Trump’s New World (Dis)order

Summary

Reveal Podcast Episode Summary: “Trump’s New World (Dis)order”

Release Date: July 26, 2025
Host: Al Letson
Produced by: The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX

---

Introduction

In the episode titled “Trump’s New World (Dis)order,” Reveal delves into the complexities of former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, focusing primarily on his contentious rhetoric surrounding the Panama Canal. Host Al Letson, alongside reporters Nate Halvorson and Andrea Salcedo, investigates the real-world implications of Trump’s statements on Panama and explores the historical and present-day tensions between the United States and Panama.

---

Trump’s Rhetoric on the Panama Canal

The episode begins by highlighting a significant shift in Trump’s foreign policy narrative. Initially advocating for an "America First" approach with reduced overseas involvement, Trump’s inauguration speech introduced a concept reminiscent of Manifest Destiny, emphasizing American expansion and dominance.

Andrea Salcedo [00:57]: “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.”

This rhetoric has sparked controversy, with Trump alleging that Panama is overcharging U.S. ships for canal crossings and falsely claiming that China is covertly operating the Panama Canal.

Andrea Salcedo [02:06]: “China is operating the Panama Canal, and we didn't give it to China, we gave it to Panama, and we're taking it back.”

---

On-the-Ground Impact in Panama

To understand the local response, Reveal sent reporters Nate Halvorson and Andrea Salcedo to Panama. They engaged with Panamanian citizens and officials to gauge reactions to Trump’s assertions and the subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) allowing U.S. military presence in Panama.

Protests and Public Sentiment:

Panama has witnessed significant protests against the perceived infringement on its sovereignty. Teachers, represented by Eddie Pinto, express frustration over the U.S. demands and the potential militarization of the canal area.

Eddie Pinto [05:03]: “Protests are exploding in Panama over a bunch of issues. There's the possible reopening of a controversial mind changes to the Social Security system and, well, President Trump's threats to take back the canal.”

These protests have occasionally turned violent, with police deploying tear gas to disperse demonstrators demanding the protection of Panama’s sovereignty.

---

Historical Context: The 1989 U.S. Invasion of Panama

The episode provides a poignant historical backdrop by recounting the U.S. invasion of Panama in December 1989, aimed at deposing Manuel Noriega. This event left deep scars, including mass graves and unresolved grievances among Panamanians.

Personal Stories:

The episode features heartfelt accounts from families of those who perished during the invasion, illustrating the lasting trauma and distrust toward any renewed U.S. military presence.

Elias Nunez [20:48]: “It's the law of life for children to bury their parents after 35 years, I was able to do that with mine. I want to thank my mom, my uncle, and a cousin who were there with me that day. That was the moment when I could finally properly bury my father.”

---

Parallels to Reagan’s Era and the Rise of Populist Sentiment

Reveal draws parallels between Trump’s current rhetoric and Ronald Reagan’s strategies in the 1970s. Reagan’s staunch defense of the Panama Canal against perceived threats played a pivotal role in his rise within the Republican Party, utilizing emotional and nationalistic appeals similar to those employed by Trump today.

Andrea Salcedo [30:18]: “The far right of the Republican Party joined with the John Birch Society, one of the most extreme groups out there, to make this their top issue when Jimmy Carter was president.”

The discussion underscores how both administrations leveraged nationalist sentiments to galvanize support, often at the expense of diplomatic relations and long-standing agreements.

---

Expert Analysis: Emma Ashford on Trump’s Foreign Policy Strategy

In an insightful interview, Emma Ashford, a columnist at Foreign Policy magazine and senior fellow at the Stimson Center, analyzes the broader strategy behind Trump’s foreign policy moves.

Coherence and Methodology:

Ashford notes the chaotic yet strategic nature of Trump’s approach, emphasizing a blend of genuine security concerns and populist tactics aimed at rallying his base.

