President-Elect Trump Suggests U.S. Should Consider Taking Back the Panama Canal

In a surprising and controversial statement, U.S. president-elect Donald Trump has suggested that the United States should explore options to “take back” control of the Panama Canal, a strategic waterway that was handed over to Panama in 1999. The comment, made during a campaign rally, has sparked an international debate over the historical, legal, and geopolitical implications of such a move.
Speaking to a packed crowd in a rally in Miami, Trump proposed that the U.S. should reconsider the decision to cede control of the canal to Panama nearly 25 years ago. “The Panama Canal is one of the most important strategic waterways in the world, and the United States gave it up for nothing,” Trump said. “Maybe it’s time to look at that again.”
Trump’s suggestion has raised eyebrows in both political circles and among international relations experts. The Panama Canal, a vital shipping route that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, was transferred from U.S. control to Panama as part of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977, with the full turnover occurring in 1999. Since then, Panama has managed the canal, with the support of the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), which oversees its operation.
The U.S. government has long maintained that the transfer was a successful and peaceful resolution to a contentious chapter in relations between the two nations. Trump’s recent remarks, however, have reignited discussions about American influence in the region and the perceived value of the canal to U.S. interests.
The Panama Canal has been a focal point of U.S. foreign policy for over a century. Following its construction by the United States in the early 20th century, the canal became a critical strategic asset for U.S. military and economic interests. Control of the canal allowed the U.S. to project power across the Americas and facilitate global trade.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaties were signed in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, setting the timeline for the eventual handover of the canal. While the U.S. retained certain military rights and oversight until the final turnover in 1999, the canal’s operational control shifted to Panama. The treaty was controversial at the time, with critics in the U.S. viewing it as a concession that undermined American influence in the region.
Legally, the transfer of the canal was conducted in accordance with the treaty, and international law recognizes Panama as the rightful owner. Any attempt to reverse this would likely lead to significant diplomatic challenges and could strain relations not only with Panama but with other Latin American countries as well.
Trump’s suggestion has already sparked debate among political analysts and foreign policy experts. Many argue that the idea of reclaiming control of the Panama Canal would be not only politically unfeasible but also potentially destabilizing in the region. The canal remains one of the most important global trade routes, facilitating the movement of goods between the East and West. The U.S. benefits from the canal’s operation through trade and its ability to quickly move naval assets between the oceans.
However, some critics point out that while the U.S. may not control the canal, it continues to exert influence through partnerships with Panama and through the security agreements in place. Furthermore, the canal’s operation has been largely free of major political controversy in recent decades, and Panama has maintained it as a neutral zone for global trade.
The suggestion of reclaiming the canal could also be seen as a shift toward a more isolationist foreign policy, which has been a hallmark of Trump’s rhetoric in previous years. Such a move would likely lead to heightened tensions between the U.S. and Latin America, with potential economic consequences as well. Given the global importance of the canal, any action perceived as an attempt to take it back could impact trade relationships and trigger responses from other countries invested in its operation.
Panama’s Reaction
In Panama, the comments have been met with strong disapproval. Panamanian President Laurentino Cortizo quickly responded, affirming Panama’s sovereignty over the canal and emphasizing the country’s successful stewardship of the waterway. “The Panama Canal is a symbol of our independence, and we will not allow any nation to infringe on our sovereignty,” Cortizo said in a statement following Trump’s remarks.
While Panama has maintained a positive relationship with the U.S. since the handover, the suggestion of reclaiming the canal has the potential to strain these ties. The Panamanian government and people take great pride in the canal as a symbol of national pride and self-determination.
Trump’s comments are part of a broader pattern of controversial statements regarding U.S. foreign policy. During his previous presidency, Trump was known for questioning longstanding international agreements and alliances, including NATO and the Paris Climate Agreement. His more nationalist approach to foreign policy was often met with mixed reactions both domestically and abroad.
While Trump has not yet elaborated further on his remarks regarding the Panama Canal, the suggestion has ignited conversations about his potential foreign policy direction should he win the presidency once again. With global trade tensions already at a high point, Trump’s stance on international agreements and relationships could have a profound impact on U.S.-Latin American relations, as well as its role in the global economy.
Looking Ahead
As President-elect Trump prepares for his second term in office, his comments on the Panama Canal will likely continue to reverberate through political circles in both the U.S. and Latin America. Whether or not this suggestion is pursued further remains to be seen, but it has certainly raised questions about the future of U.S. foreign policy in the region and the potential for further tensions between the U.S. and Panama.
While many see the idea of reclaiming the Panama Canal as a far-fetched notion, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing debates over American influence in the world and the balance between diplomacy and power.