After his inauguration on Jan. 20, Donald Trump sent shivers down the spines of Panamanian government officials by bringing the “issue” of the Panama Canal back up in his initial declarations. His naming of new generation Cuban American Cold War warrior Kevin Cabrera as ambassador, a visit this week from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and a Senate hearing without Panamanian representation indicate that this crisis may be the biggest threat to national sovereignty in Central America since the return of the canal in 1999. Domestically, it is the biggest issue to rock the nation since the massive anti-mining protests of late 2023.

Leading up to his inauguration, Trump flaunted his unique brand of real estate expansionism. It is well-established, although it mainly existed in discursive form. Some observers have dismissed this discourse as simply part of his transactional foreign policy and a way to regain leverage for the United States in the hemisphere. However, the current threats toward countries such as Denmark and Panama — he has suggested a takeover of Greenland in addition to the canal — are more challenging to dismiss as the uncalculated ramblings of a fickle outsider with a penchant for isolationism. In the case of Panama, these threats brought back an old ghost in Washington, which wants to turn back the clock on the Panama Canal treaties, won by Panama with the support of a decolonizing international community in the 1970s. Today, these treaties are again under threat, but the rise of global fascism and a new wave of gunboat diplomacy might tip the scales in favor of Goliath this time around.

Trump’s attack on the canal’s sovereignty

Not anticipating this turn in U.S. foreign policy, Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino strengthened ties with the Biden administration in 2024. In his first action in office, he essentially moved the U.S. border to the Darién Gap to stop incessant, irregular migration through the jungle. Trump now wants to move the border even further.

This has put not only Mulino but some of the most prominent and popular lawmakers in awkward positions. One of the most interesting parts of the aftermath of the declarations by Trump was the ideological contortions that some of the new, independent reformers in Panama’s legislature, including Edison Broce and José Pérez Barboni, did to position themselves after their political idol’s geopolitical betrayal. This experience might remind politicians and the electorate why, in Panama’s political history, even the conservatives opposed U.S. influence, with some exceptions.

Panama’s headlines suddenly featured some of the same nationalist and anti-imperial tropes of the 20th century.

Trump’s attack on the isthmus’s sovereignty is its greatest threat since the Noriega affair in the late 1980s, which made many question whether the scheduled transfer of the canal in 1999 would take place at all. In the local news cycle, however, this news had to coexist with two other major debates: the reforms of the country’s public social security institution, the Caja de Seguro Social, and the possible reopening of the largest copper mine in Central America. The mine closed in response to the massive street marches of November 2023. The Caja’s reform is a significant problem due to the merging of pension and public health care in one institution, whose murky finances make debates difficult and different sides suspicious of each other. Those debates were threatening Mulino’s honeymoon period with the electorate. The labor unions, the only active anti-imperialist organizations in the country, were actively in the streets protesting the government’s proposals.

After Trump’s declarations, Panama’s headlines and TV debates suddenly featured some of the same nationalist and anti-imperial tropes of the 20th century, in which a unified country stood together against the giant from the north. Popular interview and debate shows have featured many discussions on “strategies” the nation should take against this threat. Labor unions are on the streets burning U.S. flags instead of mobilizing against the Panamanian government’s attempts to privatize the health sector. But the local response has also shown cracks in the once formidable public consensus.

The response at home

Most of the press coverage of this situation, which for Panama constitutes a major diplomatic crisis, has centered on the rationale or legality behind Trump’s actions or the reaction inside the United States. In his response, Mulino affirmed that the canal would remain Panamanian and that there would not be any negotiations to allow the United States to buy it back. This position has garnered international attention and sympathy. In reality, the reaction inside Panama is more complex than that represented in the international press, which has been somewhat simplistic and generalized.

While it is true that indignation and repudiation in Panama could be described as “widespread,” there is an underbelly that merits unpacking. Besides Trump’s intent to roll international relations back to the 19th century, the Panamanian media elites chastise seemingly apolitical Panamanians who have expressed indifference to or even favor Trump taking over the canal. Many say they have received no benefit of the canal since Panamanian control began in 2000. Some even point to the areas of the former canal zone, which are now part of Panama City proper and are better planned than other areas, as evidence that the United States leaves things better than they find them.

