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 TSA employee standing in the airport, with two travelers in the foreground.

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. TSA employees are currently working under the threat of not receiving their next paychecks, scheduled for January 11, because of the partial government shutdown now in its third week.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Nope. Nevermind. Some DHS agencies still shut down.

House Republicans reject clean bill to open shut-down DHS agencies (March 28 update)

House Republicans (and three Democrats) rejected the Senate's clean bill to end the shutdown late Friday night. Instead, the House passed a different bill that fully funds every agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but for only 60 days with the knowledge that this short-term continuing resolution will not pass in the Senate.

Both chambers are out until April 13 so the shutdown is expected to last until then at least. Hope that no major weather disasters occur before then because FEMA is one of the DHS agencies out of commission (though some of its employees may be working without pay). It's possible that air travel security lines won't get worse since the President signed an Executive Order authorizing DHS to pay TSA workers. New DHS Secretary Mullin says paychecks will start to go out as early as Monday. How long can this approach continue? Unknown. Leaving aside the questionable legality of repurposing funds in this way, DHS may not be willing to keep paying TSA from these other funds long-term.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."
Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Heather Diehl

The Senate Was Meant to Slow Us Down—Not Stop Us Cold

The Senate is once again locked in a familiar pattern: a bill with clear support on one side, firm opposition on the other—and no obvious path forward.

This time it’s the SAVE Act, framed by its supporters as a safeguard for election integrity and by its opponents as a barrier to voting access. The arguments are well-rehearsed. The positions are firm. And yet, beneath the policy debate sits a more revealing truth: in today’s Senate, the outcome of legislation is often shaped long before a final vote is ever cast.

Keep ReadingShow less
Clarity Is Power: The Three Pillars That Keep the People in Charge
man in white robe holding a book statue
Photo by Caleb Fisher on Unsplash

Clarity Is Power: The Three Pillars That Keep the People in Charge

American democracy does not weaken all at once. It falters when citizens lose clarity about how power is being used in their name. Abraham Lincoln warned that “public sentiment is everything… without it, nothing can succeed.” When people understand what their leaders are doing, they can hold them accountable.

But when confusion takes hold, power shifts quietly, and the public’s ability to act begins to erode. Clarity enables citizens to participate fully in democratic life and shape a government that responds to them. Confusion is not harmless; it erodes the safeguards, public awareness, and civic action that make self‑government possible. Clarity strengthens all three pillars at once — it protects our constitutional safeguards, sharpens public awareness, and fuels civic action.

Keep ReadingShow less
CONNECT for Health Act of 2025
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

CONNECT for Health Act of 2025

How does a bill with no enemies fail to move? That question should trouble anyone who cares about Medicare, about rural health care, and about whether Congress can still do straightforward things.

In plain terms, the CONNECT Act would permanently end the outdated rule that limits Medicare telehealth to patients in rural areas who travel to an approved facility. It would make the patient's home a covered site of care. It would protect audio-only services, critical for seniors without broadband or smartphones, especially for behavioral health. It would ensure that Federally Qualified Health Centers can be reimbursed for telehealth, and it would lock in the pandemic-era flexibilities that Congress has been extending on a temporary basis since 2020. In short, it would turn five years of emergency workarounds into permanent, accountable policy.

Keep ReadingShow less