Follow us on social

Hegseth and Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino

US troops headed to Panama

Deal struck with government there falls short of reinstalling American bases, however

Reporting | QiOSK

U.S. troops are now set to deploy near the Panama canal for military training, exercises and "other activities,” as per a new joint deal with the Panamanian government.

The deal, seen by AFP on Thursday, comes as an apparent concession to President Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to retake the major global trade route from Panama if it failed to reduce or axe fees it charged to American vessels passing through there.

“We’re going to take [the canal] back, or something very powerful is going to happen,” Trump alleged in early February.

Notably, the deal walks back previous assertions by Hegseth, who posited on Wednesday that the U.S. could, “by invitation,” even “revive” military bases previously used in Panama to “secure [its] sovereignty.” Instead, American troops will be deployed to Panama-controlled facilities — though some of these facilities will be American built-ones, erected in Panama decades ago when it still occupied the canal zone.

“Panama made clear, through President Mulino, that we cannot accept military bases or defense sites,” Panama’s security minister, Frank Abrego, explained in a Wednesday appearance with Hegseth.

Critically, the U.S. military deal advances amid uncertainties regarding Washington’s recognition of Panamanian sovereignty, thrown into question by Trump’s repeated calls to “take back” the canal since returning to office.

A Spanish-language version of an April 8 joint U.S.-Panama statement said that Hegseth “recognized the leadership and inalienable sovereignty of Panama over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas.” The English version of the joint statement, however, does not contain the same assertion.

And when asked about the U.S. recognition of Panamanian sovereignty on Wednesday, Hegseth sidestepped the question, framing it about protecting Panama from other “malign influence.” “We certainly understand that the Panama Canal is in Panama, and protecting Panamanian sovereignty from malign influence is important,” he said. Leaving Panama, however, Hegseth told reporters that "we certainly respect the sovereignty of the Panamanians and the Panama Canal."

Hegseth likewise alleged on Wednesday that the U.S. is “taking back the canal from Chinese influence. That involves partnership with the United States and Panama.” Such comments, notably, are made in tandem with a quickly escalating tariff-sparked trade spat between the U.S. and China.

In early March, Trump previously lauded plans for a consortium led by controversial U.S. asset manager BlackRock to buy key Panama Canal ports; these plans may be tripped up as Hong-Kong based port investor CK Hutchinson, who was to sell ports to Blackrock, has come under fire over unpaid fees and its lack of relevant clearances for some of the ports.

Controlling the region surrounding the canal since 1903, the U.S. had returned the canal to Panama in 1999. And now, it seems, some of that influence, in the form of U.S. military is creeping back.


Top Image Credit: U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth meets with Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino, in Panama City, Panama April 9, 2025. REUTERS/Aris Martinez
Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.