Trump Is Lying About the Panama Canal

Trump Is Lying About the Panama Canal

-China never owned or controlled the Panama Canal, a Hong Kong firm owned and operated the Balboa and Cristobal ports via Panama Ports Company.

-The US is not “reclaiming” anything, BlackRock is buying an 80% stake in the ports; the Hong Kong firm will make a 5 billion dollar profit from the sale and US citizens will not benefit at all.

-The Panama Canal will continue to be operated by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), an autonomous Panamanian government agency.

---

Based on the information provided in the X posts, the associated trends, and the related web results, your analysis is largely accurate and aligns with the statements made by Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino and the broader context. Let’s break it down step by step to clarify Trump’s claim, China’s involvement, BlackRock’s role, and the U.S.’s position:

1. Trump’s Claim: “We’re Reclaiming the Panama Canal”

In his address to Congress on March 4, 2025 (as quoted in Thread 1, Post 1897135115785945233 by

@MarioNawfal

), President Donald Trump stated, “My administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal… The Panama Canal was built by Americans, for Americans—not for others.”

He also mentioned in earlier statements (e.g., January 2025, as noted in web result 3, The Washington Post) that “China is operating the Panama Canal… we’re taking it back, or something very powerful is going to happen.”

Panama’s President Mulino, in the target post (Thread 0, Post 1897277981648969826 by

@MarioNawfal

), directly refuted this, stating, “Once again, President Trump is lying. The Panama Canal is not in the process of being restored, and this is certainly not the task that was even discussed… The Canal is Panamanian and will continue to be Panamanian!”

Conclusion: Trump’s claim that the U.S. is “reclaiming” the Panama Canal is factually incorrect in the context of current events. The Panama Canal has been under Panamanian sovereignty since the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977, with full control transferred to Panama in 1999. The U.S. is not “taking back” the canal, nor is there any legal or operational basis for such a claim in this instance.

2. China’s Involvement: Did China Own or Control the Panama Canal?

Trump’s assertion that “China is operating the Panama Canal” is also misleading. The Panama Canal itself is managed and operated by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), an autonomous Panamanian government agency (as stated in web results 2, 3, and 7, Reuters and The Washington Post).

However, China (or Chinese entities) has been involved indirectly through commercial operations near the canal. Specifically:

CK Hutchison, a Hong Kong-based company (publicly listed but subject to some Chinese oversight, as noted in web result 2, Reuters), owned and operated the Balboa and Cristobal ports via Panama Ports Company until the recent sale.

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, and U.S. officials, including Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have expressed concerns about Chinese influence or potential security risks due to CK Hutchison’s presence (web results 2, 3, and 7).

China has not owned or controlled the canal itself, but U.S. policymakers have worried that Chinese-operated ports could pose a strategic or intelligence risk, especially in the event of a conflict (web result 3, The Washington Post).

Conclusion: China never owned or controlled the Panama Canal. The canal remains under Panamanian sovereignty. CK Hutchison’s operation of the ports near the canal was a commercial activity, not a direct control of the canal, and its connection to China is indirect (via Hong Kong’s status). Trump’s framing exaggerates China’s role, which Panama and experts (e.g., web result 3) have clarified as a misrepresentation.

3. BlackRock’s Role: Buying from CK Hutchison, Not the U.S. Taking Over

BlackRock, a U.S.-based investment firm, led a consortium (including Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment) to acquire an 80% stake in Hutchison Ports, including the Balboa and Cristobal ports, from CK Hutchison for $22.8 billion (web results 1, 2, and 3, WSJ, Reuters, and The Washington Post).

This transaction shifts control of the ports from a Hong Kong-based company to U.S.-led investors, aligning with Trump’s expressed concerns about Chinese influence (trend post by

@CollinRugg

, trend 1).

However, this deal does not involve the U.S. government “taking back” the canal or its operations. It is a private-sector investment by BlackRock and its partners, not a governmental or national reclamation (as emphasized by Mulino in the target post and web result 3).

Conclusion: BlackRock is purchasing the ports from CK Hutchison, not the U.S. government taking back the Panama Canal. The U.S. is not directly profiting from this transaction, as it is a private business deal, not a governmental acquisition or nationalization.

4. U.S. Profit and Involvement

The U.S. government is not profiting from BlackRock’s acquisition, as the deal is a private transaction between BlackRock’s consortium and CK Hutchison.

Trump’s statements may reflect a broader policy goal of countering perceived Chinese influence in strategic regions like the Panama Canal, but there is no evidence in the provided data that the U.S. is taking ownership, control, or financial gain from the canal itself (web result 3, The Washington Post, and Mulino’s statement in the target post).

Some U.S. officials, like Secretary Rubio, have pressured Panama to address Chinese presence (web result 7, Reuters), but this is diplomatic pressure, not an action to reclaim the canal.

Conclusion: The U.S. is not profiting from or taking control of the Panama Canal. BlackRock’s purchase is a private investment, and any U.S. involvement is limited to diplomatic or strategic concerns, not direct ownership or profit.

Overall Assessment: Is Trump Lying?