Emma Ashford [39:27]: “In each of the three big cases here, the Panama Canal, access to military bases in Greenland, or US in the Arctic, there is sort of a genuine kernel of national security concern behind it.”

Impact on International Relations:

She highlights the strain caused by Trump’s bullying tactics, which, while achieving certain policy goals like increased European defense spending, risk alienating traditional allies and undermining global cooperation.

Emma Ashford [42:53]: “Where I really do worry with this administration, I think, is actually not on the military side or the defence side. It's on the trade side... it's business, corporations, investment.”

---

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy and Global Standing

The episode concludes by reflecting on the long-term implications of Trump’s foreign policy strategies. The aggressive stance on territorial claims and military presence risks eroding trust with allies and destabilizing international relations. Moreover, the emphasis on military over diplomatic and economic tools may undermine the U.S.'s ability to effectively navigate complex global challenges.

Al Letson [45:07]: “I think that’s right. All presidential administrations vary in how much process they have internally. The Biden administration... the Trump administration is on the other end. Policy almost predominantly comes from Trump and his closest advisers and then sort of percolates downward.”

Soft Power Concerns:

Ashford emphasizes the detrimental impact of reduced soft power capabilities, such as defunding organizations like USAID and cutting State Department staff, which hampers the U.S.'s ability to influence global affairs through diplomacy and humanitarian efforts.

Emma Ashford [47:38]: “The policy choice that is the one that has me most concerned and that I think is such a bad choice is the gutting of America's soft power capabilities... cutting our tools, our ability to actually interact with other countries.”

---

Conclusion

“Trump’s New World (Dis)order” provides a comprehensive examination of how Trump’s assertive and often confrontational foreign policy, particularly regarding the Panama Canal, is reshaping U.S.-Panama relations and broader international dynamics. Through on-the-ground reporting and expert analysis, Reveal elucidates the deep-seated implications of these policies, highlighting the delicate balance between national security interests and maintaining harmonious global partnerships.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Andrea Salcedo [00:57]: “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.”

• Eddie Pinto [05:03]: “Protests are exploding in Panama over a bunch of issues... President Trump's threats to take back the canal.”

• Elias Nunez [20:48]: “I want to thank my mom, my uncle, and a cousin who were there with me that day. That was the moment when I could finally properly bury my father.”

• Emma Ashford [39:27]: “In each of the three big cases here, there is sort of a genuine kernel of national security concern behind it.”

• Al Letson [45:07]: “Policy almost predominantly comes from Trump and his closest advisers and then sort of percolates downward.”

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and conclusions of the episode, providing a clear understanding for those who haven't listened to the podcast.

Transcript

[Al Letson]

This show is supported by Odoo. When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out Odoo at o d o.

[Nate Halvorson]

O.Com that's o d o o.com from the center for Investigative Reporting and PRX. This is Reveal. I'm Al Letson. From a surprise decision to attack a nuclear site in Iran, to going back and forth on arming Ukraine in its fight against Russia, to weaponizing tariffs, President Trump's moves on foreign policy have made people ask, what's the strategy? One place where Trump tried laying it out was in his inauguration speech.

[Andrea Salcedo]

The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.

[Nate Halvorson]

His comments raised a lot of eyebrows. Earlier during the campaign, Trump talked a lot about being less involved overseas and putting America first. Now he was talking about the idea of Manifest Destiny. That expansion of the US Was both justified and inevitable. In some cases, that's meant turning the tables on America's friends and allies, treating them as lackeys and even adversaries. That's what this week's show is about. Take Panama, one of the most Americanized countries in Latin America. Trump complains it's overcharging American ships for crossing the canal that the US Built more than a century ago.

[Andrea Salcedo]

The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous.

[Nate Halvorson]

Then there's his claim about who actually controls the canal.

[Andrea Salcedo]

China is operating the Panama Canal, and.

[Nate Halvorson]

We didn't give it to China, we.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Gave it to Panama, and we're taking it back.

[Nate Halvorson]

Now. If you're thinking that a covert Chinese takeover of the canal sounds like a script from Hollywood, well, it is.

[Eddie Pinto]

My rapid response units are on full alert, sir. Carrier Alaska's off the coast of Panama.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Eight F22 Raptors are on alert.

[Nate Halvorson]

Adapted from a John le Carre novel, the Taylor of Panama was a 2001 spy thriller. After catching wind of a secret effort to sell the canal to China, US Officials decide to send in troops to reoccupy Panama.

[Eddie Pinto]

There's a missing star on our flag, gentlemen.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Looks to me that God has given.

[Nate Halvorson]

Us a second chance here in this fictional world. The invasion was called off at the Last minute. Turns out that Chinese plot was a fake. Unlike that Hollywood version, President Trump insists the China threat is real. He says if Panama doesn't secure the canal, he might have to deploy the American military to get the job done. We wanted to know how Trump's threats are playing out on the ground in Panama, so we sent reveals Nate Halvorson there, where he teamed up with Panamanian journalist Andrea Salcedo. Here's Nate.

[Eddie Pinto]

That just turned way down. Okay, testing. I'm standing here next to the Panama Canal, literally. On one side, it looks like a seven story slab of steel, and on the other side, a placid lake. These giant gates open up, allowing these huge commercial vessels to slowly rise up and pass through the mountains of Panama. When it formally opened in 1914, the Panama Canal was called the eighth wonder of the world, stretching 50 miles from the waters of the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Pacific, cutting through thick jungle and rugged mountains. Today, around 40% of all US container traffic transits the canal. Andrea says one of the most popular spots for tourists and dignitaries from around the world is here at the Miraflores Locks.

[Al Letson]

Miraflores Visitor center is the place where every Panamanian takes their friends who are visiting Panama. If you come to Panama and you don't visit Miraflores and see a boat crossing the Panama Canal, did you even come here?

[Eddie Pinto]

Not too far from the canal, Andre and I are driving in downtown Panama City when we come across a big agitated crowd that's gathered outside one of the busiest metro stations in the city. So this looks like a protest we're coming up to.

[Al Letson]

This is a group of teachers right by a train station here in the city. They have been protesting for over three weeks now.

[Eddie Pinto]

We decide to pull over and take a closer look. Once you get out on my side, I think it'll be safer. Andre and I wander into the crowd. A couple hundred people are waving Panamanian flags, clapping and yelling as a cluster of speakers take turns airing their grievances. It's one of those sweltering, humid days in Panama that leaves your clothes, or at least my clothes, drenched in sweat. Some protesters are using their flags as fans. Others are hiding from the scorching sun under umbrellas and looking over. All of this is a large contingent of police officers. Someone in the crowd motions to us and directs us to a man who's a spokesman for one of the groups organizing the protest. Eddie Pinto is secretary general of a local teachers union. He tells us that protests are exploding in Panama over a bunch of issues. There's the possible reopening of a controversial mind changes to the Social Security system and, well, President Trump's threats to take back the canal. Eddie, echoes many people here who blame Panama's President, Jose Raul Molino, for caving into Trump's demands about the canal.

[Al Letson]

He's basically calling President Molino and the Minister of Security, Frank Abrego and the Ministry of Foreign Relations, Javier Martinez, at He's calling them traitors because he's saying that they have given Panama away to the US and to Trump.

[Eddie Pinto]

Does he worry that the US Might invade and what would he do if.

[Al Letson]

That were to happen? Defend our sovereignty and our nation with our life. We are not going to be a protege of the US or one more star for the US Flag.

[Eddie Pinto]

It's pretty peaceful here, but when we get back to our hotel, we see that another protest just blocks from where we were turned violent with police firing tear gas on demonstrators. The protesters are angry at President Molino for a deal he made with the Trump administration. It allows US Troops to deploy to Panama for training exercises, joint operations and other undisclosed activities. The memorandum of understanding was signed in April during a visit by U.S. defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. President Trump says, we're taking back the Panama Canal from Chinese influence. That involves partnership with the United States.

