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

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Approaching a year of the new Trump administration, Americans are getting used to domestic militarized logic. A popular sense of powerlessness permeates our communities. We bear witness to the attacks against innocent civilians by ICE, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we naturally wonder—is this the new American discourse? Violent action? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offers hope that there may be another way.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist, was elected as mayor of New York City on the fourth of November. Mamdani’s platform includes a reimagining of the police force in New York City. Mamdani proposes a Department of Community Safety. In a CBS interview, Mamdani said, “Our vision for a Department of Community Safety, the DCS, is that we would have teams of dedicated mental health outreach workers that we deploy…to respond to those incidents and get those New Yorkers out of the subway system and to the services that they actually need.” Doing so frees up NYPD officers to respond to actual threats and crime, without a responsibility to the mental health of civilians.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Four Top Officials Can Win Back Public Trust


Image generated by IVN staff.

How Four Top Officials Can Win Back Public Trust

Mandate for Change: The Public Calls for a Course Correction

The honeymoon is over. A new national survey from the Independent Center reveals that a plurality of American adults and registered voters believe key cabinet officials should be replaced—a striking rebuke of the administration’s current direction. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all underwater with the public, especially among independents.

But the message isn’t just about frustration—it’s about opportunity. Voters are signaling that these leaders can still win back public trust by realigning their policies with the issues Americans care about most. The data offers a clear roadmap for course correction.

Health and Human Services: RFK Jr. Is Losing the Middle

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is emerging as a political liability—not just to the administration, but to the broader independent movement he once claimed to represent. While his favorability ratings are roughly even, the plurality of adults and registered voters now say he should be replaced. This sentiment is especially strong among independents, who once viewed Kennedy as a fresh alternative but now see him as out of step with their values.

Keep ReadingShow less
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Break With Trump Over Epstein Files Is a Test of GOP Conscience

Epstein abuse survivor Haley Robson (C) reacts alongside Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) (R) as the family of Virginia Giuffre speaks during a news conference with lawmakers on the Epstein Files Transparency Act outside the U.S. Capitol on November 18, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Break With Trump Over Epstein Files Is a Test of GOP Conscience

Today, the House of Representatives is voting on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bill that would compel the Justice Department to release unclassified records related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. For months, the measure languished in procedural limbo. Now, thanks to a discharge petition signed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans, the vote is finally happening.

But the real story is not simply about transparency. It is about political courage—and the cost of breaking ranks with Donald Trump.

Keep ReadingShow less