Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Panama Canal Repurchase Act

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: Panama Canal Repurchase Act

Small boats in the panama canal.

Getty Images, Barry Winiker

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

President Donald Trump wants the U.S. to take back the Panama Canal. A bill in Congress could help.


The Bill

The Panama Canal Repurchase Act would give the president congressional authorization to enter into negotiations with the Central American nation about acquiring their canal. The bill would technically apply to any president, not just to Trump.

While a prior draft of the legislation mentioned buying the canal for $1, Fox News Digital reported, no such price was included in the official version.

The House bill was introduced on January 9 by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD). No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Context: History

That potential $1 price was considered as a deliberate homage to the mistaken urban legend that President Jimmy Carter sold the canal to Panama for that amount.

What actually happened?

The 51-mile canal was constructed from 1903-14 to make boat travel and goods shipments easier between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Before the canal, this trip had required thousands of extra miles around the southern tip of South America. ( This map provides a helpful visual.)

The U.S. maintained control of the canal for decades after, since it financed the project. But in 1977, wanting to improve relations with both Panama specifically and with Latin America in general, Carter signed the Panama Canal Treaty to turn the waterway’s control over to its host country in the then-distant year 2000.

The Senate ratified the treaty in 1978 by a 68 to 32 vote, only one more than the required two-thirds threshold. Democrats overwhelmingly supported it by 52-10, while Republicans narrowly opposed it by 16-22.

However, the price was not one dollar—indeed, there was no “official” price at all.

Context: Now

Trump claimed in his inaugural address that “China is operating the Panama Canal.” While that’s not technically true, Chinese involvement with the Panama Canal has increased in recent years as the country’s economy has grown. However, the U.S. still comprises 72% of the canal’s total cargo, with China a distant second at 23%.

Some have expressed particular concerns at Panama’s growing diplomatic ties with China, plus two ports on either end of the canal controlled by Hong Kong company Hutchison Ports PPC.

Accordingly, Trump has called for the U.S. to regain control of the Panama Canal. While his hope is for a peaceful negotiation, in a January press conference, he refused to rule out military force.

The issue is so important to the administration that Panama was Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s first foreign trip. (The Latin America visit also included neighboring countries Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Guatemala.)

What Supporters Say

Supporters argue that the U.S. built the canal and its interests are currently threatened by it, so the U.S. should own it once again.

“President Trump is right to consider repurchasing the Panama Canal,” Rep. Johnson said in a press release. “China’s interest in and presence around the canal is a cause for concern. America must project strength abroad—owning and operating the Panama Canal might be an important step towards a stronger America and a more secure globe.”

The Trump administration’s top foreign policy official agrees.

“A foreign power today possesses, through their companies—which we know are not independent—the ability to turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict,” Rubio said in his Senate confirmation hearing. “And that is a direct threat to the national interest and security of the United States.”

What Opponents Say

As you might expect, Panama’s political leader isn’t exactly on board.

“Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent area belong to Panama, and will continue to be. The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable,” President José Raúl Mulino said in a statement. “The canal has no control, direct or indirect, neither from China… nor from the United States or any other power.”

President Joe Biden’s top foreign policy official also opposed the idea, while acknowledging that concerns around the issue had merit.

“When it comes to the resilience of our supply chains, when it comes to making sure that we can get what we need and we don’t have risk attendant with it, including from countries with which we have challenged relations—that is important,” Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a press conference. But “on the Panama Canal, we have a treaty, we have a settled policy of many years. And that’s not going to change.”

Odds of Passage

The bill has attracted 29 cosponsors, all Republicans. It now awaits a potential vote in the House Natural Resources Committee, controlled by Republicans.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Greenland Great Again Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term


Read More

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

US Capitol

Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

What has happened to the U.S. Congress? Once the anchor of American democracy, it now delivers chaos and a record of inaction that leaves millions of Americans vulnerable. A branch designed to defend the Constitution has instead drifted into paralysis — and the nation is paying the price. It must break its silence and reassert its constitutional role.

The Constitution created three coequal branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — each designed to balance and restrain the others. The Framers placed Congress first in Article I (U.S. Constitution) because they believed the people’s representatives should hold the greatest responsibility: to write laws, control spending, conduct oversight, and ensure that no president or agency escapes accountability. Congress was meant to be the branch closest to the people — the one that listens, deliberates, and acts on behalf of the nation.

Keep ReadingShow less