Panama erupts in protests as U.S. troops establish presence at former military bases, with opposition leaders calling it a “camouflaged invasion” that threatens national sovereignty.

At a Glance

• Trump administration has instructed the U.S. military to develop options to increase American troop presence in Panama to “reclaim” the Panama Canal
• Panama’s government, led by President José Raúl Mulino, has officially rejected the idea of permanent U.S. military bases
• Opposition groups accuse the government of surrendering national sovereignty through agreements allowing U.S. military presence
• The administration cites growing Chinese influence as justification for increased U.S. presence near the canal
• The controversy reignites tensions related to the 1977 Torrijos-Carter treaties that transferred canal control to Panama

Trump Administration Pushes for Increased Military Presence

The White House has directed the U.S. military to develop strategies for increasing American troop presence in Panama as part of President Trump’s pledge to “reclaim” the Panama Canal. U.S. Southern Command is evaluating multiple approaches, ranging from security partnerships with Panamanian forces to more aggressive options, with the primary goal of reducing China’s growing influence in the region.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has received draft proposals and plans to visit Panama to discuss implementation options with officials there.

During his campaign, President Trump declared his intentions clearly: “to further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal.” The administration has framed this initiative as a matter of national security, arguing that Chinese commercial interests near the canal could potentially allow Beijing to interfere with American shipping through this crucial waterway.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reinforced this position, stating that “the status quo is unacceptable.”

Panama Rejects Permanent Bases but Accepts Limited Presence

Panama’s government has taken a firm public stance against permanent U.S. military installations while simultaneously negotiating agreements that critics say amount to the same thing. Frank Abrego, a senior Panamanian official, stated: “Panama made clear, through President Mulino, that we cannot accept military bases or defence sites.” However, recent agreements have authorized U.S. troops to operate at three former American bases, raising questions about what constitutes a military base versus a temporary deployment site.

“If you have an installation which is for use of foreign soldiers and they have control over what happens inside – and Panama has to ask in advance to enter – that’s a military base.”, said Lombana.

The U.S. currently maintains over 200 troops in Panama, with plans potentially calling for significant increases. Discussions include proposals for opening Army Jungle Schools in Panama and establishing rotational force deployments. Defense Secretary Hegseth has emphasized that while the U.S. is focused on countering Chinese influence, “We do not seek war with China. And war with China is certainly not inevitable.”

Public Opposition and Sovereignty Concerns

Public discontent is growing rapidly as Panamanians react to what many perceive as a threat to their hard-won sovereignty. Opposition leader Ricardo Lombana has been vocal in his criticism, describing the current situation as “a camouflaged invasion.”

Protests have erupted in Panama City, with demonstrators drawing parallels to the 1989 U.S. invasion that removed dictator Manuel Noriega from power. The situation has become particularly sensitive as President Trump publicly declared, “We’ve moved a lot of troops to Panama.”

According to Jose Ramón Icaza, Panama’s minister for canal affairs: “We will seek a mechanism by which warships and auxiliary ships can have a compensation system for services, that is, a way to make them cost-neutral but not free.”

At the heart of the controversy are competing interests regarding the canal’s operations. The U.S. seeks preferential treatment for its naval vessels, claiming they are currently overcharged, while Panama insists on maintaining operational control and appropriate compensation for services. Meanwhile, China has rejected U.S. characterizations of its involvement, with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stating that China “firmly opposes the U.S. smearing and undermining the Belt and Road cooperation through means of pressure and coercion.”

Economic Control Shifting as BlackRock Acquires Port Operations

Adding to the complex situation, U.S. investment company BlackRock is leading a group purchasing a 90% stake in the Panama Ports Company from a Hong Kong-based firm. This transaction, which the Trump administration has encouraged, will transfer control of key port facilities on both sides of the canal to American-led investors.

The U.S. has previously criticized the Hong Kong company for allegedly failing to fulfill contractual obligations, though critics suggest these accusations were part of a strategy to facilitate American acquisition of these strategic assets.

The Panama Canal remains one of the world’s most critical waterways, with approximately 40% of all U.S. container traffic passing through it annually. Control of the canal was transferred from the United States to Panama under treaties signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, with the final handover completed in 1999. The current controversy threatens to undermine what many Panamanians view as a cornerstone of their national identity and sovereignty.