Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

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