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
September 18, 2025
Benjamin Netanyahu Explains the Israeli Economy

Netanyahu was once Israeli Finance Minister - and it shows. He understands a lot about economics, and is worth listening to in order to get a sense for where Israel's economy is headed.

00:08:49
September 12, 2025
Video of Kirk’s Killer

BREAKING: The FBI and state of Utah have just released video of the Charlie Kirk kiIIer escaping from the scene following the shooting

He jumped off the rooftop, moved quickly through the parking lot, and then began walking casually to blend in before entering a wooded area.

He was wearing converse tennis shoes, a shirt with an eagle, and a baseball cap with a triangle.

00:00:43
September 07, 2025
Houthi Drone Strikes Israel - Two Wounded

Three Houthi drones were fired at Israel on Sunday. Two were shot down and the third struck the airport in Eilat, Wounding to his Israelis and causing the airspace to be shut down.

00:00:07
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
September 30, 2025
Watch Hegseth's Full Speech
September 30, 2025

According to local media so far only 2 protesters have been arrested in Portland since Saturday. And the national guard doesn't arrive until next week. It seems the police are in denial that it's getting worse.

According to independent media Antifa has arrived and creating CHAOS.

October 01, 2025

This was the letter that was written and sent to the Prince of Qatar 2 weeks ago. To the most noble Ruler of Qatar. Sir, I feel moved to write you concerning what I am hearing from The Lord God who I strive to follow

I will write it down as I hear it for your concideration. Thus saith The Lord God of Israel, The God of Abraham, The God of Ishmael, The God of Adnan,

What fault have you found in Me says The Lord God, have I not kept My Word to Ishmael and raised up 12 princes and made them to be a great

nation? But you have have made my blessing into that which should not be. You use my kindness to sow division against your brother Isaac

and call behind closed doors for His death, you keep that wicked man Haman who hates my heritage and allow Him to hurt Me through my Son Israel.

I will send confusion into to your land and cast fire on your walls if you do not repent. Consider your ways for I will judge you with

a rod of iron, repent for I come quickly saith The Mighty God. Amen

September 30, 2025
post photo preview
“We’re Not the Department of Woke”: What Hegseth Really Told America’s Generals

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth hauled every U.S. flag officer—generals and admirals, more than 800 of them—into Quantico. Not a Zoom, not a memo, not a mil-spec Teams call where everybody’s muted and nobody knows it. In person. Fly in, sit down, look the man in the eye.

Why? Because he wanted to deliver a change of era, not just a change of policy.

There was plenty of speculation beforehand—some of it silly (coup, anyone?). I told you last week the simplest answer was the right one: he was going to reset the culture of the U.S. military. And that’s exactly what he did. Trump showed up and spoke too, but let’s be honest—his improv rallies don’t land like a disciplined, written, memorized commander’s brief. Hegseth’s remarks were the speech I’ve been praying to hear from a SecDef—or in this case, a Secretary of War—since before the Obama years.

From Defense to War

Hegseth’s core thesis was simple enough to tattoo on a forearm: we fight wars to win. Defense is constant; war is rare, decisive, and done on our terms. We do not hobble warfighters with needlessly restrictive rules of engagement. We intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and—if necessary—kill the enemies of the United States. Full stop.

That’s not bloodlust. That’s clarity. And clarity saves lives—ours.

The Standards Are Back (and Some of You Won’t Like It)

This is where some folks in that auditorium started sweating through their Class As.

Hegseth rolled out ten directives—think of them as the “1991 Test.” If you served back then, you know the vibe: meritocracy, combat readiness, no social engineering, no endless PowerPoints replacing range time.

  • One combat standard. Every designated combat-arms job returns to the highest male standard of performance—because physics doesn’t care about feelings. Women who meet the standard? Welcome. But there’s no “pink PT chart” in a firefight.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
September 29, 2025
post photo preview
Why Trump’s Portland Guard Order Isn’t “Fascism,” It’s Familiar — And Necessary

A lot went down over the weekend: a cluster of targeted violent incidents nationwide, and a political fistfight over President Trump’s decision to federalize 200 Oregon National Guard soldiers for duty in Portland under Title 10.

Online, the usual chorus is screaming “authoritarian!” and “fascist!” Let’s slow down, look at what’s actually happening, and stack it against history and the law.

 

What Trump Ordered — And Why It Matters

  • The order: At the request of DHS, the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth federalized roughly 200 Oregon Guard troops to help protect federal facilities in Portland (notably the ICE facility) and restore order around recurring violent “protests.”

  • Immediate response: Oregon’s governor, Portland’s mayor Keith Wilson, and a constellation of activist groups filed lawsuits alleging constitutional violations and abuse of the Insurrection Act.

  • The rhetoric: Social feeds lit up with claims this is a “loyalty test,” “martial law,” and a “dry run” for wider crackdowns.

