Donald Trump’s recent remarks calling for the United States to “take back” the Panama Canal — claiming it is controlled by China — have ignited alarm among Panamanian officials and citizens alike. The comments have stirred painful memories of the long struggle for sovereignty over the Canal Zone, a battle that has defined Panama’s history and identity.
Trump’s threat occurs as Panama became an elected member of the United Nations Security Council for a two-year term in January, thrusting the small Central American country into the spotlight there as well.
In the wake of these controversial statements, a call was scheduled between Trump and Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino on Feb. 7. However, the US abruptly canceled the call, and it has yet to be rescheduled. Meanwhile, Trump’s threat remains active, fueling ongoing tensions as several related developments unfold.
Just days earlier, on Feb. 2, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama, where he met with Mulino and said the US would take action if Panama didn’t end China’s influence.
In the following days, Mulino accused the US of spreading “lies and falsehoods” in response to a claim by the State Department that American government vessels were no longer required to pay a fee to transit the Canal. Rubio later revised this statement.
The relationship between the US and Panama goes back to the birth of the nation itself. Starting with Panama’s separation from Colombia in 1903 to the construction and control of the canal, the US played a central role in shaping Panama’s history. Today, the US is the main user of the canal, followed by China and Japan.
Here are the key moments highlighting the continuing significance of the canal and the sovereignty that Panama has fought hard to secure over decades:
• The story of Panama’s independence is intricately tied to the interests of the US
After its independence from Spain in 1821, Panama became a state of the Republic of Gran Colombia, a union of what is now Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. The Panamanian territory had great geographical importance to the world. Its strategic position between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans caught the attention of global leaders, including the US as the dream of a transoceanic canal was growing.
The US pushed for a treaty that would grant it sovereignty over the canal zone, but Colombia rejected it in August 1903. This pact, known as the Hay-Herrán Treaty, was crucial to the US, as it would have secured control over the canal area in its construction. When Colombia’s government doubted the terms, President Theodore Roosevelt adopted his Big Stick diplomacy.
Fueled by its strategic interests, the US supported a revolt against Colombian rule, eventually leading to Panama’s declaration of independence in November 1903. Washington wasted no time recognizing the new nation, cementing its political and economic influence over Panama in exchange for the right to build and control the canal. The US gained control in perpetuity over a five-mile stretch of land on the canal in exchange for annual payments.
• Most workers who died during the canal’s construction were not American
Trump recently said that 38,000 Americans died during the building of the canal. However, this claim is misleading, as most of the fatalities were not Americans but workers brought from Caribbean islands, such as Barbados and Jamaica. Between 1904, when the construction began under US control, and the completion of the canal in 1914, 5,855 workers died, but most of them were laborers from these islands.
The primary cause of death workers was disease, particularly yellow fever and malaria, both of which were rampant in the tropical climate of Panama. Many workers also died in accidents related to the construction, including dynamite explosions, railroad accidents, electrocutions and drownings. The workers faced grueling, dangerous conditions while building one of the world’s most ambitious engineering projects at the time.
• The generational fight for Panama’s sovereignty over the Canal Zone
Panama’s sovereignty over this land was effectively limited. This created a generational struggle for control of the territory, a fight that was gradual and often contentious. As Jorge Roquebert, a history professor at the University of Panamá, told PassBlue, “It was a generational struggle because it was gradual; we had to sign four treaties before finally gaining our sovereignty.”
For many years, only the American flag flew over the canal zone, a constant reminder of US dominance. However, opposition to American control began to intensify in the 1960s, and the tipping point came in 1964. That year, students from the Instituto Nacional in Panama City led protests, demanding the right to raise the Panamanian flag in the canal zone. The protests turned violent when more than 22 students were killed by American forces, further driving public outrage in Panama. In response, Panamanian President Roberto Chiari broke diplomatic ties with the US, a move that eventually led to the elimination of the idea of US “perpetual control” over the canal.
• The Panama Canal is neutral and equal for all countries
In 1977, an agreement between the US and Panama officially ended decades of American control over the canal. The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, signed by President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian Chief of Government Omar Torrijos, was a major shift acknowledging Panama’s full sovereignty over the canal and its surrounding territory.
The agreement stipulated that the canal would remain open and secure to ships from all nations, ensuring that it could continue to serve as a crucial global maritime route, free from political influence or military control by any country. For Panama, the treaty not only cemented its control over the canal but also signaled a new era of international cooperation.
Thus the Feb. 5 announcement by the US State Department through X/Twitter saying the “U.S. government vessels can now transit the Panama Canal without change of fees, saving the U.S. government million of dollars a year” is incorrect. Mulino responded to the statement, saying it was “based on a falsity, and that’s intolerable.” Everyone that crosses the canal has to pay the required fees.
• China doesn’t “operate” the Panama Canal
The connection between China and Panama dates to the 19th century, during the construction of the predecessor of the canal, the Panama Railway. During that time, Chinese and Afro-Caribbean workers were recruited to build the railway that spanned the isthmus. Their labor left a significant cultural legacy in Panama, but as Victor Ortiz, a professor of history at the University of Panama, points out, “This is only cultural, it doesn’t mean there is a Chinese influence as the current President of the United States has said.”
After the canal was handed over to Panama in 1999 (22 years after the treaty was signed), China, like many other countries, has invested in the nation. These interests, which include infrastructure projects and business ventures, have propelled economic growth in Panama but have not given China operational control over the canal. The contracts signed with China are no different from those with other international partners and do not threaten Panama’s sovereignty over the canal.
We welcome your comments on this article. What are your thoughts on Trump's threat to Panama?
Related Posts
Mariana Hernández Ampudia is a multimedia journalist based in Mexico City. Her reporting focuses on Latino communities in the United States, immigration and Latin America.
![[Re]Group - A Playbook for Turbulent Times -Subscribe Now](https://passblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/regroup-v2_unf2026_square_600.500@2x.webp)
[the] narrativa es somera pero, realza en terminos generales la realidad. Es importante tener en cuenta que, el control inicial del Canal tuvo en desde su incepción una fecha de terminación y justo el tratado del 77 tuvo como finalidad esa acometida.
English: The narrative is superficial but, in general terms, it enhances reality. It is important to keep in mind that the initial control of the Canal had a termination date from its inception and the purpose of the treaty of 1977 was that undertaking.
Since they want to return to their roots and identity; how about becoming a part of Colombia, again? Is that the identity they miss? 🤔🤔🤔🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🤠🤠🤠
Failed to mention Francs role in building the canal.