FOLLOW US

Legal Briefs

1. Reviving Old Alliances: How Trump’s bold claim highlights the United States’ enduring rights under the Neutrality Treaty.
2. Operation Just Cause Revisited: Why critics who label reassertion of U.S. control as unlawful might be overlooking the historical precedent.
3. China’s Expanding Influence: A closer look at how Chinese investments and Panamanian policy may be tipping the scales against the canal’s mandated neutrality.

By Samuel A. Lopez, Legal Analyst and Journalist, USA Herald

[USA HERALD] 9:31 PM PST - Hello, I’m Samuel Lopez from USA Herald. I’m examining President-elect Trump’s bold claim that the U.S. could retake the Panama Canal over imbalanced fees or if foreign influence threatens its neutrality. Critics dismiss it as unlawful, but they often overlook the Neutrality Treaty and the precedent set by “Operation Just Cause” in 1989.

Setting the Stage: The Panama Canal’s Strategic Importance

Positioned approximately 1,200 miles from Miami, the Panama Canal has served as a crucial maritime shortcut for over a century, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through Central America. It slashes travel distance and time for cargo ships that would otherwise need to skirt the southernmost tip of South America. The canal’s strategic location has long made it a linchpin of U.S. economic and military interests. After all, any disruption in the canal’s operation has profound implications for global commerce and the U.S. Navy’s ability to deploy ships efficiently between two oceans.

Under the Torrijos-Carter Treaties signed in 1977, the U.S. formally handed over control of the Panama Canal to Panama in 1999. However, these agreements also included a companion document known as the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, often simply referred to as the Neutrality Treaty. Article IV of this treaty grants the United States the right to act—militarily if necessary—to ensure the canal remains neutral, free, and open to vessels from all nations.

Trump’s Bold Claims: Unpacking the “Rip-Off” Fees

When Donald Trump blasts the Panamanian government’s canal fees as a “rip-off,” he taps into a longstanding frustration within segments of the American public who believe the U.S. still shoulders too much responsibility without any say in day-to-day canal operations. In rallying supporters around the notion of “taking back what we built,” Trump invokes a period when the United States held unilateral control. Critics argue that such talk is unrealistic, citing international law and the sovereignty Panama now exercises over the canal.

Yet, the Neutrality Treaty explicitly stipulates that the canal’s neutrality cannot be compromised, and if it is, the U.S. reserves the right to intervene. That’s a powerful piece of legal scaffolding—one that was brought to life most notably during Operation Just Cause.

Revisiting Operation Just Cause: A Historical Blueprint

Conducted in December 1989, Operation Just Cause saw the United States deploy roughly 26,000 troops into Panama to remove the military dictator General Manuel Noriega from power. A key justification included perceived threats to canal neutrality. Noriega was accused of destabilizing the region and jeopardizing safe passage through the canal. Under the broad interpretation of Article IV, the U.S. invoked the Neutrality Treaty to legitimize its military intervention.

“When the canal’s security and neutrality are in jeopardy, the U.S. has the right to act,” declared a Department of Defense official at the time.

The precedent is clear: The U.S. has previously utilized the Neutrality Treaty to justify a large-scale military incursion. Critics of Trump’s remarks who claim such an action “can’t be done lawfully” overlook this legal and historical context. While Operation Just Cause remains controversial—sparking debate at the United Nations General Assembly and among international observers—it legally hinged upon the very treaty provisions that are now being thrust back into the spotlight.

Alleged Violations Under Article IV: China and Panama

Trump’s talk also surfaces deeper geopolitical anxieties: the growing influence of China in Latin America. Chinese-based enterprises, including CK Hutchison Holdings (formerly Hutchison Whampoa Limited), have secured significant port concessions at both ends of the canal. Meanwhile, new Chinese-backed infrastructure projects continue to pop up across Panama.

From extensive port operations in Balboa and Cristobal to large-scale investments in bridges spanning the waterway, China’s footprint has never been larger. Detractors argue that Panama risks bending the neutrality clause by allowing a foreign power de facto control over these critical chokepoints. If China wields outsize leverage on canal operations—especially if its political and economic interests could overshadow universal access—the spirit and the letter of the Neutrality Treaty may indeed be threatened.

In my view, “If the Panamanian government, swayed by Chinese investments, undermines the equality of transit or toll rates, then we have a tangible case for a breach of Article IV obligations.” – Samuel A. Lopez

Looking Ahead: Could Another Operation Just Cause Happen?

If the Panamanian government’s fees become severely burdensome or it appears that Chinese influence is compromising the canal’s neutrality, the legal path for U.S. intervention—albeit drastic—still exists. That doesn’t mean the United States will or should march troops into Panama tomorrow, but it underscores that critiques of Trump’s statements as purely empty posturing may be misguided.

With increased tension around the globe and economic competition heating up, especially involving major powers like China, the Panama Canal remains a flashpoint worth watching. History shows that the U.S. government has not hesitated to exercise what it perceives as its rights under the Neutrality Treaty. Only time will tell whether Trump’s recent comments serve as a symbolic warning shot or the harbinger of a new, more confrontational approach.

Thank you for reading. I’m Samuel Lopez with USA Herald, where we bring you stories that resonate with everyday citizens. For more on my background, including my experience in legal and insurance sectors, feel free to check out my bio.

###