Why the Panama Canal matters more than ever to US security



The Panama Canal, far from being a relic of a bygone era, remains a critical asset that the United States cannot afford to ignore — especially when foreign adversaries like China are capitalizing on its strategic location.

For more than a century, the canal has been vital to U.S. national security and economic interests. But when President Donald Trump recently made waves by suggesting that the U.S. should consider repurchasing it, many were quick to dismiss him as a provocateur. His remarks were not baseless, however, and he hasn’t been the first U.S. president to assert sovereignty over the critical trade route.

Trump’s call to repurchase the canal was not a random or reckless suggestion — it was a recognition of the strategic importance of this vital asset.

In 1976, Ronald Reagan declared, “The Panama Canal Zone is sovereign U.S. territory.” Following in Reagan’s footsteps, Trump declared in a series of Truth Social posts that the canal is a “vital national asset” due to its pivotal role in U.S. trade and military logistics. Indeed, the canal handles around 40% of the world’s cargo, with approximately 72% of its traffic tied to U.S. ports. This means that the U.S. depends on the smooth operation of the canal for both its economy and its security.

Moreover, the canal plays a critical military role: It is the quickest route for U.S. naval ships to transfer between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, saving thousands of miles that would otherwise require a dangerous and time-consuming detour around South America. In times of crisis, those extra 8,000 miles make all the difference.

History sets the stage

Panama exists as an independent nation because of U.S. intervention. In 1903, when Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build the canal, the U.S. supported Panama’s independence, ensuring the new country would grant America control over the Canal Zone. The U.S. built the canal at a tremendous cost — both in dollars and in human lives — and the strategic importance of this waterway has never diminished.

However, in the 1960s and ’70s, rising anti-colonial sentiments led to growing resentment in Panama toward U.S. control. Amid these tensions, the U.S. transferred control of the canal to Panama under the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaty. Despite the good intentions of that agreement, the transfer of control has created a vacuum that other nations, most notably China, are eager to fill.

China’s expansion demands a US response

China’s growing influence in Panama is not just an economic concern — it’s a national security threat.

China has been aggressively expanding its footprint in Latin America, and Panama has been one of its primary targets. Chinese companies now manage key ports along the canal, and Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has solidified Panama’s role as a critical part of China’s global strategy. Moreover, China is building a fourth bridge over the canal and has used telecommunications infrastructure to establish a firm presence in the region.

The most worrying aspect of China’s involvement is its potential for military leverage. The Panama Canal is a chokepoint — a strategic vulnerability in global trade and military operations. If tensions between the U.S. and China were to escalate, Beijing could use its influence over Panama to disrupt U.S. access to the canal, with severe consequences for both U.S. trade and naval operations.

Trump’s call to repurchase the canal was not a random or reckless suggestion — it was a recognition of the strategic importance of this vital asset.

Under current circumstances, the canal’s control is increasingly falling under the sway of a nation that does not share U.S. interests. With Chinese tech companies like Huawei involved in the region and Chinese-built surveillance systems monitoring the canal, the risk of espionage or sabotage cannot be ignored.

A threat to national sovereignty?

While Panama’s president may assert that the canal “belongs to Panama,” the reality is that the canal’s significance extends far beyond Panamanian borders. It is a key asset in the global balance of power, and its strategic importance to U.S. national security cannot be overstated.

Trump was right to bring it back into the spotlight. If we are to maintain our status as a global superpower, we must ensure that our vital trade routes and military chokepoints remain under friendly control.

The Panama Canal is not a relic of American imperialism, as the media is attempting to portray — it is a linchpin in the U.S. economy and defense strategy. As China’s influence continues to grow in Latin America, we must re-evaluate our position on the canal. Trump’s stance may prove essential for safeguarding America’s future. The time to act is now, before the canal becomes yet another piece of infrastructure that is no longer in America’s sphere of influence.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Trump expands list of proposed American conquests: 'The Golden Age of America is upon us'



President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly joked about Canada beating out both Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to become the 51st state. It's clear, however, he has a mind to taking territory besides that hugging the 49th parallel.

Adopting a more serious tone over the weekend, Trump suggested the possibility of taking over the Panama Canal and expressed a renewed interest in acquiring Greenland.

Trump's comments, particularly those about Panama — which he followed up with an image of an American flag hoisted above the canal — have caused quite a stir. While some supporters at home celebrated the apparent revival of the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, foreign officials presently occupying the proposed conquests have denounced Trump's suggestions.

'United States Canal!'

Trump suggested in a lengthy Truth Social post on Saturday that the Panama Canal, over which communist China is increasingly exerting influence and where fees are high and capacity is limited, "is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America's Economy and National Security."

'Our Navy and Commerce have been treated in a very unfair and injudicious way.'

