Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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 empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less