Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

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
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.