The Panama Canal, a key link in global trade, has been a point of strategic importance for over a century. Built by the United States and controlled by it until 1999, the canal connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, reducing shipping times and costs. Today, the canal remains critical to global commerce, but former President Donald Trump has expressed concerns about a new threat: China’s influence over the ports that bookend this vital waterway.
A Brief History of the Canal
The Panama Canal was constructed by the U.S. between 1904 and 1914, at a cost of $375 million (equivalent to over $8 billion today). While the canal was profitable, the direct financial returns never fully recovered the investment. Its strategic value, however, was immense, allowing the U.S. military and commercial ships to move quickly between oceans.
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which transferred control of the canal to Panama by 1999. This handover fulfilled a promise to respect Panamanian sovereignty, and since then, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) has successfully managed the canal, generating billions in revenue for Panama’s economy.
The Ports and Hutchison’s Role
While Panama manages the canal, the Ports of Balboa (Pacific side) and Cristóbal (Atlantic side), which handle much of the canal’s shipping traffic, are operated by Hutchison Ports PPC. Hutchison is a subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-based company originally founded in the 19th century as a British trading firm. In the 1970s, the company was acquired by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing, who expanded its global operations.
Today, Hutchison Ports operates 53 ports in 24 countries, making it one of the largest port operators in the world. While it began as a British company, its modern headquarters in Hong Kong and the increasing influence of the Chinese government over Hong Kong raise concerns about Beijing’s potential control over strategic infrastructure like Panama’s ports.
Why China’s Involvement Matters
Since the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China, Beijing has steadily increased its influence over the region, especially after implementing the National Security Law in 2020. This has led to fears that companies like Hutchison Ports, while nominally independent, could be pressured by the Chinese government to serve its geopolitical interests.
Ports are not just logistical hubs; they are critical for managing global trade. Controlling port operations near the Panama Canal could give China the ability to monitor or disrupt shipping in the event of a geopolitical conflict. While there’s no evidence that this has happened, the potential risk alarms policymakers in Washington.
Trump’s Concerns About Panama
Donald Trump has repeatedly raised the issue of China’s growing influence near the Panama Canal, even suggesting that the U.S. might need to “take back” the canal. His concerns stem from the canal’s importance as a chokepoint for global trade and the fear that China’s presence could undermine U.S. security and economic interests.
While such rhetoric appeals to those wary of China, the reality is more complicated. Reclaiming the canal would violate the Torrijos-Carter Treaties and damage U.S.-Panama relations. Moreover, Panama has operated the canal efficiently and fairly since taking control, maintaining its neutrality and accessibility to all nations.
Panama’s Position in the Geopolitical Struggle
It’s important to note that Panama is not to blame for the current situation. The country awarded the port concessions to Hutchison in 1997, before China’s influence over Hong Kong became a major concern. Since then, Panama has modernized and expanded the canal, even completing a $5.25 billion expansion project in 2016 to accommodate larger ships. The canal now generates billions annually and contributes significantly to Panama’s economy.
Panama continues to manage the canal responsibly, adhering to its commitments under the Neutrality Treaty, which ensures the waterway remains open to all nations. However, its reliance on foreign operators like Hutchison for port management leaves it caught in the middle of the U.S.-China rivalry.
The Broader Implications for Global Trade
Trump’s concerns highlight the broader issue of China’s global ambitions. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has invested in ports and infrastructure worldwide, increasing its influence over key trade routes. While Panama’s ports are just one piece of this puzzle, their proximity to the canal magnifies their strategic importance.
The challenge for the U.S. is to counter China’s influence without undermining Panama’s sovereignty or the canal’s neutrality. Strengthening diplomatic ties with Panama and offering economic incentives to diversify its partnerships may be a more effective approach than escalating tensions.
Conclusion: A Canal in the Crosshairs
The Panama Canal remains a vital link in global trade, and its surrounding infrastructure has become a focal point in the growing rivalry between the U.S. and China. While Donald Trump’s concerns about Chinese influence are not unfounded, addressing them requires a careful balance of diplomacy, economic engagement, and respect for Panama’s sovereignty. In this new era of geopolitics, securing the future of the canal will depend on collaboration, not confrontation.
Sign up for an annual Locals membership now through January 1st and Chuck will personally send you a signed book as a thank-you. The annual plan is currently discounted to only $5 a month, saving you $48 for the year.
To receive your book, you must join with an annual membership, then email [email protected] with your mailing address and your book choice.
Supplies are limited to what we have in stock.
Be careful about these Victor Davis Hanson videos. They are AI fakes. He has been pointing them out on his real show VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, IN HIS OWN WORDS on the Daily Signal.
Reminder: Live Call with Chuck Tomorrow at 12PM
Join Chuck Holton and the Hot Zone crew tomorrow, December 20th at 12PM for a special live call!
We’ll be announcing the winners of the Christmas giveaway and giving you an inside look at what’s coming next for The Hot Zone.
Breaking news this Saturday: three Americans are dead in Syria tonight, three more are wounded, and the attack—described by U.S. Central Command as an ambush carried out by a lone ISIS gunman—has once again dragged the Syrian war back into the American consciousness for a few brief hours, which is usually all the time the public gives it before the news cycle moves on and the families are left to carry the weight alone.
CENTCOM says two of the dead were U.S. service members and one was an American civilian contractor, and that the attacker was engaged and killed as well, with names being withheld until next of kin are notified, which is the right thing to do; but even with those official facts in hand, I want to slow the pace down a little bit and do what I always try to do here—put this in context—because in a place like Syria, the story you get in the headline is almost never the story that explains why this happened.
