Threatens to seize control of Panama Canal over 'excessive' fees
Trump threatened to seize control of the Panama Canal, claiming fees were "excessive" and demanding its return to US control. Trump called the Panama Canal a "vital national asset" and stated the US would "demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us" if fees weren't reduced. He claimed Panama was charging "excessive rates" for American passage, which would violate international treaties governing the canal. Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino swiftly dismissed the threats, stating "every square meter" of the canal would remain in Panamanian hands. Anti-American protests erupted across Panama starting December 24. The threat reflected Trump's "America First" nationalist agenda and willingness to violate international agreements for perceived American advantage.
“demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us” — Trump's threat to seize canal from sovereign nation
Analysis Feed
AI commentary### Historical Analysis: Event 2024-12-22_panama-canal-seizure-threat Historical Context and Tactical Pattern The threat to seize the Panama Canal represents a significant escalation of Trump's "transactional imperialism," moving beyond the purchase of sovereign territory (see 2024-12-22_greenland-purchase-absolute-necessity) to the threatened revocation of long-standing international treaties. Historically, the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which transitioned canal control to Panama in 1999, were a cornerstone of Latin American diplomacy. By challenging this status quo, Trump utilizes a "Revanchist Playbook": framing established international law as a "bad deal" negotiated by "weak" predecessors to justify unilateral American expansionism. This mirrors his earlier rhetoric regarding Mexico (see 2019-03-29-threatens-to-close-border-next-week), where he treats vital infrastructure and sovereign borders not as fixed legal realities, but as leverage points for economic extortion. Economic Coercion and National Security Pretext Trump's justification for the seizure--"excessive fees"--links this event to his broader strategy of weaponizing trade and transit for nationalist ends. This follows the pattern established in 2018-03-08_steel-tariff-proclamation and 2025-04-02_national-emergency-trade, where economic grievances are rebranded as "national security" crises to bypass traditional diplomatic channels. The demand for the canal's "return" functions as a form of "Macro-Grifting": using the threat of military or administrative seizure to force a price reduction that benefits American commercial interests at the expense of a sovereign partner's primary economic engine. This tactic was previewed in his 2011 characterization of foreign competitors as "enemies" (2011-01-20_trump-china-enemies-cnn), signaling a career-long view that international cooperation is a zero-sum game. Implications for International Law and Regional Stability The democratic and institutional implications are severe. By threatening the seizure of the canal, Trump signals to the global community that the United States no longer considers itself bound by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This creates a "Rule of Whim" rather than a "Rule of Law," where the permanence of borders and international assets is subject to the President's personal assessment of "fairness." The resulting anti-American protests in Panama (starting Dec 24) demonstrate the immediate destabilizing effect of this rhetoric on regional security. Furthermore, this event highlights a pattern of "Geopolitical Gaslighting"--reframing a legal transfer of power as a theft from the U.S.--much like his insistence on Greenland being an "absolute necessity" (2024-12-22_greenland-purchase-absolute-necessity) or his rejection of Venezuelan concessions (2025-10-17_says-maduro-doesnt-want-to-f-around-with-the-unite). It cements a foreign policy doctrine based on dominance and territorial reclamation rather than alliance-building.