Panama will not give in to Trump's canal threats

President Trump’s escalating rhetoric over the Panama Canal has transformed diplomatic tensions into a full-blown crisis.

Trump’s assertion during his March 5 congressional address that “to further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we’ve already started doing it,” represents the culmination of two months of increasingly provocative rhetoric that has sent tremors through Panama’s government and across the international landscape.

Trump has methodically intensified his claims since his second term began.

Panama’s response has been strategically sophisticated. Amb. Eloy Alfaro formally invoked UN Charter Article 2(4) prohibiting “threats against territorial integrity,” while Vice Minister Carlos Guevara Mann marshaled multilateral support through the Organization of American States.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s hastily arranged Panama City visit in January has only deepened the diplomatic clash, particularly after contradictory statements emerged within hours of his departure. The State Department’s unilateral declaration that “U.S. government vessels can now transit the Panama Canal without charge fees” prompted an immediate, authoritative rebuke from the Canal Authority, which confirmed it had “not made any adjustments” to its toll structure. This stance is striking given the relatively modest $25.4 million in U.S. military transit fees over the last 25 years. Far from calming the waters, Rubio’s visit crystallized the fundamental disconnect between American expectations and Panamanian autonomy.

Following Trump’s congressional address, President José Raúl Mulino issued an even more forceful rebuke on social media: “President Trump lies again. The Panama Canal is not in the process of being recovered and this was never even discussed in our conversations with Secretary Rubio or with anyone else,” Mulino declared. He rejected “on behalf of Panama and Panamanians this new affront to the truth and to our dignity as a nation.”

The crisis intensified when NBC News reported that the “White House has directed the U.S. military to draw up options to increase the American troop presence in Panama,” including the Southern Command — a development Panamanian officials categorically deny authorizing or accepting.

These tensions resurrect unresolved legacies of America’s military footprint in Panama. There are 3,500 acres across 14 abandoned shooting ranges that remain deadly monuments to the former U.S. presence. On San José Island, pristine beaches conceal World War II-era chemical weapons that render large portions uninhabitable. Despite provisions requiring removal of “all hazards to human life,” countless unexploded munitions remain embedded in Panamanian soil.

Until 1997, the U.S. Southern Command maintained its headquarters at Quarry Heights in Panama, coordinating American military operations throughout Latin America from a strategic hilltop overlooking the canal’s Pacific entrance. In a poignant twist of historical symmetry, this commanding facility — where American generals once orchestrated regional military strategy — later housed Panama’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs until 2004. The very rooms that witnessed decades of American military planning became, for critical years, the nerve center of Panamanian sovereignty. This architectural transformation from command post to diplomatic headquarters perfectly encapsulates Panama’s journey from occupied territory to sovereign nation.

The School of the Americas, which operated in Panama until 1984 before relocating to Fort Benning, trained officers who later led Latin America’s most repressive regimes, including Manuel Noriega, Leopoldo Galtieri and Hugo Banzer — figures associated with torture, disappearances and mass killings.

The legal framework governing relations rests on the 1977 treaties negotiated under President Jimmy Carter and Gen. Omar Torrijos. The Panama Canal Treaty mandated complete American withdrawal by December 31, 1999, while the companion Neutrality Treaty established permanent canal neutrality. Article five explicitly states that “only the Republic of Panama shall operate the Canal and maintain military forces within its national territory.”

What prevents unilateral reinterpretation? The foundational principle “pacta sunt servanda” — treaties must be kept — enshrined in the Vienna Convention. Though amendment one of the neutrality treaty permits both countries to defend the canal from neutrality threats, it explicitly prohibits “intervention in Panama’s internal affairs.”

Trump’s claims about Chinese control collapse under scrutiny. BlackRock’s recent announcement of its acquisition of Panama Ports Company — transferring container terminals from Hong Kong-based Hutchison to American ownership — directly contradicts allegations of Chinese dominion. More importantly, these terminals remain entirely separate from canal operations, which are exclusively managed by Panama’s constitutionally established Canal Authority.

American military presence on Panamanian ground evokes not security but painful memories of intervention for many Panamanians. Panama’s transfer of the canal fulfilled decades of struggle for territorial integrity. Increased U.S. military presence would inevitably undermine this hard-won sovereignty.

Trump’s approach stands in stark contrast to that of President Carter, who stated that the canal treated “mark the commitment of the United States to the belief that fairness, and not force, should lie at the heart of our dealings with the nations of the world.” The international community watches closely. Colombia and Mexico, among other nations, have expressed solidarity with Panama, while several European countries have urged restraint and respect for existing treaties.

The canal waters flow peacefully today, as they have since Panama assumed control. But beneath this tranquility lies a double irony: American chemical weapons remain buried in Panamanian soil, while American strategists contemplate new deployments to “protect” a waterway already efficiently secured by its rightful owners.

Panama stands at a sovereignty crossroads. One path leads to resistance against unilateral treaty reinterpretation; another to acquiescence to intervention justified by manufactured security concerns. A third way beckons — where the U.S. fulfills its environmental obligations while respecting Panama’s exclusive jurisdiction over the canal that symbolizes its independence.

The ultimate test will not be found in speeches or communiqués, but in whether Washington honors both the letter and the spirit of its commitments — or chooses to write a shameful new chapter in intervention.

Nivia Rossana Castrellón is the former deputy minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Panama.