canal. Rubio has argued that the original justification for ceding the canal has been “violated” due to the influence of Chinese companies operating in the region. He has warned that China could weaponize its economic presence to disrupt US trade, a claim that aligns with Trump’s broader narrative of countering Chinese expansionism.
However, Trump’s aggressive stance has drawn widespread criticism from both domestic and international observers, who warn of the dangerous implications of his rhetoric. Critics argue that Trump’s threats to reclaim the canal undermine the US’s long-standing opposition to territorial expansionism. For decades, the US has condemned China’s militarization of the South China Sea and its threats toward Taiwan, as well as Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine. By asserting claims over territories such as the Panama Canal and Greenland, Trump risks eroding the credibility of US foreign policy and emboldening rivals like China and Russia to pursue their own expansionist agendas.
Journalists and commentators have been quick to highlight the potential consequences of Trump’s rhetoric. CNN anchor Jim Sciutto warned that Trump’s actions send a message to Beijing and Moscow that the US may be willing to engage in the very tactics it has long condemned. This could provide a dangerous precedent, as both China and Russia could use Trump’s rhetoric to justify their aggressive policies. Chinese commentators have already begun drawing parallels between Trump’s claims and their own ambitions. For example, Wang Jiangyu, a Hong Kong-based professor, remarked that if the US annexed Greenland or reclaimed the Panama Canal, it would set a precedent for China to take Taiwan. Similarly, Zhao Minghao, a professor in Shanghai, suggested that Trump’s approach reflects a broader strategy of transnationalism, which Beijing could exploit to further its own goals.
The controversy surrounding Trump’s rhetoric is not limited to its geopolitical implications. Many experts have pointed out the economic and logistical complexities of reclaiming the Panama Canal. Currently, around 70% of the ships passing through the canal are involved in American trade, underscoring its vital role in the US economy. However, the treaties governing the canal’s neutrality and the long-standing partnership between the US and Panama complicate any unilateral actions. Panama’s government has vehemently rejected Trump’s claims, emphasizing its sovereignty and the neutrality of the canal’s operations.
Trump’s critics have also drawn comparisons between his rhetoric and the actions of other world leaders, such as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Geraldo Rivera, a New York-based journalist, questioned the moral authority of the US to criticize Russian and Chinese expansionism while Trump threatened to use force to claim sovereign territories. Rivera’s concerns have been echoed by other analysts, who warn that Trump’s policies could weaken the US’s position as a global advocate for democracy and sovereignty.
The broader implications of Trump’s claims over the Panama Canal extend beyond the immediate concerns of US-China relations. His rhetoric has reignited debates about the role of economic influence in geopolitics and the fine line between national security and expansionism. While Trump may view his aggressive stance as a way to reassert American dominance, it risks creating a global environment where power politics and territorial claims take precedence over diplomacy and international cooperation.
China, meanwhile, has seized upon the opportunity presented by Trump’s rhetoric to strengthen its own narrative. Beijing has portrayed Trump’s threats as evidence of US hypocrisy, further justifying its own actions in Taiwan and the South China Sea. As Chinese companies continue to expand their presence in Panama and other strategic regions, the US faces the challenge of countering this influence without undermining its own credibility.
In attempting to counter China, Trump’s rhetoric and policies may inadvertently embolden Beijing and other adversaries. By framing the Panama Canal as a battleground for US-China competition, he risks setting a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the global order. As the world watches the unfolding drama, the long-term consequences of Trump’s policies remain uncertain, but their impact on global geopolitics is likely to be profound.
