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

Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

Protestors in Chicago, August 2025

Credit: Angeles Ponpa

Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

A federal judge recently blocked plans to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. But the battle over militarizing American streets is far from over. On Monday, a federal appeals court lifted a temporary restraining order and ruled that the National Guard can be deployed to Portland, Oregon, amid ongoing protests at the Macadam ICE Facility.

Every time political leaders propose sending troops into cities or float invoking the Insurrection Act, they test a fragile boundary that keeps democracy in check.

Keep ReadingShow less
Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!'

Joe Manchin

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!'

While appearing on CNN host Michael Smerconish’s show, former Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, now a registered independent, told Smerconish that “we have to have open primaries” in order to get candidates who prioritize representation to run and have a chance to win.

“We have to change the primary,” he added. “They are locking us out.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

Keep ReadingShow less