"A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. commerce, and rapid deployment of the Navy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and drastically cuts shopping times to U.S. ports," wrote Trump. "The United States is the Number One user of the Canal, with over 70 percent of all transits heading to, or from, U.S. ports. Considered one of the Wonders of the Modern World, the Panama Canal opened for business 110 years ago, and was built at HUGE cost to the United States in lives and treasure — 38,000 American men died from infected mosquitos in the jungles during construction."

A Dec. 17 Congressional Research Service report noted that American military leaders are concerned over the presence of Chinese military-linked companies along the canal and the security threats they pose.

Freight Waves noted that China controls ports at both ends of the canal through Hutchinson Ports PPC, a Hong Kong-based company closely linked to the regime in Beijing. In addition to China's management of the ports of Balboa and Cristobal, Chinese economic engagement in the region — particularly after Panama joined China's imperialistic Belt and Road Initiative — has put it in a position to potentially manipulate canal operations.

Severe regional drought conditions affecting Gatun Lake, which supplies much of the water necessary for the operation of the canal's locks, led to restrictions on daily ship transits late last year and into 2024. In the months that followed, the neutrality of the waterway became an especially contentious issue.

The U.S. secured the right to build and operate the canal and control five miles of land on either side of the passage in 1904 in exchange for annual payments. Democratic President Jimmy Carter agreed in 1977 to relinquish American control over the canal by the year 2000.

Trump emphasized in his remarks that Carter's agreement specified that the waterway must be "permanently neutral."

"It was likewise not given for Panama to charge the United States, its Navy, and corporations, doing business within our Country, exorbitant prices and rates of passage," continued Trump. "Our Navy and Commerce have been treated in a very unfair and injudicious way. The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the U.S."

'We'll see about that.'

After recycling the exact language from the treaty, Trump underscored that the U.S. "would and will NEVER let it fall into the wrong hands! It was not given for the benefit of others, but merely as a token of cooperation with us and Panama."

"If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question," added Trump. "To the Officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly!"

Trump doubled down on his comments at the Turning Point Action Conference on Sunday, stating, "The United States has a big and vested interest in the secure, efficient and reliable operation of the Panama Canal."

Panamanian officials balked at Trump's suggestion.

Manuel Alberto Samaniego Rodriguez, a member of the country's National Assembly, stated, "The Panama Canal is located in Panamanian territory, therefore it is not an asset of any other country other than Panama. The statements made by @realDonaldTrump are regrettable. This young Panamanian independent deputy will defend his country with his life if necessary."

Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino responded to Trump's statements, suggesting in a video, "Every square meter of the Panama Canal is Panama's and will continue to be. The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable."

Mulino noted further that the canal "will continue to be in Panamanian hands as an inalienable heritage of our nation."

Trump responded to Mulino's comment, "We'll see about that," then shared an image of the American flag flying over the canal with the caption, "Welcome to the United States Canal!"

Red, white, and blue Greenland

During his first term, Trump raised the possibility of purchasing the self-ruling Danish territory of Greenland, an 836,330 square-mile island home to the northernmost installation of the U.S military, Pituffik Space Base — formerly Thule Air Base. According to a U.S. Geological Survey estimate, there could be 17.5 billion undiscovered barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off the island, which is home to a population of under 60,000.

Greenland government officials told the Wall Street Journal when Trump's potential interest in the acquisition was first raised, "We're open for business, not for sale."

When announcing former U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Ken Howery as his pick for ambassador to Denmark on Sunday, Trump once again raised the possibility of an acquisition, stating, "For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity."

"Ken will do a wonderful job in representing the interest of the United States," added Trump.

Múte Egede, the socialist prime minister of Greenland, said in a statement obtained by Reuters, "Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom."

Contrary to Egede's suggestion, Greenland belongs to Denmark. It has, however, the right to declare independence but has not done so, apparently keen on continued cash injections from the motherland. Greenland has also been more than willing to lean on a substantial amount of American aid over the years.

Trump is not the first president to raise the possibility of a red, white, and blue Greenland.

A year after U.S. Secretary of State William Seward suggested the annexation of the island was "worthy of serious consideration," the U.S. apparently came close to picking up Greenland and Iceland from Denmark for under $6 million in gold.

Citing previously classified documents, the Associated Press reported in 1991 that the Truman administration proposed in 1946 to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million in gold. At the time, the late Sen. Owen Brewster (R-Maine) called the move a "military necessity" and indicated U.S. military authorities favored the proposed acquisition.

In his Turning Point Action speech, Trump stated, "I can proudly proclaim that the golden age of America is upon us."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bearded lady set to fight child sex-change ban before SCOTUS tells CNN toddlers can be trans



To the chagrin of LGBT extremists, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) ratified Republican legislation in March 2023 protecting children in the state from sex-change mutilations and puberty blockers. Three teen transvestites and their parents, later joined by the Biden Department of Justice, sued the state, seeking to put sterilizing puberty blockers and deformative hormone therapy back on the kids' menu.

