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

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate
Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.
Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate

History of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Signed into U.S. law in 1970, NEPA is considered the “Magna Carta” of environmental law. It requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major construction projects such as airports, highways, federal buildings, or projects constructed on federally owned land before construction. To fulfill the NEPA requirements, federal agencies are required to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any actions with environmental impact. The completed EIS is an extensive written report from federal agencies that includes a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed project, a purpose statement, potential alternatives, and an overview of the affected environment.

Before a final EIS can be published, agencies must publish a draft EIS for a public review and comment period of 45 days. The final EIS must fully address substantive comments from the review period to be considered complete. Major projects with a low likelihood of pronounced environmental impact can bypass the NEPA process if granted a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). If the project’s impact on the environment is uncertain, agencies are required to prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the need for an EIS.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Parallel Twin Lives of Democracy

It is a striking paradox of contemporary American life: The country appears to be bitterly divided, yet at the same time it is in deep internal agreement.

Survey after survey show broad consensus on issues that once split the nation: Same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, public smoking bans, marijuana legalization, background checks for gun ownership, even paid parental leave. Many of these were once thought irreconcilable, but today they register supermajority support. Yet at the same time, partisanship has become the most toxic line of fracture in American identity. As political philosopher Robert Talisse has observed, parents who would welcome a child marrying across lines of faith or ethnicity recoil at the prospect of marriage across ideological lines. The left and right increasingly define one another not as fellow citizens who happen to disagree, but as existential threats.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Democratic Party's American Dream Problem — And Opportunity

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani holds a campaign event with the healthcare worker's union on September 24, 2025 outside of St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx borough of New York City.

(Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

The Democratic Party's American Dream Problem — And Opportunity

Why have so many rank-and-file Democrats found Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for New York mayor so captivating – despite all the naysaying from the party’s establishment? Because his message may be the first from a Democrat to counter decades of Republican dominance over a narrative central to our nation: the American Dream.

What the American Dream tells us is that anything is possible in America, that if you work hard, nothing can stop you, and you will succeed. It’s a rags-to-riches story, reminiscent of Horatio Alger and Rocky Balboa, and the classic tale of immigrants arriving with nothing and sacrificing everything to create a better life for themselves and their families.

Keep ReadingShow less
The New Face of US Interventionism: Economic Warfare in Brazil

USA Brazil tariffs

AI generated

The New Face of US Interventionism: Economic Warfare in Brazil

President Donald J. Trump has threatened to impose a new round of tariffs and sanctions against Brazil after Brazil’s Supreme Court sentenced the former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison for attempting a coup — an act of political retaliation that should raise alarm bells across the globe.

President Trump’s threat follows the earlier imposition of a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods and Magnitsky sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over Bolsonaro’s trial. These measures are designed to punish Brazil’s judiciary for daring to prosecute Bolsonaro, who plotted to overturn the 2022 elections and assassinate then-president-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Keep ReadingShow less