Chuck Holton
Politics • Culture • News
BlackRock’s Panama Ports Buyout
A Shift in Power, But At What Cost?
March 05, 2025

In one of the biggest infrastructure deals in recent history, BlackRock and its partners have purchased control of the Panama Ports Company (PPC) for $22.8 billion, taking over the management of two critical ports at either end of the Panama Canal. The deal removes Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, a company with deep connections to China, from managing these ports—seemingly a win for U.S. influence in the region.

But while this deal shifts control away from a China-linked company, it also hands even more power to BlackRock, a massive investment firm that already has an outsized role in shaping global business and government policies. The question we should be asking is: Does this really reduce foreign influence in Panama, or does it just transfer it to a different kind of global giant?

Who (or What) Is BlackRock?

BlackRock isn’t just another investment firm—it’s the largest asset manager in the world, controlling a staggering $11.5 trillion in assets. To put that into perspective:

  • That’s more than five times the size of Russia’s entire economy.
  • If BlackRock were a country, its financial power would make it the 3rd largest economy on Earth, ahead of Japan, Germany, and the UK.
  • It has more financial influence than most governments and controls major stakes in companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and ExxonMobil.

But BlackRock doesn’t just invest—it influences. Through its vast holdings in publicly traded companies, it has the ability to push corporate policies, steer industries, and even shape government decisions. This power has led to concerns that BlackRock is a shadow government in its own right, accountable only to itself and its shareholders.

The Panama Ports Buyout: What It Means

BlackRock’s takeover of the Panama Canal’s key ports isn’t just about business—it’s about geopolitics. These ports control much of the traffic passing through one of the world’s most strategic waterways, giving whoever manages them an enormous advantage in global trade.

The buyout does remove CK Hutchison Holdings, a company with ties to China, which has eased concerns from U.S. policymakers about potential Chinese espionage or military use of the ports. But here’s the catch:

This doesn’t mean China is losing influence in Panama or Latin America.

  • China still has deep economic ties with Panama, including major infrastructure projects and trade agreements.
  • Beijing continues to fund massive projects across Latin America, from railways to power plants, ensuring its long-term presence.
  • If China wants port access, it can still use other state-owned companies like COSCO to secure new logistics hubs in the region.

So while this deal shifts control away from China-linked Hutchison, it doesn’t eliminate China’s influence—it just redistributes power in a different way.

Why BlackRock’s Influence Is a Bigger Concern

While BlackRock isn’t a foreign government, its power is just as concerning in many ways. Here’s why:

1. BlackRock controls more money than almost any nation.

💰 With $11.5 trillion in assets, BlackRock manages more wealth than every country in the world except the U.S. and China.

2. It has a major stake in nearly every major corporation.

🏢 BlackRock owns significant shares in Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and nearly every Fortune 500 company.

3. It can influence corporate policies behind closed doors.

📝 Because of its massive holdings, BlackRock can push companies to adopt policies aligned with its goals—whether it’s on climate, diversity, or governance.

4. It has deep connections with the U.S. government.

🏛️ Former BlackRock executives have held top positions in the Biden administration, leading to accusations of a “revolving door” between Wall Street and Washington.

5. It is one of the largest landlords in America.

🏠 BlackRock has invested billions in real estate, buying up homes and raising housing prices for regular people.

6. It pushes controversial “ESG” policies.

🌍 BlackRock promotes “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) policies, influencing corporate decisions on climate and diversity—whether investors agree or not.

7. It operates with little transparency.

🕵️ Unlike elected governments, BlackRock is accountable only to itself and its investors, not to the public.

8. It is expanding its control over global infrastructure.

🚢 The Panama ports deal is part of a larger BlackRock strategy to buy up critical infrastructure, including power plants and railways.

9. It can shift economic policies without public input.

📉 By pulling investments from certain industries (like fossil fuels), BlackRock can steer entire economies—without voters having a say.

10. Governments are now dependent on it.

🌐 Because BlackRock manages pension funds and government assets, even world leaders have to consider its interests.

What’s the Real Takeaway?

Yes, this deal prevents a China-linked company from running the Panama Canal’s major ports, and that’s a big deal. But at what cost? We’ve simply shifted control from one foreign influence to another—one that’s just as powerful but far less accountable.

China isn’t really losing ground in Latin America—it still has deep economic roots in Panama and beyond. Meanwhile, BlackRock continues to grow its empire, quietly amassing influence over global commerce, national economies, and even government policies.

This deal might be a strategic move for U.S. influence in the region, but it also raises serious concerns about corporate power, economic sovereignty, and the unchecked influence of global finance. If BlackRock keeps expanding its control over strategic assets like ports, energy, and infrastructure, we may soon find ourselves in a world where corporations—not countries—set the rules of global trade and governance.

So while this is a win for the U.S. government, it may also be a step toward an even bigger problem: the concentration of global power in the hands of a few unelected corporate giants.

🔹 The question we should all be asking: If BlackRock already has more financial influence than most countries, how much more control are we willing to give it?

community logo
Join the Chuck Holton Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
14
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
More Fraud - This Time in Ohio
00:01:39
Do American Students Know Anything?

Another powerful ad for home schooling.

00:01:30
Powerful

No one in Ukraine asked for this.

00:02:32
Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce

My erstwhile field producer and cameraman Dennis Azato has accompanied me on ten years of adventures across the globe. Today he joins me in Ukraine and we spend some time remembering our many trips together.

Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce
Get a Signed Book from Chuck Holton with Your Annual Locals Membership – Limited Time Offer Ends Jan 1

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.

https://chuckholton.locals.com/support/promo/CHRISTMAS2026

post photo preview

Did Iran really declare war on the US and Europe officially? Hmmm…

December 29, 2025

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.

Christmas Special Live Call Link

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.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Three Americans Killed in Syria — and the Question Washington Doesn’t Want to Answer

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 desert isn’t empty—ISIS hides in the “nothing”

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.

Why American troops are still there—despite everything

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.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Dark Fleet Is Fueling the World’s Dictators — And the U.S. Might Finally Be Ready to Do Something About It

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.

 

A Sanctions Loophole Big Enough to Sail a Tanker Through

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 U.S. Begins to Apply Pressure

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.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals