In a telling display of diplomatic disconnect, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation convened Tuesday to discuss foreign influence over the Panama Canal —with glaring procedural oversights. Most notably, Ilya Marotta, the canal’s deputy administrator, received an invitation mere days before the hearing — a hasty afterthought that made her attendance practically impossible. This last-minute gesture toward including Panamanian expertise underscored the hearing’s fundamental flaws before it even began.
Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) set an assertive tone, declaring that the U.S. “cannot turn a blind eye as Panama exploits an asset of vital commercial and military importance.” Yet as testimony unfolded, a more nuanced reality emerged that challenged the hearing’s premises and highlighted the complexities of modern maritime diplomacy.
When directly questioned about Chinese control over the canal, Federal Maritime Commission Chairman Louis E. Sola offered a response that seemed to contradict the hearing’s underlying assumptions. “The canal is managed by the Panama Canal Authority,” he said, stating that, on a recent trip to the canal, he saw the authority’s “commitment to maintaining the canal’s efficiency and resilience.” This statement, juxtaposed against the hearing’s premise, underscored the gap between political rhetoric and operational reality.
Law professor Eugene Kontorovich of George Mason University, tasked with analyzing potential violations of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, could only offer qualified responses. When pressed about whether Chinese-operated ports at Balboa and Cristóbal constitute treaty violations, he acknowledged the difficulty of drawing clear conclusions. While noting that the U.S. could theoretically cancel the treaty, he admitted there was no international legal basis for reclaiming sovereignty without military force — an option he quickly deemed inappropriate as a first resort.
Democratic Federal Maritime Commissioner Daniel Maffei provided the hearing’s most sobering perspective. He pointed out that Chinese companies operate ports globally, suggesting that if China’s presence in Panama constitutes control, then similar arguments could be made about the Suez Canal, the Singapore Strait, the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel. This global context raised questions about whether the hearing’s focus on Panama reflected genuine strategic concerns or simply broader anxieties about declining U.S. influence.
The hearing’s most revealing moments came when senators acknowledged their own country’s shortcomings, lamenting that American companies consistently lose bids to Chinese competitors and recognizing the damage done by leaving the ambassadorial post in Panama vacant for four critical years (2018 to 2022). This self-reflection highlighted how American policy gaps, rather than Panamanian decisions, led to the very vulnerabilities under discussion.
Initial concerns about Panama’s ship registry program with Iran raised alarms about national security. However, these concerns dissipated when evidence emerged that Panama had already de-flagged 53 Iranian vessels suspected of sanctions evasion — a fact that underscored Panama’s cooperation with American security interests rather than threatening them.
Climate change appeared as a more tangible threat than geopolitical speculation. Commissioner Sola noted that annual water losses of 1 to 2 percent could reduce canal capacity by 40 percent by 2050. Yet when Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) questioned the Canal Authority’s planning for the effects of drought, shipping executive Joseph Kramek could only offer that they had done the best possible with available information.
The hearing’s structure itself revealed telling blind spots in the U.S. policy approach. Although focusing on Chinese influence through port operations, senators gave little attention to why American companies have become less competitive in infrastructure development. The last-minute invitation to Deputy Administrator Marotta — a key figure in the canal’s operations — exemplified the perfunctory approach to Panamanian inclusion. Such cursory gestures toward diplomatic engagement stand in stark contrast to the kind of sustained partnership needed for addressing complex multinational challenges.
The proceedings highlighted another crucial oversight — the remarkable success of Panama’s management of the canal since its 1999 transfer. The waterway has generated billions in revenue while maintaining world-class operational standards, an achievement that received surprisingly little acknowledgment during the three-hour session. This success story stands in stark contrast to the hearing’s underlying narrative of vulnerability and mismanagement.
Questions about excessive fees charged to U.S. vessels, a central concern raised at the hearing’s outset, found little substantiation in witness testimony. The only specific complaint involved cruise lines not receiving toll refunds for port calls — a matter governed by clear Panamanian regulations requiring home-port status for such benefits.
As the session concluded, it became clear that the most significant threat to American interests might not be foreign influence but rather the lack of a coherent U.S. strategy for maintaining meaningful partnerships in Latin America. The hearing’s focus on control and influence obscured more fundamental questions about how the U.S. can become a more attractive partner for infrastructure development and regional cooperation.
The Panama Canal’s future security may depend less on scrutinizing foreign presences and more on rekindling the kind of robust American partnership that made the canal’s success possible in the first place. This requires moving beyond oversight hearings to develop concrete policies that make American companies more competitive in global infrastructure projects and demonstrate long-term commitment to regional development.
Nivia Rossana Castrellón is the former deputy minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Panama.