[Al Letson]

And Panama, and we're grateful that they've.

[Eddie Pinto]

Welcomed U.S. troops on Panamanian soil. Higseth said, under the MOU, U.S. troops would be in Panama, quote, by invitation. But a lot of people here remain suspicious that the Trump administration has a not so hidden agenda.

[Nate Halvorson]

The documents that were signed the MOUs, they show that we just gave up all what Trump wanted from Panama, and not based on arguments, not based on facts, but based on lies. And that's not right.

[Eddie Pinto]

Ricardo Lumbana leads Panama's main opposition party, Movimiento Otro Camino, or in English, another way. Lombana has publicly denounced the Trump administration, saying it's lying about Chinese influence here in order to assert control over the canal. He calls it a camouflaged invasion. There's not a limit on the number.

[Nate Halvorson]

Of military forces or units that that can have presence in Panama.

[Eddie Pinto]

U.S. u.S. Military forces. So you're worried that this could mean almost a return to military bases because.

[Nate Halvorson]

There'S not a limit on the numbers.

[Eddie Pinto]

Then there's the question of where U.S. troops would be stationed. Panama's neutrality treaty with the U.S. bans foreign military bases on its territory, though America has the right to protect the canal if it's threatened. So perhaps by design, the agreement signed by the Trump Administration uses vague terminology. The document refers to authorized locations in Panama where US Personnel will be positioned. It turns out all those locations, they were once actual American military bases when the US Controlled the canal.

[Nate Halvorson]

When you add up all this, we are giving part of our sovereignty to the United States, and we're going back to the military bases under different names, and that is according to the MoU.

[Eddie Pinto]

And it sounds like what you're saying is this is probably all but a military base in name.

[Nate Halvorson]

Yes, it is.

[Eddie Pinto]

The Trump administration's threat to deploy troops to quote, unquote, take back the canal from China has perplexed just about everyone we spoke with in Panama.

[Andrea Salcedo]

We just said, wow, how many people can be wrong about the Chinese having a lot of influence over the Panama Canal?

[Eddie Pinto]

Few people know more about the running of the Panama Canal than Jorge Luis Quijano. He spent his career here and served as the top administrator from 2012 to 2019. He says one thing is true. China's rise as a global economic powerhouse is undeniable. Here.

[Andrea Salcedo]

The number one customer of the Panama Canal is the United States. But then all of a sudden, with the last, let's say, 10 years, China has become a commercial power, and we've seen them evolve into the number two slot.

[Eddie Pinto]

But when it comes to military and security issues, Jorge says the Trump administration's assertions about China lack hard evidence, especially allegations that Chinese companies involved in infrastructure projects are somehow giving Beijing covert control over the canal.

[Andrea Salcedo]

I haven't seen any Chinese Communist Party presence here in Panama. If you've got a problem with China, a commercial problem with China, that in the mind of some people, think that it may become a military problem with China, don't put us in the middle of it.

[Eddie Pinto]

The security agreement that was signed in April lists three installation sites in Panama where US Personnel will be deployed. And again, the document isn't clear about what the US Intends to do. So Panamanians are left wondering, will American soldiers stay in Panamanian barracks and just help with training? Or does the Trump administration plan to rebuild these former military bases and bring back American weapons and heavy equipment? In other words, who's really calling the shots?

[Andrea Salcedo]

Right?

[Eddie Pinto]

I'm gonna start driving. Am I in reverse?

[Nate Halvorson]

Looks like you are.

[Eddie Pinto]

Andre and I decide to visit one of these locations to see what we can learn. It's named Fort Sherman, or in Spanish, Forte Sherman, after the American Civil War. General. It was used by US troops from the First World War through the late 1990s, when the last remaining soldiers left Panama. We leave Panama City, which is on the Pacific coast and drive for about an hour and a half to the Atlantic side. Our route takes us across Panama's newest link over the canal.

