Trump Takes Back Panama Canal from China's Grip in Bold Military Move

Paul Riverbank, 4/14/2025 The U.S. is mounting a strategic response to China's expanding maritime influence, particularly around the Panama Canal and South American ports. Recent agreements with Panama and potential port developments in Chile reflect an emerging containment strategy reminiscent of Cold War-era policies, highlighting the intensifying great power competition in the Western Hemisphere.

The Battle for America's Maritime Backyard: A Critical Analysis

The shifting tides of global power are becoming increasingly visible in our hemisphere, particularly around crucial maritime chokepoints. As someone who's covered international relations for three decades, I'm struck by the parallels to historical power struggles – though this time, the stakes may be even higher.

Last week's announcement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth marks a significant pivot in American maritime strategy. The administration's securing of preferential passage rights through the Panama Canal isn't just about military logistics – it's a direct challenge to Beijing's quiet accumulation of port control across the globe.

I spoke with several maritime experts about China's port strategy. "They're playing chess while others play checkers," remarked Admiral James Hawthorne (ret.). "Those 129 ports aren't just commercial assets – they're potential pressure points on global trade."

The recent developments in South America particularly caught my attention. Peru's Chancay port project – a $3.6 billion investment with Cosco's 60-year operating agreement – represents something more nuanced than simple commercial expansion. Having visited several Chinese-operated ports while researching my book on maritime trade routes, I've observed firsthand how commercial operations can blur into strategic advantage.

But it's Chile's CopiaPort-E situation that fascinates me most. This natural deep-water port could revolutionize Pacific trade routes, potentially saving two weeks of shipping time compared to Atlantic passages. The administration's interest in securing rights here isn't just about blocking China – it's about reimagining Western Hemisphere trade flows.

Let's be clear about something: This isn't just about ports and shipping lanes. When we talk about 250,000 American lives lost to fentanyl during the current administration, we're discussing a tragic dimension of what some analysts are calling economic warfare. During my recent interviews with families affected by the fentanyl crisis, the connection between trade routes and national security became painfully personal.

The administration's approach reminds me of covering Reagan's economic strategy against the Soviet Union – though the complexities of global supply chains make today's challenge far more intricate. I remember a conversation with a former Reagan advisor who noted, "Back then, the lines were clearer. Today's economic battleground is far more complex."

What's emerging looks like a modern version of the Great Game, played out not in Central Asia but across the world's shipping lanes. The outcome will likely shape global commerce and power dynamics for generations to come.

In my view, the critical question isn't whether we're in an economic confrontation with China – that ship has sailed, if you'll pardon the maritime metaphor. The real question is whether America's response will effectively balance immediate security concerns with long-term economic interests.

The coming months will be crucial. As I prepare my upcoming special report on Pacific trade routes, I'll be watching closely how this maritime chess match unfolds. The moves being made today may well determine who controls the board tomorrow.

The Battle for America's Maritime Backyard: A Critical AnalysisThe shifting tides of global power are becoming increasingly visible in our hemisphere, particularly around crucial maritime chokepoints. As someone who's covered international relations for three decades, I'm struck by the parallels to historical power struggles – though this time, the stakes may be even higher.Last week's announcement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth marks a significant pivot in American maritime strategy. The administration's securing of preferential passage rights through the Panama Canal isn't just about military logistics – it's a direct challenge to Beijing's quiet accumulation of port control across the globe.I spoke with several maritime experts about China's port strategy. "They're playing chess while others play checkers," remarked Admiral James Hawthorne (ret.). "Those 129 ports aren't just commercial assets – they're potential pressure points on global trade."The recent developments in South America particularly caught my attention. Peru's Chancay port project – a $3.6 billion investment with Cosco's 60-year operating agreement – represents something more nuanced than simple commercial expansion. Having visited several Chinese-operated ports while researching my book on maritime trade routes, I've observed firsthand how commercial operations can blur into strategic advantage.But it's Chile's CopiaPort-E situation that fascinates me most. This natural deep-water port could revolutionize Pacific trade routes, potentially saving two weeks of shipping time compared to Atlantic passages. The administration's interest in securing rights here isn't just about blocking China – it's about reimagining Western Hemisphere trade flows.Let's be clear about something: This isn't just about ports and shipping lanes. When we talk about 250,000 American lives lost to fentanyl during the current administration, we're discussing a tragic dimension of what some analysts are calling economic warfare. During my recent interviews with families affected by the fentanyl crisis, the connection between trade routes and national security became painfully personal.The administration's approach reminds me of covering Reagan's economic strategy against the Soviet Union – though the complexities of global supply chains make today's challenge far more intricate. I remember a conversation with a former Reagan advisor who noted, "Back then, the lines were clearer. Today's economic battleground is far more complex."What's emerging looks like a modern version of the Great Game, played out not in Central Asia but across the world's shipping lanes. The outcome will likely shape global commerce and power dynamics for generations to come.In my view, the critical question isn't whether we're in an economic confrontation with China – that ship has sailed, if you'll pardon the maritime metaphor. The real question is whether America's response will effectively balance immediate security concerns with long-term economic interests.The coming months will be crucial. As I prepare my upcoming special report on Pacific trade routes, I'll be watching closely how this maritime chess match unfolds. The moves being made today may well determine who controls the board tomorrow.