Reality check: Courts have long given presidents wide discretion to define when conditions for the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–253) are met. If federal law is being obstructed, federal property attacked, or civil rights denied and local authorities are unwilling or unable to act, the President may federalize Guard units and even deploy active-duty forces. That’s black-letter law, not a Twitter take.

 

“Isn’t That Posse Comitatus?” Yes — And No

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
September 27, 2025
post photo preview
5 Years Later: Why the 2020 War Still Haunts My Heart

Today marks five years since the guns fell silent after 44 brutal days of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2020. As I sit down to reflect, this anniversary feels more than a date—it stirs memories, scars, and hope. This war wasn’t just another conflict I covered. It touched me personally. I returned to this land with my son Nathan, and here, in Armenia, he met the woman who would become his wife, Rubina. That made the struggle of this small nation deeply personal for my family as well.

 

A Reporter’s Lens: War in the Caucasus

When Azerbaijan launched its offensive on September 27, 2020, the world watched with confusion. This was not a simple border clash. The fighting engulfed Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh), pushing Armenian civilians into shelters, raining down bombs on Stepanakert, and scarring historic sites like the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, struck twice in early October.

I traveled there as a war correspondent. I watched children run from collapsing buildings, spoke with mothers clutching their infants in darkness, and heard stories of horrific violence—neighbors beheaded in Hadrut, homes razed, communities erased.

I made it clear then—and I still say it: Azerbaijan’s assault on civilian targets was cowardly. Journalists in marked cars were struck by drones despite no military presence nearby. That’s not war. That’s terrorism.

When Shushi was lost in early November, the strategic heart of the region, hope began to dim. The ceasefire that followed on November 9 solidified a painful reality: Karabakh, once held by Armenians for decades, was now under Baku’s control.

 

Why It Became Personal

I’ve covered wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. But Armenia is more than a foreign assignment for me. Over time, it became home in my heart.

  • My Son, My Return: I came back to Armenia with Nathan, my boy, to show him a land of resilience, ancient stone churches, and people with stories deeper than any war.

  • Nathan and Rubina: Here, my son met Rubina, the woman who would become his wife. Armenia became part of my family’s story, woven into our future as well as its past.

  • Witnessing Loss in Real Time: I was on the ground, breathing the dust, smelling the smoke, hearing the shells. I saw what this conflict meant to families whose roots here grew centuries deep.

 

What the Reporting Unearthed

From day one, I heard consistent claims: hospitals, apartment buildings, schools, places of worship were systematically targeted. Ghazanchetsots Cathedral’s shelling was more than collateral damage—it was a symbol. Countless reports confirmed use of munitions with wide-area effects, including cluster bombs, in civilian zones.

One local woman in Hadrut region told me her neighbor was beheaded—his body left on the road as a warning. These stories haunted me. The silence afterward felt complicit.

Even clearly marked press vehicles were struck. Drones tracked us. Some of our team fled shelling zones under fire. We had no illusions. This was part of the message: don’t record, don’t tell, or you, too, will be erased.

The Strategic & Geopolitical Layers

  • Turkey’s Role: Armenia and some observers accused Turkey of sending Syrian mercenaries to support Azerbaijan.

  • Energy & Grid Power: Seizing energy and infrastructure routes was central to the timing of the invasion.

  • Asymmetric Warfare: Drones, electronic warfare, artillery barrages—this was not 20th-century trench war. It was modern brutality.

 

Five Years After: What Has Changed, What Hasn’t

What Changed

  • Territory Lost: Much of Karabakh under Armenian control is now under Baku.

  • Diaspora Wounds: Thousands displaced, heritage sites under threat, memories in danger of being buried.

  • Global Awareness: The world now knows Karabakh is not just a footnote—Armenia’s struggle is visible to those with ears to listen.

What Hasn’t

  • Accountability: There has been zero justice for many war crimes.

  • Repair of Heritage: Churches, monasteries, cemeteries destroyed or vandalized remain inaccessible.

  • True Peace: What pass as “armistice” terms still hold tension, uncertainty, and fear.

My Prayer, My Call

On this 5th anniversary, here’s what I believe:

  • Never forget. Tell the stories. Share the images. Honor the displaced.

  • Stand for justice, not only peace. You cannot build peace on silence.

  • Support Armenian voices—local journalists, families, survivors. They carry truth where conflict lingers.

  • Believe love persists. Amid bombing and rubble, my family found a new connection to this land. Armenia is no longer just a place I covered—it’s part of my family’s heritage through Rubina and Nathan. That bond, in its small everyday form, resists erasure.

If you’ve followed me on this path, you know I don’t believe in hopeless causes. I believe in people resilient enough to rebuild. Five years later, Armenia still stands—not merely because it must, but because it chooses to carry memory forward.

May this anniversary awaken hearts, sharpen dialogue, and demand the world look—not away.

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