[Al Letson]

So we're now recording. And this is the Atlantic Bridge.

[Eddie Pinto]

This bridge is absolutely stunning. And it's not just the architectural design, which looks like the main sail on an old schooner, but it's after you cross the bridge and get back to land, you are descending into a thick, lush, verdant green jungle. As we approach Fort Sherman, our car windows are misted over and we're getting a little tense. The last foreign journalist we know of who try to get a closer look were kicked out by security forces.

[Nate Halvorson]

We just passed the security gate here in Fuerte Sherman.

[Eddie Pinto]

There were two armed, heavily armed Panamanian security forces. We slow down to take a closer look. Now we are in what feels like a ghost town from the 1960s. Old American barracks. Three stories tall, concrete white structures with the walls on a lot of them ripped out, the windows missing, hollowed out ghost village. The jungle has begun to reclaim these old concrete buildings which were once part of a major US Military base. From the car, we see what appears to be an outpost of the Panamanian security forces that are now stationed here. This building is still intact. All right, we're stepping out of the car here. Andrea and I walk to a squat, austere office building set close to the water's edge.

[Nate Halvorson]

Hola.

[Eddie Pinto]

Buenas. Inside, a Panamanian officer appears a bit taken aback that two journalists are suddenly standing in his office with recording equipment. He tells us that no American construction has started. But he adds something that hasn't been reported. A few weeks earlier, a group from the US Embassy came here to survey the site. It's the first concrete sign that the US Is getting ready to reclaim use of this former military base. We reached out to the US Embassy in Panama for an interview, but no one was available. So the day after we visit Fort Sherman, we head to the Presidential palace to get some answers from President Molino at his weekly press conference. Around two dozen reporters are here. It's a larger contingent than usual. Things are tense across the country. After about 30 minutes of prepared remarks, I'm invited to ask a question.

[Nate Halvorson]

Gracia Prince, International reval.

[Eddie Pinto]

Good morning, Mr. President.

[Nate Halvorson]

Morning.

[Eddie Pinto]

I traveled to fortunately Sherman yesterday, and I was informed that members of the US Embassy were recently on site surveying the buildings. So my question is this. What are your hopes for what the Americans do with the buildings and the site? And what are your concerns considering President Trump's rhetoric around taking back The Canal.

[Nate Halvorson]

Okay, listen.

[Al Letson]

I don't expect much.

[Nate Halvorson]

I know very well, actually is one.

[Al Letson]

Of the main bases of the Aeronautical Service in Panama.

[Nate Halvorson]

However, I suppose that for the services or training that they are going to.

[Al Letson]

Do, they have to make some restoration remodelations.

[Eddie Pinto]

President Molino tells me he expects the Pentagon will refurbish buildings at Fort Sherman for American troops. Right now, the only personnel there are from Panama's air and naval police. Panama's deal with the Trump administration allows the US Military to control buildings and store weapons and heavy equipment at Fort Sherman. But Molino says this does not add up to a return of American bases in Panama. It doesn't mean military presence.

[Nate Halvorson]

They will rotate between three other sites.

[Al Letson]

Training and helping and cooperating with our police forces forces in different areas of Panama. It has nothing to do with the.

[Nate Halvorson]

Declaration of the President of the United.

[Al Letson]

States in terms of taking back the Canal.

[Nate Halvorson]

I have said very clearly the Canal.

[Al Letson]

Is in Panama, belongs to the Panamanian.

[Nate Halvorson]

People, and will remain so.

[Eddie Pinto]

President Molino's enormous challenge should be familiar to other leaders around the world. How to do business with the Trump administration while reassuring your own people that you're defending the country's interests. There's something else that makes Molino's job even harder. Talk of a return of American troops to Panama is reviving painful memories of the last US Invasion.

