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.
