Flash News: Trump Administration Directs U.S. Military Forces to Explore Panama Canal Control Options.

On March 13, 2025, NBC News reported that the White House had ordered the U.S. military to draft potential options to increase American troop presence in Panama as part of President Donald Trump’s goal of "reclaiming" the Panama Canal. According to officials familiar with the planning, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) is preparing a range of strategies, from deepening cooperation with Panamanian security forces to the more drastic measure of using military force to seize control of the vital waterway. The course of action will depend largely on the level of cooperation from Panama’s security apparatus, with military force being a last resort.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

 A tugboat assists the U.S. Navy littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2) as the ship prepares to enter the Gatun Lock during a transit of the Panama Canal. (Picture source: U.S. DoD)

The Panama Canal remains one of the world’s most critical and strategic waterway chokepoints, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Its significance is not only economic but also military, as it plays a key role in global trade and logistics. Since the U.S. relinquished control of the canal in 1999, Panama has held sovereignty over this crucial asset. However, the possibility of renewed U.S. involvement or control of the canal is a matter of intense concern for both Panama and its neighbors. The U.S. military’s strategic interest in the canal is clear: it provides unmatched logistical advantages, allowing for swift movement of naval and military assets between the two oceans. If tensions rise, a disruption in the canal’s operations would have far-reaching consequences for global trade and security.

The options being considered by U.S. military planners range from working more closely with Panama's security forces to full-scale intervention. The first option would involve enhanced cooperation in securing the canal. U.S. military personnel might provide expertise, specialized training, and intelligence-sharing to Panamanian security forces. Joint operations, especially in counterterrorism and maritime security, could be used to safeguard the canal and ensure that it remains operational. This strategy would likely involve the use of U.S. Navy assets, such as patrol boats and Coast Guard vessels, alongside Panamanian forces to maintain security in the region.

However, if diplomatic efforts fail and Panama’s forces prove uncooperative or insufficient, the U.S. might resort to military force to take control of the canal. This would likely involve the rapid deployment of American ground forces, Navy SEALs, and Army Rangers to seize key canal infrastructure, such as locks, control towers, and strategic military installations. The U.S. would likely establish air superiority through the use of fighter jets, bombers, and surveillance aircraft, while maritime forces could deploy to blockade the canal or provide logistical support for ground operations. The speed and scale of such an operation would be critical, as the U.S. would need to maintain air and sea dominance to prevent any counteractions from Panama’s military forces or external actors.

Cyber warfare would also play a critical role in any military intervention. Given the reliance of Panama's infrastructure on digital systems, U.S. forces could use cyber capabilities to disrupt communications, transportation networks, and military operations, further tipping the balance of power in favor of the U.S. before any kinetic military operations take place. This would allow the U.S. to cripple Panama’s ability to respond effectively, ensuring that military operations could be executed with minimal resistance.

If military force is used, U.S. planners would likely draw on their extensive combat capabilities, ranging from advanced air and naval assets to elite special operations units. However, the risks of such an intervention would be considerable. Panama’s government would likely oppose U.S. intervention, which could lead to significant diplomatic fallout and regional instability. Neighboring countries, including Colombia and Venezuela, could view the U.S. actions as a violation of Panama’s sovereignty and respond with heightened tensions. Diplomatic efforts would almost certainly be required to mitigate backlash from Latin American nations and the broader international community.

Panama’s military capabilities are limited, given that the country abolished its standing army in 1990. Instead, Panama relies on various security forces to maintain order and defend its borders. The National Border Service (SENAFRONT), along with the Panamanian National Police, is responsible for internal security and border control. Panama's security focus is primarily on the southern border with Colombia, an area that sees significant migration and drug trafficking. The National Police, which numbers approximately 20,000 personnel, handles general law enforcement duties, while the Border Service, with a force of around 4,000, is more specialized in handling border issues, such as smuggling, illegal immigration, and counterinsurgency efforts.

The country has no heavy military equipment and focuses primarily on light patrol and surveillance capabilities. Panama’s military assets consist mostly of light transport vehicles, patrol boats, and surveillance aircraft. Its air and naval forces, specifically the National Aeronaval Service, are equipped with light aircraft and helicopters for transport and surveillance, such as Beechcraft King Airs, Cessna aircraft, and AW139 helicopters. While the Panamanian air force and navy play an important role in securing the country’s borders and maintaining maritime security, they would be largely outmatched by U.S. forces if the situation escalated to full-scale conflict.

Panama's reliance on external training and support, particularly from Colombia and the United States, further highlights its limited military capabilities. While both countries have provided training for Panama’s security forces, especially in the areas of internal security and border control, the nation does not possess the military power to mount a significant defense against a major foreign intervention. Panama's security apparatus is designed to address internal and border security concerns rather than engage in conventional military operations.

The Panamanian military’s primary assets include a small fleet of patrol boats and coastal combatants, such as Saettia-class vessels, and amphibious landing craft. These are suited for low-level coastal defense, but they would not stand a chance against U.S. naval and air superiority. In the air, Panama’s fleet consists of a mix of light transport aircraft and helicopters, such as the AW139, Bell 407, and Bell 212, which are more suited to domestic security and transport duties than combat operations.

Additionally, Panama’s limited cyber defense capabilities would make it highly vulnerable to a cyberattack by a more technologically advanced adversary, such as the U.S. In the event of a conflict, the U.S. would likely use its significant cyber warfare assets to disable Panama’s communications, disrupt its military coordination, and cripple critical infrastructure.

The potential for U.S. military intervention in Panama, particularly if Panama’s government resists increased American influence over the canal, presents significant challenges. While Panama’s security forces are trained to handle internal and border security operations, they lack the heavy military capabilities to engage in large-scale combat operations. The United States, with its advanced military assets and strategic importance of the Panama Canal, would likely have the upper hand in any direct confrontation. However, such an intervention would have substantial diplomatic and regional repercussions, requiring careful consideration of both military tactics and international diplomacy.