Trump's Rhetoric on the Panama Canal Holds Deeper Implications Than It Appears
Historical trends indicate that, although voters may not be directly concerned with the canal, they are likely to be invested in the significance it embodies.
TroibNews 
“When it comes to the [Panama] Canal,” the future president intoned, “we built it, we paid for it, it’s ours, and … we are going to keep it!”
While this statement may evoke thoughts of Donald Trump, it was actually Ronald Reagan, the former California governor, who voiced these sentiments during his 1976 campaign against incumbent Gerald Ford for the Republican presidential nomination.
After experiencing losses in several early primaries, Reagan discovered a niche issue that not only energized his conservative base but also revved up his struggling campaign. Though it didn’t lead him to victory against Ford, this issue proved pivotal in his triumph over Jimmy Carter four years later.
From 1976 to 1978, the debate surrounding the future of the Panama Canal—whether it should remain a U.S. territory or return to Panamanian control—emerged as a powerful campaign theme. It had ramifications in presidential primaries and congressional races in states like Colorado, New Hampshire, and Idaho, areas distanced from Central America and seemingly without a direct interest in who controlled the canal.
With Trump currently escalating calls for Panama to return the canal to the United States, coupled with threats of military action against the Panamanian government should they refuse, the conversation has resurfaced. The topic’s peculiar nature endures even after nearly four decades.
As was true then, a large portion of the American public today seems indifferent. A recent YouGov poll indicated that 36 percent of voters support Trump’s territorial ambitions; 36 percent are opposed; and 29 percent remain undecided.
Nonetheless, similar to Reagan, Trump has repurposed the canal as a symbolic representation of national strength. In the 1970s, Americans grappled with the aftermath of the Vietnam War, stagflation, oil crises, and ultimately, the Iran hostage crisis. These combined challenges fostered concerns that America was no longer in control of its fate.
Fast forward to 2025, and many Americans perceive a nation buffeted by a global pandemic, enduring high inflation, and struggling to curb the influx of undocumented migrants and drugs.
While Americans may not hold strong feelings about reclaiming the Panama Canal, they could interpret the issue as a stand-in for broader anxieties. History shows that it resonated deeply with Reagan’s base, suggesting it may prove effective for Trump as well.
The U.S. established control over the Panama Canal through adept diplomacy, ambitious engineering, and political maneuvering in the early 20th century. In 1903, after unsuccessful negotiations with Colombia for canal rights, the U.S. backed Panama’s independence. Following its declaration of independence, the U.S. quickly recognized the new nation and signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which granted control of the Canal Zone—a ten-mile wide strip of land in Panama—to the U.S. in exchange for a $10 million payment and an annual annuity. This treaty solidified U.S. dominance and allowed for the canal’s construction, completed in 1914, which became a crucial link for maritime trade and military movement between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
However, by the 1960s, American control of the Canal Zone had become increasingly contentious. In the wake of World War II and the global anti-colonial sentiment, Panamanians grew resentful of the U.S. presence. Tensions escalated in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson issued a ban on the flying of American flags in the Canal Zone, leading to violent protests that resulted in deaths on both sides.
Johnson’s administration recognized the urgency of negotiating a new arrangement with Panama, but these efforts became more complicated after General Omar Torrijos, a strongman allied with Cuba, took power in a 1968 coup. His regime sparked resistance from conservative lawmakers back in the U.S., though mainstream opinion among Republicans and Democrats agreed on the need for a resolution. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger expressed concern that the status quo could lead to U.S. entanglement in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam. By February 1974, a framework for a new treaty was developed, which became a focus for Ford’s administration following Nixon's resignation.
Reagan’s focus on the canal came about somewhat unexpectedly. In a bid to secure a last-minute win during the North Carolina GOP primary, he followed the counsel of conservative Senator Jesse Helms, who assured him that the issue would resonate with the party’s right wing. Helms was correct; Reagan capitalized on the canal’s symbolic significance, securing 52 percent of the vote. Although he ultimately lost the nomination, he had identified an issue that resonated with a key segment of voters.
After Ford’s loss to Carter, as the latter persisted with diplomatic efforts initiated by previous administrations, the canal issue remained a battle cry for conservative candidates. It played a pivotal role in Senate races in 1978, contributing to the defeats of Democrats Thomas McIntyre in New Hampshire and Floyd Haskell in Colorado. Several Democrats who supported the treaty promoting the canal's transfer to Panama faced fierce attacks from GOP opponents, resulting in significant losses, including incumbents Frank Church, Richard Stone, and George McGovern in 1980. Reagan effectively harnessed this theme in his successful campaign against Carter that same year.
So, why did the Panama Canal become such a polarizing issue? More than the canal itself, it represented broader concerns during a tumultuous period in U.S. history.
Ford faced the fallout from the chaotic withdrawal from Vietnam, with millions of viewers witnessing the desperate evacuation from the U.S. embassy in Saigon. At the same time, the economy struggled, with inflation reaching 16.8 percent and unemployment peaking at 8.9 percent. For many conservatives, relinquishing control of a strategic trade route to a small, seemingly insignificant nation under communist influence epitomized America’s decline.
Carter inherited an even graver situation, grappling with persistently high inflation and unemployment. The oil crisis of 1977 paralyzed American gas supplies, leading to widespread shortages and frustration. The severe blow to American pride arrived on November 4, 1979, when Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking hostages for over a year. This crisis, along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that same year, amplified a sense of national despair.
“1980 was pure hell,” remembered Hamilton Jordan, Carter’s chief-of-staff. “It was one crisis after another.”
In such turbulent times, the canal issue resonated once more. Just as in 1976, amidst a barrage of adverse news, Americans felt as though the country was unraveling. In this political landscape, a topic that had previously gone unnoticed emerged as a significant metaphor for American strength.
Could the Panama Canal regain that same significance in 2025?
Rhetorically, Trump has asserted that if Panama fails to lower shipping costs for U.S. freight, “we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question. We’re not going to stand for it. So to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.”
Does Trump genuinely intend to breach the sovereignty of another country to reclaim the canal? Is he serious about invading Greenland, currently an autonomous territory of Denmark? These threats might just be rhetorical strategies, but they might also represent genuine intentions. As Trump famously puts it: We’ll see what happens.
Politically, Trump seems to be tapping into sentiments among supporters who feel that the U.S. has become a “third-world hellhole” plagued by inflation, uncontrolled immigration, drug problems, and crime. These voters yearn for displays of strength, even if those displays are largely symbolic.
Reagan successfully used the Panama Canal as a political symbol without the need for actual reclamation, and Trump is doing the same. In discussing the Panama Canal, we’re often addressing larger issues of national identity and strength. This situation reminds us to take Trump seriously as a political actor, even if his intentions are not always straightforward or literal.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
While this statement may evoke thoughts of Donald Trump, it was actually Ronald Reagan, the former California governor, who voiced these sentiments during his 1976 campaign against incumbent Gerald Ford for the Republican presidential nomination.
After experiencing losses in several early primaries, Reagan discovered a niche issue that not only energized his conservative base but also revved up his struggling campaign. Though it didn’t lead him to victory against Ford, this issue proved pivotal in his triumph over Jimmy Carter four years later.
From 1976 to 1978, the debate surrounding the future of the Panama Canal—whether it should remain a U.S. territory or return to Panamanian control—emerged as a powerful campaign theme. It had ramifications in presidential primaries and congressional races in states like Colorado, New Hampshire, and Idaho, areas distanced from Central America and seemingly without a direct interest in who controlled the canal.
With Trump currently escalating calls for Panama to return the canal to the United States, coupled with threats of military action against the Panamanian government should they refuse, the conversation has resurfaced. The topic’s peculiar nature endures even after nearly four decades.
As was true then, a large portion of the American public today seems indifferent. A recent YouGov poll indicated that 36 percent of voters support Trump’s territorial ambitions; 36 percent are opposed; and 29 percent remain undecided.
Nonetheless, similar to Reagan, Trump has repurposed the canal as a symbolic representation of national strength. In the 1970s, Americans grappled with the aftermath of the Vietnam War, stagflation, oil crises, and ultimately, the Iran hostage crisis. These combined challenges fostered concerns that America was no longer in control of its fate.
Fast forward to 2025, and many Americans perceive a nation buffeted by a global pandemic, enduring high inflation, and struggling to curb the influx of undocumented migrants and drugs.
While Americans may not hold strong feelings about reclaiming the Panama Canal, they could interpret the issue as a stand-in for broader anxieties. History shows that it resonated deeply with Reagan’s base, suggesting it may prove effective for Trump as well.
