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.