President Trump’s directive to “reclaim” the Panama Canal by deploying U.S. troops has ignited international controversy, with Panama’s opposition decrying the move as a veiled invasion and raising alarms over national sovereignty.
At a Glance
- Trump orders U.S. military to develop plans to “reclaim” the Panama Canal
- Panama’s opposition labels U.S. troop presence a “camouflaged invasion”
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggests reviving U.S. military bases in Panama
- Trump cites countering China’s influence as justification for the move
- Actions challenge the 1977 Torrijos-Carter treaties transferring canal control to Panama
America’s “Reclamation” Plan Unfolds
In a move that has diplomats scrambling and historians experiencing déjà vu, the Trump administration has directed the U.S. military to develop options for increasing American troop presence in Panama as part of a strategy to “reclaim” the Panama Canal. Yes, you read that correctly—”reclaim” a waterway that the U.S. legally handed over to Panama decades ago. This isn’t just governmental overreach; it’s international overreach with a side of historical amnesia. The White House hasn’t clearly defined what “reclaiming” means exactly, but when has ambiguity in foreign policy ever been a problem?
Trump himself declared at a rally, “To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal.” Let that sink in. We’re talking about a sovereign nation’s territory—a nation that gained control of the canal through legitimate treaties signed by President Carter in 1977. But apparently, international agreements are just suggestions when they conflict with America’s interests or when China might be gaining influence in our hemisphere.
Watch NBC News’ coverage of the U.S. military’s plans regarding the Panama Canal.
A “Camouflaged Invasion” Raising Sovereignty Concerns
Panamanian opposition leader Ricardo Lombana didn’t mince words when he called the U.S. troop deployment a “camouflaged invasion.” Can you blame him? When a foreign power starts moving military personnel into your country with vague explanations about “security cooperation,” historical alarm bells start ringing. Panama has vivid memories of the 1989 U.S. invasion that ousted Manuel Noriega—an invasion that killed hundreds of Panamanians. Now, with Trump casually announcing, “We’ve moved a lot of troops to Panama,” it’s no wonder citizens are concerned.
The definition of a military base becomes important here. As Lombana astutely pointed out, “If you have an installation which is for use of foreign soldiers and they have control over what happens inside—and Panama has to ask in advance to enter—that’s a military base.” Yet Panama’s current government, led by President Mulino, keeps insisting these aren’t “bases”—just cooperative security arrangements. It’s political wordplay that insults the intelligence of both Americans and Panamanians.
China as the Boogeyman
The administration’s justification for this aggressive stance? China, of course. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated “the status quo is unacceptable,” referring to China’s growing economic influence in Panama. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was more direct during his visit to Panama, saying: “We do not seek war with China… But together, we must prevent war by robustly and vigorously deterring China’s threats in this hemisphere.” Nothing says “peaceful intentions” like deploying troops while talking about deterring threats.
Let’s be clear: The Panama Canal is indeed a vital waterway for global commerce and U.S. national interests. China’s increasing economic presence throughout Latin America presents legitimate strategic concerns. But there’s a vast difference between diplomatic and economic engagement and sending in the troops. China’s Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian noted that Beijing “firmly opposes the U.S. smearing and undermining the Belt and Road cooperation through means of pressure and coercion.” When authoritarian China can plausibly claim the moral high ground against U.S. actions, we’ve got a serious problem with our approach.
Respecting Treaties and Sovereignty
The Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977 represented America keeping its word—that Panama would gain control of its territory and the canal that cuts through it. Now, less than 50 years later, we’re talking about “reclaiming” it? Panama made its position clear, with Frank Abrego stating “Panama made clear, through President Mulino, that we cannot accept military bases or defence sites.” Yet the U.S. continues pressing for what essentially amounts to military bases, even if they’re labeled as “rotational deployments” or “training facilities.”
The government is even pushing for preferential treatment for U.S. warships passing through the canal. Jose Ramón Icaza revealed, “We will seek a mechanism by which warships and auxiliary ships can have a compensation system for services, that is, a way to make them cost-neutral but not free.” So not only do we want to put troops in their country, but we also want discount passage for our military vessels. This isn’t diplomacy—it’s bullying a smaller nation under the guise of security cooperation.