Yes, in the literal sense: Trump’s claim that the U.S. is “reclaiming the Panama Canal” from China is factually inaccurate. The canal is and remains under Panamanian sovereignty, and China does not own or operate it. CK Hutchison’s port operations were a commercial activity, not canal control, and BlackRock’s acquisition is a private deal, not a U.S. governmental action.

Contextual Nuance: Trump’s statements may reflect political rhetoric or strategic concerns about Chinese influence in the region (via Hong Kong firms or potential security risks at the ports). However, these concerns do not align with the reality of Panama’s sovereignty or the nature of BlackRock’s transaction.

Final Summary:

Trump is incorrect when he says the U.S. is “taking back the Panama Canal” from China. China never owned or controlled the canal; it was Panamanian, and CK Hutchison’s port operations were a separate commercial entity based in Hong Kong.

BlackRock’s $22.8 billion purchase from CK Hutchison shifts port control to U.S.-led investors, but this is not the U.S. government taking over or profiting—it’s a private transaction.

Panama’s President Mulino’s rebuttal is accurate: the canal is Panamanian, and Trump’s claims misrepresent the situation.

Viewpoint: The Panama Canal Caper, by Murray N. Rothbard

Ronald Reagan has been making a great deal of hay in the primaries with a demagogic and jingoistic campaign on behalf of maintaining the alleged sovereignty of the United States over the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone. The Ford Administration reply that the treaty with Panama retained ultimate sovereignty in the hands of Panama is correct but only scratches the surface of the problem. One neglected point is that the Canal Zone is an egregious example of socialism in action, since the U.S. government owns not only the Canal but the entire Zone territory, and every Zonian resident is a U.S. government employee. How can an alleged opponent of Big Government devote so much energy to a persistent defense of an enclave of U.S. socialism?

A second neglected point—neglected by Americans, of course, not the Panamanians—is how the United States came to exercise total occupation and control of a slice of Latin America that is clearly not part of the United States. The answer is a naked imperialist power grab, in which our first openly imperialist President, Theodore Roosevelt, engineered a phony “revolution” in northern Colombia, a coup directed by officials of the American-built Panama Railroad Co., and then quickly defended by U.S. troops against attempts of the Colombians to land troops to put down the coup.

The U.S.-organized coup was justified by Roosevelt as a protection of American tax-payers against the desire of the Colombian government to “hold up” the United States for an extra $10 million for the right to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama in northern Colombia. The actual facts, however, were very different. The United States had agreed to pay $40 million to the virtually bankrupt French-owned Panama Canal Co., for the right to build a canal, and what the Colombian government wanted was not an extra $10 million from the U.S., but $10 million to come out of the agreed-upon $40 million. In other words, President Roosevelt organized the power-grab, engineered a coup in Colombia, and quickly recognized the “rebels,” not to save American taxpayers any money, but to save $10 million for the French Panama Canal Co.

Why was the U.S. government so tender to a bankrupt French canal company? The answer is that the company’s stock had all been quietly purchased in advance by a syndicate of powerful Wall Street financiers, close to Roosevelt, including J.P. Morgan and Co., George W. Perkins, Morgan partner, Herbert Saterlee (a Morgan son-in-law), H.H. Rogers and James Stillman, close to the Rockefellers, Paul M. Warburg and Jacob H. Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb, Nelson P. Cromwell, a founder of the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, and Douglas Robinson, brother-in-law of Teddy Roosevelt. The syndicate purchased the shares at two-thirds of par, and, after the coup, were able to sell their shares to the U.S. government, now in charge of the prospective canal, for 130 percent of par, thus doubling their investment.

After purchasing the shares, the syndicate hired William Nelson Cromwell, of the Cromwell family, for $830,000 to lobby for an American takeover of the canal. It was Cromwell who literally sat in an office of the White House and who wrote the orders for Roosevelt by which the President engineered the imperialist grab of the isthmus of Panama. Later, after the coup was accomplished, Cromwell, as fiscal agent. of the syndicate, invested $6 million of their ill-gotten gains in New York City real estate mortgages through the real-estate firm of Roosevelt’s brother-in-law, Douglas Robinson.

When these ugly facts were brought to light several years later by the New York World and the Indianapolis News, President Roosevelt attempted to bring indictments against these newspapers for “criminal libel” against himself. Fortunately, in a notable victory for freedom of the press against attempted suppression, the Supreme Court quashed the indictments. (The full story of the Panama Canal caper can be found in a book by one of the New York World journalists, the highly conservative Earl Harding, in The Untold Story of Panama, New York: Athene Press, 1959.)

Thus, the Panama Canal case demonstrates, with shining clarity, how behind the typical nationalist demagogy and vainglory of every imperialist power grab, there lurks the use of the State apparatus to gain special privileges and subsidies for powerful financial interests.

The Treaty That Wall Street Wrote. By Murray N. Rothbard

This article originally appeared on Dec. 5, 1977, in Inquiry, vol. 1, no. 2: pp. 9–14. It has been reprinted in Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy (Center for Libertarian Studies, 1995).

The Panama Canal question has already established itself as the hottest political issue for the coming year. Ronald Reagan, who alm

Read More

Article from LewRockwell