Donald Trump threatened on February 2, 2025, that the United States would “take it back” unless Panama addressed what he called a violation of the canal agreement. Panama rejected his claim and said the canal remained under Panamanian control. The dispute then moved through diplomacy and security talks; later statements about ports and U.S. vessel access did not establish that ownership or administration of the canal had changed.
What did Trump say about the Panama Canal?
On February 2, 2025, at Joint Base Andrews, Trump said: “China is running the Panama Canal. That was not given to China; that was given to Panama, foolishly. But they violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen.” The White House transcript records the threat and the allegations as Trump’s words; it does not independently establish that China ran the canal or that Panama violated an agreement. White House transcript, February 2, 2025.
Who controls the canal, according to Panama?
Panama’s president, José Raúl Mulino, rejected Trump’s position on January 20, after Trump raised the canal in his inaugural address. Mulino said the canal “is and will continue to be Panama’s,” and that its administration would remain under Panamanian control while respecting its permanent neutrality. He grounded Panama’s position in the Torrijos-Carter Treaty and the transfer completed in 1999. Panama’s official statement, January 20, 2025.
The historical frame is the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, signed in 1977. The Associated Press reported that Washington relinquished control of the canal on December 31, 1999. Panama’s statement describes the transfer as culminating in 1999 and cites the treaty as the basis for its position. These are the positions and historical account in the cited records, not a full legal analysis of the treaty or the parties’ obligations.
#1 Best Overall
What happened in the February 2 meeting with Marco Rubio?
Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Mulino on February 2. The State Department’s account said that, absent immediate changes, the United States would need to take measures to protect its rights under the treaty. Mulino described the conversation differently, saying Rubio made “no real threat of retaking the canal or the use of force.” Those are competing public descriptions of the meeting, not proof that the United States had decided to seize the canal. Associated Press report, February 2, 2025.
Does a port deal mean the canal was taken back?
No. In his March 4–5 address to Congress, Trump described his administration as reclaiming the canal. The Associated Press reported that he was referring to a proposed transaction under which a U.S.-led consortium would buy a controlling stake in the company operating ports at both ends of the canal. Panama said the canal remained under its control and characterized the transaction as private. Port operations are not the same as administering canal traffic or controlling the waterway; the reported proposal did not establish a transfer of the canal itself. Associated Press report, March 2025.
Rank #2
What did the April statements about U.S. vessels and troops mean?
At an April 10, 2025, cabinet meeting, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described an arrangement for U.S. vessels to transit first and free, along with a memorandum concerning U.S. troop presence. He said, “We’re taking back the canal.” The transcript documents the administration’s framing of cooperation and access arrangements; it does not show that canal sovereignty or administration transferred from Panama to the United States. U.S. Department of Defense transcript, April 10, 2025.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
- Used Book in Good Condition
What is established—and what remains an allegation?
- Established in the cited records: Trump made an explicit threat on February 2, and Panama publicly rejected his claim of foreign control and asserted its own administration of the canal.
- Disputed: Trump alleged that China was running the canal and that Panama violated the agreement. Panama rejected that characterization. The cited records do not independently verify Trump’s allegations.
- Important distinction: A company’s operation of ports at the canal’s entrances is not, by itself, evidence that it runs canal traffic or controls the waterway.
- Not established by the later statements: The March port transaction and April security cooperation descriptions do not demonstrate a transfer of canal ownership or administration.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