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against the Republican mutilation ban Wednesday. The court's decision could ultimately reinforce or spike similar bans in dozens of other states.

Ahead of the hearing before the high court, a bearded woman with the American Civil Liberties Union — the radical outfit representing the plaintiffs — explained to CNN Tuesday why she felt the law should fall, claiming at one point that toddlers can know they are transvestites.

Chase Strangio, the transvestic ACLU attorney formerly known as Kate who is set to argue against the Tennessee law before the Supreme Court, told talking head Jake Tapper that this case "is a critical inflection point for transgender people across the country. We're coming off of an election season where transgender people played an outsized role in people's consciousness in terms of the way in which we were situated as — as a threat to others."

The election helped highlight a trend: Americans are increasingly rejecting gender ideology and radical LGBT policies.

The New York Times noted that an analysis conducted by Future Forward, failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris' top super PAC, found that the campaign ad with the tagline, "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you," shifted the race nearly three percentage points in President-elect Donald Trump's favor. Ahead of announcing that he was stepping down, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa effectively admitted on the basis of fellow travelers' electoral failures that the "a big bulk of our population does not support" extreme "transgender" policies.

While some Democrats may be shocked, the turning tide is no secret. A Washington Post-KFF poll found last year that 57% of Americans say gender is biologically determined; 68% oppose the use of puberty blockers by children; 58% oppose hormonal treatments for teens; and 62% say male transvestites should not be able to compete in girls' sports.

"When we look at the map of states that ban this type of evidence-based health care, we went from zero states that had these bans in 2020 to now more than half the country," continued Strangio.

The ACLU attorney indicated that she will argue before the high court that the Tennessee law, Senate Bill 1, is a form of sex discrimination.

When Tapper raised the question of whether there is sufficient data to prove that sex-change treatments for kids is beneficial, Strangio replied, "We have decades of both clinical experience and research data showing that this is medical treatment that provides critical benefits to adolescents who need it."

Strangio apparently missed the memo about the Cass Review, which revealed earlier this year that where so-called gender science is concerned, "There is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices."

The massive multiyear investigation commissioned by NHS England found that most of the "research" underpinning so-called gender science is of "poor quality," demonstrating "poor study design, inadequate follow-up periods, and a lack of objectivity in reporting of results."

In the case of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones foisted on children, the review made clear that the uses "are unproven and benefits/harms are unknown."

"In addition to this making it difficult for clinicians to know whether these are appropriate treatments to offer, it is also challenging to provide children, young people, and families with sufficient information on which to make an informed choice," said the review. "The duty of information disclosure is complicated by many 'unknown unknowns' about the long-term impacts of puberty blocker and/or masculinizing/feminizing hormone during a dynamic developmental period when gender identity may not be settled."

Strangio suggested to Tapper that toddlers' confusion is actionable and that in some cases, the "best" remedy is life-altering drugs.

"These are doctors who are wanting to treat their patients in the best way that they know how, based on the best available evidence to us," said Strangio. "And these are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for 6 or 7 years before they had any relief. And what's happening here? It's not the kids who are consenting to this treatment; it's the parents who are consenting to the treatment."

Journalist Mia Hughes highlighted in her 242-page report, published in March by Michael Shellenberger's think tank, Environmental Progress, that Dianne Berg, a member of World Professional Association for Transgender Health and co-author of the child chapter of the organization's Standards of Care 8, indicated that while adolescents are not mature enough to understand "the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them," some parents also lack the requisite health literacy to understand the treatments.

"What really disturbs me is when the parents can't tell me what they need to know about a medical intervention that apparently they signed off for," said Berg.

"As a parent, I would say we — when our children are suffering, we are suffering," said Strangio. "And these are parents who love their children, who are listening to the advice of their doctors, of the mainstream medical community, and doing what's right for them, for their kids in the state. ... Tennessee has displaced their judgment."

Those keen to prevent or remedy suffering might take into account the Cass Review's indications that:

  • the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence";
  • puberty blockers compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction";
  • there is "insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk, and fertility";
  • there is "a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormones for masculinisation or feminisation in adolescents with gender dysphoria or incongruence and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up"; and
  • so-called gender-affirming care is "an area of remarkably weak evidence."

Other studies have similarly demonstrated the fallout of the drugs Strangio wants kids to access. For instance, a 2022 study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy confirmed that puberty blockers adversely impact bone density and noted that there "is increasing evidence for negative effects on cognitive and emotional development and on sexual functioning."

Tennessee noted in February that the state "acted rationally, reasonably, and compassionately to protect its children, and the Act survives any level of review. Nothing in the Constitution deputizes Petitioners to override the legislature's judgment and demand a policy they believe to be more favorable. Concluding otherwise would violate 'the most deeply rooted tradition in this country ... that we look to democracy to answer pioneering public-policy questions.'"

