Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Panama Canal has value to American business—but it has more value to China

Opinion

The Panama Canal has value to American business—but it has more value to China

The Panama Canal.

Getty Images, Niclasbo

President Trump has thrown down the gauntlet to the Panamanian government—threatening to retake the canal, by force if necessary. The question is: What triggered Donald Trump’s attack?

In the likeliest scenario, President Trump was trying to get the attention of China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the best way was to threaten Chinese access to the Panama Canal.


While American shipping benefits from access to the canal—the canal is vital to China—limiting Chinese access would be a major economic blow to China and the CCP.

Furthermore, it’s reasonable for President Trump to believe the CCP, through the Hong Kong-based management company CK Hutchinson Holdings, which manages the two ports on either side of the canal, is monopolizing the Panama Canal for the best interest of Chinese shippers.

This has opened the door for President Trump to do what he does best—threaten global commerce in order to create a more level playing field for American business.

The President is focusing on the Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which gave the canal back to the Panamanians in 1977. He is likely basing his remarks on the “Neutrality” portion of the treaty. If China and the CCP are indeed gaining an unfair advantage, Panama has a serious problem on its hands.

The bigger issue: is the canal necessary for American interests?

The canal is merely another option for moving cargo from the East Coast to the West Coast of the U.S.

It is worth pointing out that American shipping has numerous ways to get American products to the global market: long-haul trucking, rail, the Mississippi River, deep water ports on both coasts and the Gulf of Mexico.

The canal is just one more option. In this regard, the canal has economic value, but by no means would American business be crippled without access to it.

The point is the canal is not a strategic asset for America. It’s not vital to U.S. interests. American manufacturers would not unduly suffer with reduced access to the canal.

American manufacturers would likely experience a level of price increases, but their global access to the market would largely go unaffected. The same cannot be said for Chinese interests.

There are effectively two means for the Chinese products to get to the Atlantic side of America: the Panama and Suez Canals.

For obvious reasons, going through the Suez Canal represents an unwanted expenditure no Chinese manufacturers would like to incur. So, the Panama Canal has become their main cargo route.

For the Chinese, the Panama Canal has become a strategic part of their game plan for global access. They need the canal—American business not so much.

Regardless of the strategic importance for America, the canal has opened the door to Donald Trump. He is leveraging Chinese shipping needs to promote his ongoing efforts to generate a level global playing field for American business.

Dan Butterfield is the author of 11 E-books written under Occam’s Razor by Dan Butterfield. A list of publications: “Cultural Revolution,” “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” “Benghazi—The Cover-Up,” “The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming,” “Treason,” “11 Days,” “First Premise,” “GOP’s Power Grab,” “Guilty,” “Comey’s Deceit,” and “False Narratives.”

Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less