When President Trump declared in his inaugural address that the United States would “take back” the Panama Canal, he wasn’t just tossing out rhetoric—he was reigniting a debate that has smoldered for decades. The canal, one of the greatest engineering marvels in human history, was never just a construction project. It was a bold assertion of American strength, ingenuity, and geopolitical foresight. Its loss remains one of the most egregious examples of weak-kneed diplomacy in the 20th century.

Now, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio securing an agreement from Panama to distance itself from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and review the contracts for its ports, the Trump administration is signaling a long-overdue shift: America is no longer content to watch from the sidelines as foreign adversaries gain control over a vital artery of global trade.

The Panama Canal: A Triumph of American Power and a Blunder of Globalism

The Panama Canal was not simply handed to the United States—it was earned through sheer determination, ingenuity, and a monumental commitment of resources. After President Theodore Roosevelt facilitated Panama’s independence from Colombia in 1903, America undertook one of the most ambitious engineering projects in world history, carving a waterway through disease-infested jungles and some of the toughest terrain on Earth. The result? A strategic marvel that fundamentally reshaped global commerce.

From its completion in 1914, the canal was a symbol of American supremacy—economically, militarily, and technologically. It cut weeks off shipping routes, bolstered U.S. naval power, and solidified America’s role as the dominant force in the Western Hemisphere. The United States didn’t just build the canal—it safeguarded it, ensuring its neutrality while keeping it out of the hands of hostile foreign powers.

Yet, in the 1970s, misguided globalists pushed the idea that America had a moral obligation to relinquish control. Left-wing policymakers, eager to appease Panamanian nationalists and anti-American factions, paved the way for surrendering this hard-won asset. In 1977, despite fierce opposition from conservatives like Ronald Reagan, President Jimmy Carter signed the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, setting the stage for the canal’s transfer to Panama by the end of 1999.

Carter and his allies assured Americans that the U.S. retained the right to intervene to ensure the canal’s neutrality. But assurances mean nothing without the will to enforce them. The reality is that Panama has not acted as a neutral steward of the canal—it has opened the door to China, America’s most dangerous geopolitical adversary.

China’s Silent Invasion: The Canal at Risk

For years, Washington elites downplayed concerns over China’s growing influence in Panama. But make no mistake—Beijing’s presence is not a benign business investment. It is an aggressive, calculated maneuver to gain control over one of the most strategically valuable maritime choke points in the world.

China has been steadily increasing its presence in the region, using its state-owned enterprises to establish a foothold. Today, Chinese-controlled companies operate key port facilities at both entrances to the canal, allowing Beijing to exert pressure over global commerce. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has poured billions into Panama, seeking not only economic influence but also strategic leverage against the United States.

Why does this matter? Because if China gains too much control over the Panama Canal, it could:

• Manipulate transit fees to benefit Chinese shipping while squeezing out American companies.
• Restrict U.S. naval movements, limiting America’s ability to project power in the Pacific and Atlantic.
• Use economic blackmail to pressure Panama into siding with Beijing over Washington in future disputes.

The U.S. spent nearly a century ensuring that the canal remained neutral and open. But today, China is maneuvering to turn it into a strategic asset for the Chinese Communist Party.

President Trump recognized this threat and acted decisively. Under his leadership, Secretary Marco Rubio successfully convinced Panama to withdraw from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and to reconsider the contracts awarded to Chinese companies. It was a crucial step in pushing back against Beijing’s encroachment, but it was only the beginning.

What “Taking Back” the Canal Really Means

When President Trump spoke of “taking back” the Panama Canal, he wasn’t necessarily suggesting that the U.S. march in with the Marines and raise the American flag over the Canal Zone—though many conservatives would argue that should never have been off the table. Rather, his statement was about something broader: reasserting American influence over a critical global trade route.

The United States built the canal, protected it for nearly a century, and still has a vested national security interest in its operations. If Panama cannot guarantee the canal’s neutrality, then America has not only the right but the responsibility to ensure that this vital passageway remains free from manipulation.

Reasserting American influence does not require reversing history, but it does demand a serious strategic shift:

1. Economic Leverage – The U.S. remains Panama’s largest trading partner. Washington should use economic incentives and trade agreements to ensure that Panama does not fall under Beijing’s control.
2. Security Agreements – America must reinforce security partnerships with Panama, ensuring that Chinese influence is contained and that the canal remains open to all nations under fair conditions.
3. Military Readiness – While diplomacy is preferable, the U.S. must maintain the capability and resolve to act if the canal’s neutrality is genuinely threatened. China must understand that any attempt to take control of the canal will not be tolerated.

Teddy Roosevelt, the man who made the canal possible, famously declared: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He understood that American strength on the world stage is not an option—it is a necessity. The loss of the Panama Canal was one of the great blunders of 20th-century diplomacy, but President Trump’s strong stance signals that America is no longer willing to sit idly by while foreign adversaries attempt to muscle into its backyard.

Reagan Was Right—We Should Have Never Given It Away

Ronald Reagan opposed the Panama Canal giveaway, warning that it would be a disaster for American strategic interests. The left mocked him at the time, calling him an alarmist. Yet today, his warning rings truer than ever.

China’s growing presence in Panama is not about economic development—it is about global dominance. America built the canal. America protected the canal. And America still has the power to ensure that it remains open and free.

President Trump’s call to “take back” the canal should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. It is a reminder that the United States must reclaim its rightful influence in the Western Hemisphere. The canal is not just a waterway—it is a symbol of American power, and it should never have been surrendered in the first place.

Panama’s Sovereignty and America’s Role: A Partnership, Not Domination

Panama is a sovereign nation, and while the decision to relinquish control of the canal was a grave mistake, the fact remains that the United States must now operate within the framework of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Ignoring these agreements would not only damage America’s credibility on the world stage but could also push Panama further away, creating an opening for rival powers like China to exploit. However, sovereignty does not mean isolation, and it does not mean Panama must act alone in safeguarding one of the world’s most vital trade routes. The United States has a legitimate strategic interest in ensuring that the canal remains neutral, secure, and free from foreign manipulation—but the way we pursue that interest matters.

Rather than treating Panama as a subordinate, the United States must engage with it as a valued and equal partner. Strong-arming Panama into compliance would only breed resentment and risk alienating a nation that should be one of our most important allies in the Western Hemisphere. History has shown that heavy-handed tactics often backfire, driving smaller nations into the arms of global adversaries who promise them “respect” while quietly undermining their independence. If the U.S. were to take an aggressive, unilateral approach, it would only provide fuel for anti-American factions within Panama and bolster Chinese propaganda that portrays the United States as a bully rather than a benefactor.

Instead, America should ensure that any renewed engagement with Panama is mutually beneficial, reinforcing the idea that alignment with the United States strengthens Panama’s security, prosperity, and sovereignty. This means forging economic agreements that enhance Panama’s role in global trade, investing in infrastructure that benefits both nations, and providing security assistance that ensures the canal remains under Panamanian control—free from coercion by outside forces. It also means respecting Panama’s national pride and acknowledging the importance of its independent stewardship of the canal.

By treating Panama as a trusted and cherished ally, rather than a pawn in a larger geopolitical game, the United States can reassert its influence without undermining Panama’s dignity. A cooperative approach—one that highlights shared interests, economic opportunities, and strategic stability—will not only serve America’s national security interests but also strengthen the long-term bond between two nations that both have a stake in keeping the canal open, neutral, and free from foreign dominance. The Panama Canal should remain a symbol of partnership, prosperity, and freedom—not a battleground for great-power conflict.