The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti is not expected for several months.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden administration releases report detailing extent of its LGBT imperialism abroad



The U.S. State Department is leading an international scheme at President Joe Biden's behest to leverage America's resources and reputation abroad to support LGBT activism, the acceptance of gender ideology, and the normalization of non-straight lifestyles. A recent report has revealed some of what goes into establishing an LGBT-affirming monoculture worldwide.

Former President Barack Obama issued a memorandum in late 2011 directing "all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons."

The memo went beyond having American agencies throw American weight around to curb perceived discrimination against non-straight foreigners but also to advance the LGBT agenda more broadly.

Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden issued a juiced-up version of the memorandum, indicating it "shall be the policy of the United States to pursue an end to violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics, and to lead by the power of our example in the cause of advancing the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world."

The State Department's new "progress" report on the implementation of Biden's directive indicated that the agency has helped bankroll various LGBT activist organizations through the Global Equality Fund — a "public-private partnership" it manages with the support of a coalition of other countries and organizations. Through the GEF, the State Department has supported activist groups in African nations whose lawmakers were drafting or passing legislation supposedly criminalizing non-straight status or conduct.

According to the document, the State-run GEF has "supported 116 LGBTQI+ organizations in 73 countries with grants ranging from $8,000 to $25,000, and cumulatively total more than $3,200,000 over the last five years."

Meanwhile, the U.S. Agency for International Development has dumped over $7 million into activities at its missions that "integrate LGBTQI+ equities across a range of development sectors."

The apparent aim of such monetary support from Biden agencies is to pave the way to fuller LGBT acceptance. However, to shape the legal landscape, the administration has not just injected money but threatened to take it away.

Uganda, for instance, passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act last year, imposing sentences of up to life in imprisonment for gay sex and the death penalty for gay sex with a minor or a mentally compromised senior. Uganda's law also criminalized the promotion of homosexuality.

'We have emphasized the importance of ensuring broad access to evidence-based LGBTQI+-affirming care.'

According to the report, the U.S. has found numerous ways to punish Uganda for keeping the law on the books. Uganda has lost eligibility for African Growth and Opportunity Act benefits — duty-free access to the American market for various products — and has been denied significant government-to-government support. In addition to the Biden administration concern-mongering about doing business in Uganda, the Treasury Department has supported a pause in new public lending to the dissenting African nation's government.

The report all but admitted that Uganda has been slapped around as an example to other countries considering similar policies.

While punishing dissenting national elements of the global south, the Biden administration has also worked with apparently like-minded developed nations to fight policies thought regressive. To this end, the State Department's special envoy to advance the human rights of so-called LGBTQI+ persons apparently "convened senior officials from various countries for rapid coordination in response to proposed anti-LGBTQI+ legislation."

In addition to working to void legislative resistance to LGBT activism universally, the Biden administration has leaned on governments to kill the practice of "conversion therapy" practices globally, having "engaged governments to encourage them to stop sponsoring, funding, and/or otherwise supporting CTP."

Conversion therapy is the promotion of straight lifestyles among homosexuals or the provision of reality-affirming remedies to persons with gender dysphoria.

The Biden administration is warring against such efforts but appears altogether keen to support international efforts to ensure that vulnerable persons can undergo activist-approved conversion therapies into mutilated simulations of the opposite sex.

"We have emphasized the importance of ensuring broad access to evidence-based LGBTQI+-affirming care and have highlighted evidence-based resources for families to expand supportive and affirming behaviors with LGBTQ+ youth," said the report.

The report indicated further that the Department of Homeland Security, another executor of Biden's scheme, has enabled refugee and asylum seekers to identify as whatever gender they please on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services forms "without the need to provide supporting documentation or to match the gender listed on their identity document."

Apparently, the ability for prospective asylum-seekers to conceal their real sex "helps ensure safety and security both in the United States and abroad."

While much of this scheme is outward-facing, some agencies are also ensuring conformity among their own ranks.

USAID, for instance, is reportedly developing a "LGBTQI+ Inclusive Develop E-module" for a training program its workforce will be required to complete.

The State Department emphasized in a release coinciding with the report's release, "Promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons is a U.S. foreign policy priority."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Before Ike’s Warning About The Military-Industrial Complex, There Was Smedley Butler’s

In ‘Gangsters of Capitalism: Smedley Butler, The Marines and Breaking of America’s Empire,’ reporter Jonathan M. Katz details the history of US imperialism and dollar diplomacy.
Progressivism Created the Militarization of Police | Guest: Thaddeus Russell | Ep 75
play icon

Progressivism Created the Militarization of Police | Guest: Thaddeus Russell | Ep 75