Trump’s Bid to Reclaim Panama Canal Ignores History and the Law

The Trump administration is ignoring decades of tradition and legal precedent by asking the Pentagon for options to ensure unfettered US military and commercial access to the Panama Canal.

Cloaked in the language of national security, and fueled by concerns about China’s growing influence in Latin America, the White House appears eager to reassert US control over the canal, which handles hundreds of billions of dollars of global maritime trade. Regardless of who built or financed it, the US can’t assert or reclaim ownership. Panama owns and governs it because the US legally relinquished it.

Throughout history, nations have built ports, roads, railways, and entire cities on foreign soil—and relinquished control of the infrastructure when sovereignty changed hands.

Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the US without retaining control of the infrastructure it built on the island as far back as the 1500s, such as the El Morro fortress in San Juan. Similarly, the British left behind vast infrastructure in India.

Construction doesn’t confer ownership—sovereignty does. The US reversing this longstanding principle would contradict both global precedent and its own historical practice.

Attempting to retake the canal would violate both domestic and international law. Panama’s exclusive control stems from the Torrijos–Carter Treaties, two binding agreements signed in 1977—the Panama Canal Treaty and the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal—that form the legal framework governing the canal.

The former ended US jurisdiction and established a transition plan for complete local control by 1999. The latter guarantees the canal’s permanent neutrality and ensures open access to “vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality.”

This commitment embodies core principles of customary international law and maritime norms requiring chokepoints to remain open and accessible to all states. Nothing in the treaties or customary law permits unilateral US action nor confers special or residual control to the US government.

Together, the US and Panama fully integrated the sovereignty transfer into their respective legal systems. The US Senate ratified and codified the canal treaties through the Panama Canal Act. No subsequent action, legislative or otherwise, has reversed or amended this legal framework, making any reclamation unfounded under federal law.

The US Supreme Court recognized in Medellín v. Texas that while not all treaties are self-executing, they’re embedded in US law if Congress passes implementing legislation. Because the canal treaties received both Senate ratification and statutory implementation, they have binding legal effect.

Panama, for its part, enshrined canal sovereignty in its own constitution and legal system. Under the Panamanian Constitution, the Panama Canal Authority was established as an autonomous entity charged exclusively with the canal’s administration, operation, preservation, maintenance, and modernization. Mirroring the US Neutrality Treaty, Panama’s constitution ensures the canal’s permanent neutrality.

The US committed to “participation and cooperation” in the canal’s “protection and defense,” but US military involvement is limited under Article IV of the Panama Canal Treaty to addressing danger resulting from an armed attack. This was never intended as a license to reclaim or reoccupy the canal.

US territorial claims over the canal were fully extinguished. Panama has legitimate legal ownership, and the title transfer is binding under international law, including the Vienna Convention, which reinforces the integrity of the treaties: “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

International law also bars the threat or use of force against any state’s territorial integrity. The International Court of Justice has reinforced these principles in cases such as Nicaragua v. United States, when the court found that the US violated international law by training and arming paramilitary forces against Nicaragua.

Similarly, in Congo v. Uganda, the ICJ ruled that Uganda’s occupation and resource exploitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo breached sovereignty norms. Regardless of justification, no intervention right exists in contemporary international law, and unilateral interests can’t override sovereignty.

Any interference with the canal would impinge on key trade and regional considerations such as the US–Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, which has been in force since 2012, and the American Convention on Human Rights, which is enforceable before the Inter-American Court. These frameworks collectively reinforce Panama’s sovereignty.

In a time of rising tension, the US and Panama should pursue lawful, diplomatic, and collaborative measures to reaffirm shared commitments and address any actual or perceived security concerns. This could be accomplished by jointly calling for an audit, under the Organization of American States, or another independent body, to assess the canal’s neutrality and access.

An audit would ensure that while foreign firms invest in ports and infrastructure, Panama itself continues to manage and operate the canal, with no external power—American, Chinese, or otherwise—involved in its governance. Peaceful resolution is critical for a commercially viable solution that upholds the dignity of Americans and Panamanians alike. In the Panama Canal: don’t assault, audit.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal is the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, an organization founded at the request of President John F. Kennedy.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines