In a provocative move, US President Donald Trump has demanded that American military and commercial ships pass through the Panama and Suez Canals without paying transit fees, citing the United States’ historical contributions to these critical waterways. The announcement, made via Truth Social, has ignited diplomatic debates and raised questions about international law, trade, and geopolitics. The Interview Times examines the facts behind Trump’s claim and its potential impact.
Trump’s Statement and Intent
President Trump’s Truth Social post declared, “American Ships, both Military and Commercial, should be allowed to travel, free of charge, through the Panama and Suez Canals!” He directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to secure this policy, arguing that the canals “would not exist” without US involvement. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz echoed this sentiment, particularly for the Panama Canal, stating the US “shouldn’t have to pay to use a canal” it built. The announcement aligns with Trump’s broader agenda to counter Chinese influence and assert American dominance in global trade routes.
Must Read: How Is a Pope Elected? A Detailed Guide to the Papal Conclave
Panama Canal: A US Legacy with Modern Constraints
The Panama Canal, a 51-mile engineering marvel connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, was built by the US between 1904 and 1914. The US controlled the canal until 1999, when it was transferred to Panama under the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties. These treaties ensure the canal’s neutrality and mandate that all vessels, including those from the US, pay tolls based on size and cargo. Fees for large commercial ships can exceed $400,000 per transit, while US military vessels enjoy priority but not exemptions.
Trump’s argument hinges on the US’s historical role, but Panama’s sovereignty and the treaty’s equal-treatment clause undermine his demand. In February 2025, Panama reportedly offered free passage for US warships, but President José Raúl Mulino rejected broader exemptions for commercial vessels. A US State Department claim of free transit for government ships was also debunked by Panama, highlighting ongoing friction.
Suez Canal: No US Connection, Big Economic Stakes
The Suez Canal, a 120-mile Egyptian waterway linking the Mediterranean and Red Seas, was constructed in 1869 by a French company and later managed by Britain until Egypt’s 1956 nationalization. The US played no direct role in its development, though it has bolstered Egypt’s control through aid. The 1888 Convention of Constantinople guarantees free passage for all nations’ ships, subject to tolls set by Egypt, which earned $7 billion annually before a 60% revenue drop in 2024 due to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.
Trump’s claim that the Suez Canal owes its existence to the US lacks evidence. Egypt’s reliance on canal revenue—now down $800 million monthly—makes fee waivers for US ships improbable, as they would further strain Egypt’s economy.
Must Read: China Quietly Exempts Key U.S. Goods from 125% Tariffs, Easing Pressure on Critical Industries
Geopolitical Context
Panama and the China Factor
Trump’s demand coincides with efforts to curb Chinese influence near the Panama Canal. The US has criticized Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison’s management of the Balboa and Cristobal ports, alleging ties to Beijing, though Panama and China deny this. In March 2025, CK Hutchison sold a 90% stake in these ports to a US-led consortium backed by BlackRock, a deal Trump hailed as “reclaiming” the canal’s gateways. Despite this, the canal itself remains under Panama’s control, and Mulino has defended its neutrality against Trump’s threats of military action or repossession, which would likely violate international law.
Suez and Middle East Tensions
The Suez Canal’s inclusion in Trump’s plan is less straightforward. Houthi attacks, tied to the Gaza conflict, have disrupted traffic, forcing ships to detour around Africa and slashing Egypt’s revenue. Trump’s call for free passage may be a gesture to Egypt, a US ally, but it ignores Egypt’s financial dependence on tolls. No official Egyptian response has surfaced, suggesting the proposal lacks momentum.
Challenges and Implications
Trump’s demand faces steep obstacles. The Panama Canal’s neutrality treaty and the Suez Canal’s international agreements prohibit preferential treatment, requiring complex renegotiations to grant US exemptions. Economically, waiving fees for the US—whose ships account for nearly half of Panama Canal transits—could cost Panama and Egypt millions annually. Diplomatically, the move risks alienating allies and fueling accusations of US overreach, particularly in Latin America, where Trump’s rhetoric has already drawn ire.
The policy also reflects Trump’s transactional approach to foreign relations, prioritizing US interests over multilateral norms. While it may resonate with his base, it could complicate ties with Panama and Egypt, both of which guard their canal revenues fiercely.
Conclusion
President Trump’s push for free US ship passage through the Panama and Suez Canals is a bold but contentious proposal rooted in historical grievances rather than legal or practical realities. While the Panama Canal’s American origins lend some weight to his argument, the Suez Canal claim lacks grounding, and both demands face formidable barriers. As Secretary Rubio navigates these talks, The Interview Times will track the fallout from this high-stakes gambit in global trade and diplomacy.