South Dakota’s Mt. Rushmore exhibits the faces of four presidents immortalized in stone: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt (TR).
As the story goes, one morning in 1979 Washington noticed that Roosevelt was missing from the monument. “All I know is, he muttered something about it being HIS canal, and he picked up a big stick and started walking south,” Jefferson said.
TR described his foreign policy as “speak softly and carry a big stick.” And who could blame TR for being upset? The Panama Canal was one of his greatest achievements, doing much to advance commerce between the Atlantic and the Pacific, shortening voyages from New York to California by about 8,000 nautical miles.
A marvel of engineering, the lock chambers operate to raise ships about 85 feet and then lower them to sea level at the other end. In 2024, 11,240 vessels traversed the canal, carrying more than 213,000,000 metric tons of cargo. The canal’s economic importance for world commerce and its strategic value for military transport cannot be overstated.
As early as the 1500s, Spaniards recognized that a canal across the isthmus of Panama would save a lengthy voyage south around South America’s Cape Horn, the search for a northwest passage proving elusive. French efforts to construct a canal collapsed, so the United States stepped up to the plate. In 1902, under Roosevelt’s leadership, Congress passed the Spooner Act which authorized purchasing the French assets and negotiating a treaty with Colombia (of which Panama was then a part). Negotiations with Colombia broke down, but in 1903, Panama declared independence from Colombia. Some claim the United States orchestrated Panamanian independence; however, tensions existed between Panama and the Colombian government since the 1800s, including a short-lived independent State of the Isthmus (1840-1841) and a Panamanian rebellion in 1885. The Hay—Bunau—Varilla Treaty was negotiated between Panama and the United States, creating the 10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone over which the United States was given authority to act as “if it were the sovereign.”
The United States governed the Canal Zone from 1914 to the 1970s, at which time the late President Jimmy Carter proposed giving the canal to Panama. Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the giveaway, saying we were giving the canal to a dictator (Omar Torrijos) “who’s there, not because he had the most votes, but because he had the most guns,” and that the world would see this transfer “as once again America backing away and retreating in the face of trouble.” Reagan declared, “We bought it, we paid for it, we built it, and we intend to keep it,” and polls showed a huge majority of Americans agreed with him.
Nevertheless, Carter managed to pressure the Senate to ratify (by one vote) a treaty transferring control to Panama. Although of questionable constitutionality – because Article IV, Sec. 3, Clause 2 gives Congress exclusive authority over territories of the United States – this treaty recognized Panamanian sovereignty over the Canal Zone effective 1979 but authorized the United States to continue operating the canal through 1999.
President Donald Trump says it is now time for the United States to regain control over the canal. He notes that Hutchison Ports, a company based in the Chinese territory of Hong Kong, manages two ports on the canal – Balboa on the Pacific and Cristobal on the Atlantic. America’s chief adversary now has effective control over the Panama Canal! “If these companies control both ends of that canal in a time of conflict, and the Chinese tell them, ‘Shut it down and don’t let the U.S. go through there,’ we’ve got a big, big problem,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained. A 2021 study by the Center for Strategic & International Studies warned that Chinese control over the canal is much more extensive than had been previously supposed. The 1978 prediction of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) may be coming true: “The loss of this canal would contribute to the encirclement of the United States.”
Clearly, giving away the canal in 1979 was a bad mistake and a sign of weakness. But what can we do about it now?
Consider this: At the time he gave the canal away, Carter also signed a Neutrality Treaty with Panama, which guaranteed the canal's permanent neutrality and authorized the United States to use military force, if necessary, to keep it open.
So here is the answer: The United States is authorized to use military force to keep the Panama Canal open. This, I would argue, includes not only the right to act to prevent China from suddenly shutting down the canal but also the right to take preemptive force to prevent that from happening.
But sometimes Trump’s opening salvo is just a first step toward getting what he really wants. Perhaps his intent is not to send troops to Panama but rather to gain concessions that will give the United States firm assurance that a Chinese coup in Panama isn’t going to happen. A few possibilities could include increased U.S. military presence or increased U.S. infrastructure investment.
Keep watching. And Teddy, don’t put down your big stick.
Colonel Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu), as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org), and as Pastor of Woodland Presbyterian Church of Notasulga (woodlandpca.org). He may be contacted for speaking engagements at eidsmoeja@juno.com.