The U.S. established control over the Panama Canal through adept diplomacy, ambitious engineering, and political maneuvering in the early 20th century. In 1903, after unsuccessful negotiations with Colombia for canal rights, the U.S. backed Panama’s independence. Following its declaration of independence, the U.S. quickly recognized the new nation and signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which granted control of the Canal Zone—a ten-mile wide strip of land in Panama—to the U.S. in exchange for a $10 million payment and an annual annuity. This treaty solidified U.S. dominance and allowed for the canal’s construction, completed in 1914, which became a crucial link for maritime trade and military movement between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
However, by the 1960s, American control of the Canal Zone had become increasingly contentious. In the wake of World War II and the global anti-colonial sentiment, Panamanians grew resentful of the U.S. presence. Tensions escalated in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson issued a ban on the flying of American flags in the Canal Zone, leading to violent protests that resulted in deaths on both sides.
Johnson’s administration recognized the urgency of negotiating a new arrangement with Panama, but these efforts became more complicated after General Omar Torrijos, a strongman allied with Cuba, took power in a 1968 coup. His regime sparked resistance from conservative lawmakers back in the U.S., though mainstream opinion among Republicans and Democrats agreed on the need for a resolution. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger expressed concern that the status quo could lead to U.S. entanglement in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam. By February 1974, a framework for a new treaty was developed, which became a focus for Ford’s administration following Nixon's resignation.
Reagan’s focus on the canal came about somewhat unexpectedly. In a bid to secure a last-minute win during the North Carolina GOP primary, he followed the counsel of conservative Senator Jesse Helms, who assured him that the issue would resonate with the party’s right wing. Helms was correct; Reagan capitalized on the canal’s symbolic significance, securing 52 percent of the vote. Although he ultimately lost the nomination, he had identified an issue that resonated with a key segment of voters.
After Ford’s loss to Carter, as the latter persisted with diplomatic efforts initiated by previous administrations, the canal issue remained a battle cry for conservative candidates. It played a pivotal role in Senate races in 1978, contributing to the defeats of Democrats Thomas McIntyre in New Hampshire and Floyd Haskell in Colorado. Several Democrats who supported the treaty promoting the canal's transfer to Panama faced fierce attacks from GOP opponents, resulting in significant losses, including incumbents Frank Church, Richard Stone, and George McGovern in 1980. Reagan effectively harnessed this theme in his successful campaign against Carter that same year.
So, why did the Panama Canal become such a polarizing issue? More than the canal itself, it represented broader concerns during a tumultuous period in U.S. history.
Ford faced the fallout from the chaotic withdrawal from Vietnam, with millions of viewers witnessing the desperate evacuation from the U.S. embassy in Saigon. At the same time, the economy struggled, with inflation reaching 16.8 percent and unemployment peaking at 8.9 percent. For many conservatives, relinquishing control of a strategic trade route to a small, seemingly insignificant nation under communist influence epitomized America’s decline.
Carter inherited an even graver situation, grappling with persistently high inflation and unemployment. The oil crisis of 1977 paralyzed American gas supplies, leading to widespread shortages and frustration. The severe blow to American pride arrived on November 4, 1979, when Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking hostages for over a year. This crisis, along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that same year, amplified a sense of national despair.
“1980 was pure hell,” remembered Hamilton Jordan, Carter’s chief-of-staff. “It was one crisis after another.”
In such turbulent times, the canal issue resonated once more. Just as in 1976, amidst a barrage of adverse news, Americans felt as though the country was unraveling. In this political landscape, a topic that had previously gone unnoticed emerged as a significant metaphor for American strength.
Could the Panama Canal regain that same significance in 2025?
Rhetorically, Trump has asserted that if Panama fails to lower shipping costs for U.S. freight, “we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question. We’re not going to stand for it. So to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.”
Does Trump genuinely intend to breach the sovereignty of another country to reclaim the canal? Is he serious about invading Greenland, currently an autonomous territory of Denmark? These threats might just be rhetorical strategies, but they might also represent genuine intentions. As Trump famously puts it: We’ll see what happens.
Politically, Trump seems to be tapping into sentiments among supporters who feel that the U.S. has become a “third-world hellhole” plagued by inflation, uncontrolled immigration, drug problems, and crime. These voters yearn for displays of strength, even if those displays are largely symbolic.
Reagan successfully used the Panama Canal as a political symbol without the need for actual reclamation, and Trump is doing the same. In discussing the Panama Canal, we’re often addressing larger issues of national identity and strength. This situation reminds us to take Trump seriously as a political actor, even if his intentions are not always straightforward or literal.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