The international reaction to many of Trump’s claims has centered on the fact that most are demonstrably false. The canal was not a gift from the United States to Panama, as the latter had to struggle for a century to gain control and lost lives in the anti-colonial movement until 1999. The burden of casualties during its construction was not borne by U.S. citizens, as they were predominantly West Indian laborers who were rejected even by the Panamanian state. The Chinese do not control the canal, despite the growing influence they might have in the country via commercial and non-economic interests. They also do not get preferential treatment in tolls, as these vary due to tonnage and set of locks used and have fixed prices that account for hundreds of variables — one of the most important ones being the limited quantity of fresh water in the lakes.

One of Trump’s claims — that the Chinese have a presence on ports on both sides of the canal — was one of the few accurate claims he made. From a strategic standpoint, the ability of this commercial infrastructure to double as military infrastructure must certainly worry U.S. geopolitical interests. While Chinese investment is steadily increasing and has already refashioned the Panamanian economy, liberal talking heads and intellectuals in Panama have long pointed to the presence of the Chinese as a geopolitical, if not strategic and economic, mistake.

The business sector and the oligarchy have kept quiet.

In its view, Panama must balance both U.S. and Chinese capital and physical presence, with the tacit understanding that it is the former we must not anger. While all the Panamanian governments have been very U.S.-friendly, the administration of Juan Carlos Varela (2014-2019) coincided with a period of Chinese ascendancy. Panama’s traditional U.S.-friendly diplomacy prevented his allies from cooperating with the Chinese as other countries in the region. Thus, Varela proved eager to shift Panama’s recognition of Taiwan toward the One China idea, understanding that opening the faucet of Chinese capital could enlarge his wealth and empower his party. Trump’s first term and Varela’s overlapped, but the U.S. did not pose a threat to Panamanian interests, as Trump didn’t even name an ambassador.

Outsiders could be excused for assuming Panama would form a unified front against U.S. imperialist threats, given the country’s successful anti-colonial struggle and relative economic development and wellbeing. Yet Trump’s declarations have split the country. There has historically been a section of the country, populated mainly by the upper and upper-middle classes, that has been an ally to even the most recalcitrant U.S. chauvinism. These groups voiced opinions opposing Panamanian control of the canal, as their position as middlemen between Panama and U.S. citizens living on the isthmus could be undermined by the latter’s departure. They also honestly doubted Panamanians could run the canal as well as the United States.

The business sector and the oligarchy have kept quiet, not supporting Trump’s forceful initial posture. The ranks of this brand of anti-nationalist Panamanians suffered a significant blow after the Panama Papers affair, highlighting the changing place of Panama’s commercial and transit hub in the world economy. On the contrary, the split has been driven by Panamanians who do not reflect the economic indices that place Panama at the top of measures such as GDP per capita and wages in the region.

Panama’s national narrative posits that the Panama Canal is not only capably run by Panamanians but that it is even better under Panamanian control, as it is run by a business and governed by a non-partisan institutional structure, seemingly isolated from political matters, even considering the water management issues that are now an annual feature of the system. The split in the canal’s governance, between electoral politics and technocracy, is a colonial legacy imposed by the United States, whose leaders still distrusted Latin American politics as inherently revolutionary into the late 20th century.

However, in Panama, deep resentment exists about how the earnings from the canal are used and how it is run. Cracks in the local ideology are often presented as sacred, even when discussing potentially controversial topics such as its significant expansion, which had to be decided by a direct vote. The Canal Authority’s board is often singled out for its closeness to the political and oligarchic classes and their bloated salaries. Yet, the Trump-instigated canal crisis has failed to galvanize the masses as much as the mining protests of 2023, a much more fringe issue in the country than the waterway.

Your support is crucial…

With an uncertain future and a new administration casting doubt on press freedoms, the danger is clear: The truth is at risk.

Now is the time to give. Your tax-deductible support allows us to dig deeper, delivering fearless investigative reporting and analysis that exposes what’s really happening — without compromise.

Stand with our courageous journalists. Donate today to protect a free press, uphold democracy and unearth untold stories.

SUPPORT TRUTHDIG