I’m not interested in reporting tragedy like it’s a scoreboard, and I’m not interested in repeating a paragraph of breaking news without the background that makes it intelligible; I spent eight years in the military, and I’ve spent more than twenty years following the U.S. military across the globe—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria included, with more than a dozen trips into Afghanistan, roughly fifteen into Iraq, and seven or so into Syria—so when Americans die in a place most people couldn’t find on a map, I feel a responsibility to show you what the map actually means.
The reported location of the attack is Palmyra—Palmira on some maps—an ancient city in central Syria that sits on the edge of a brutal expanse of desert, the kind of wide open, sun-blasted country where outsiders assume nothing lives and nothing happens, when in reality it’s exactly the kind of terrain insurgents love because “nothing” is a perfect disguise, a perfect place to move, cache weapons, blend into small villages, disappear into wadis, and wait for opportunities.
Palmyra also sits inside territory controlled by Syria’s new administration under Ahmed al-Sharaa, and if that name makes you pause, it should, because this is where Syrian politics gets complicated in the way only Syria can do: al-Sharaa rose through jihadist ranks, he has a history tied to insurgent warfare against Americans in Iraq, he was captured and held for years, and he later returned to Syria and consolidated power with strong Turkish backing—so when you hear phrases like “new Syrian administration” or “transitional government,” don’t imagine a Western-style democracy that suddenly appeared out of the sand; imagine a patchwork of militias, alliances of convenience, old enemies wearing new uniforms, and a leadership class that wants international legitimacy while carrying a past that cannot be scrubbed clean with a new suit and a new flag.
Now layer on top of that the reality that ISIS is not gone from Syria, not even close.
U.S. estimates have long suggested there are still roughly 2,000 to 3,000 ISIS fighters operating in and around the central Syrian desert, and there are far more than that if you include facilitators, family networks, financiers, and the enormous number of ISIS-linked detainees and relatives held in camps and makeshift prisons; and while that fight has mostly slipped out of the American public’s view, it continues quietly, relentlessly, week after week, because the moment pressure is relieved in a place like this, the violence doesn’t fade—it regroups.
The United States currently has about 900 troops in Syria, a number that matters because it tells you how thin the margin is between “containment” and “collapse,” especially when the enemy has deep local roots and decades of practice living off the land and off the grievances of the people around them; and those American troops are there for one primary purpose: to keep a lid on ISIS so we don’t wake up one day to another wave of mass executions, terror-state governance, and regional destabilization that forces the world back into a far more expensive war.
That’s the mission, and it’s not abstract; when ISIS surged the last time, the human cost was staggering, and it wasn’t paid by politicians or pundits—it was paid by Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish fighters, civilians, and yes, Americans too—and the reason our presence in Syria still functions as a deterrent is that in a powder keg region, a small, capable American footprint has a way of discouraging ambitious actors from taking the final step that turns instability into open war.
But here is the part that doesn’t get said out loud very often: the mission in Syria is increasingly tangled up in partnerships that are, at best, uneasy and, at worst, morally and strategically risky.
I’m coming to you today from Panama, where I’ve been digging into a story that’s far bigger than most people realize. It involves a shadowy network of ships—1,423 of them at last count—that roam the world’s oceans moving sanctioned oil for regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Some call it the dark fleet, others the ghost fleet, but whatever the name, it’s become a lifeline for the world’s worst dictators.
Out of those 1,423 vessels, roughly 920 are sanctioned themselves. These aren’t just ships doing business in a gray area—they are part of a global ecosystem of deception, fraud, and corruption that props up authoritarian governments and undermines the international rules that keep maritime trade safe. They spoof GPS signals, turn off their transponders, swap oil with “cleaner” tankers in the dead of night, operate under shell-company ownership, and sail uninsured—floating environmental disasters just waiting to happen.
And for years, not much was done about it. But that may be changing.
Just days ago, the United States seized a massive VLCC tanker—the Skipper—carrying 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for Cuba. It’s a move that seems small on its own, but it hints at something larger: Washington may finally be realizing that targeting the dark fleet isn’t just desirable—it’s strategically powerful.
That raises a fascinating question: What would happen if the U.S. and its allies cracked down hard on these ghost ships—everywhere, all at once? Could it reshape global power? Could it even topple Maduro?
Let’s dig into that.
These ghost ships function by exploiting cracks in the global maritime system. They manipulate AIS beacons, swap oil mid-ocean, hide ownership behind layers of shell companies, fly false flags, and operate without legitimate insurance. The UN’s maritime regulator has warned that these rusted, poorly maintained hulks are ticking time bombs—and we’ve already seen “Ukrainian sanctions” in action when Ukrainian sea drones blew up several shadow-fleet tankers in the Black Sea.
Imagine what happens if one of these decrepit tankers explodes in a global choke point like the Strait of Hormuz. You’d see a shock to oil markets overnight.
And yet, that’s the system that keeps Venezuela, Iran, and Russia afloat.
The seizure of the Skipper wasn’t random. It’s part of a broader pressure campaign—one that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has openly supported. He said plainly that going after these vessels is a direct way to choke off the revenue Maduro depends on to stay in power.
Pompeo also noted something key: Maduro’s regime probably has “weeks, not months” of financial runway without this illicit revenue stream. And Cuba—already experiencing rolling blackouts—relies on Venezuela for about a quarter of its total energy supply. This single tanker seizure hurts Havana even more than Caracas.
But perhaps the most important variable is geography. Satellite data reveals dozens of sanctioned tankers parked just off Venezuela’s northern coast. In theory, if the U.S. waits for them to exit Venezuela’s 200-mile EEZ, it could legally seize many of them—especially the stateless ones.
Imagine the U.S. grabbing one tanker per day.
The ripple effects would be enormous.