[Nate Halvorson]

At this moment, US forces, including forces deployed from the United States, are are engaged in action in Panama.

[Eddie Pinto]

On December 20, 1989, President George H.W. bush ordered thousands of U.S. troops into Panama to depose the country's de facto ruler, Manuel Noriega.

[Nate Halvorson]

Most organized resistance has been eliminated, but the operation is not over yet.

[Eddie Pinto]

Noriega eventually surrendered and was extradited to the US where he was convicted on drug trafficking and other charges. The US military reported that around 500 Panamanians and 23American soldiers were killed during the invasion. In some cases, the bodies of local people were dumped into mass graves in the chaos. A commission funded by the Panamanian government has spent years trying to properly identify the bodies and notify relatives. In April, the commission announced it had formally identified four more people whose remains were exhumed from a mass grave in Panama City. Among them a police officer named Ramon Alberto Nunez. On my last day in Panama, Andrea and I pay a visit to Ramon's family. They live in a working class neighborhood in Colon, the main city on Panama's Atlantic coast. Elida Olivero de Nunez and her son Elias lead us into a living room in the back of their house.

[Al Letson]

Elias is sitting right beside. Beside his mother. And they are like dohota de agua.

[Eddie Pinto]

Like, spitting images of each other.

[Al Letson]

Spitting images of each other. They are.

[Eddie Pinto]

Aelita recalls how late on the night of December 19, her husband went to work. He never came home, she says. Weeks later, she traveled to Panama City, where she was shown photographs of people killed in the invasion. There on the wall was an image of Ramon. He had a gunshot wound under his left eye.

[Al Letson]

They later had to give me a pill because I couldn't stop crying. That was too sad for me, too painful. But they took me out of that room pretty quickly.

[Eddie Pinto]

Aelita says she has no idea why Ramon's remains ended up in a mass grave. And there's an ongoing dispute over whether US troops were responsible for dumping the bodies there. After the commission excavated the site, it took a DNA sample from Elias. He was just three months old when his father was killed. The DNA matched.

[Nate Halvorson]

It's the law of life for children to bury their parents after 35 years, I was able to do that with mine. I want to thank my mom, my uncle, and a cousin who were there with me that day. That was the moment when I could.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Finally properly bury my father.

[Eddie Pinto]

Our conversation turns to the Trump administration and the agreement with President Molino for a US troop presence in Panama.

[Al Letson]

It's very sad, very hurtful, very embarrassing, because, like I say, President Molino didn't lose anyone in the invasion. No one cares. Because who died? The lower rank people. The police, as one would say in Panamanian slang. The children of the women who cook. They didn't do anything. The Panamanian government didn't do anything. For those who died here, she tells.

[Eddie Pinto]

Us, this is reopening a wound that never fully healed.

[Al Letson]

It's something that we're never going to come to terms with. He doesn't accept the fact that he didn't have a father. They ripped his father away from him. He wasn't able to call him dad, and he died in such an ugly way.

[Eddie Pinto]

Andrea asks Alita one final question. Is she losing sleep over Trump's comments about Panama?

[Al Letson]

Of course I lose sleep over that. Of course it hurts. Of course we have that fear, because I don't think that the President of the United States is speaking just for speaking. One has to fear him. One has to think twice about what he's saying.

[Nate Halvorson]

Like.

[Al Letson]

El Senor Estadiciendo.

[Eddie Pinto]

Telling her story has been hard, but feeling that such a painful history could repeat itself is even harder.

[Al Letson]

She wants a picture.

[Eddie Pinto]

Yeah, we want one, too. When we finish the interview, Alita says she wants a picture of all of us. Andrea and I set out to understand how President Trump's rhetoric to take back the Panama Canal is playing out. And as we stand here taking a photo with a still grieving widow, having seen the street protests and President Molino's attempts to downplay the return of American troops, it all hits home. The US Efforts to exert control over the canal have come at a cost for the people of Panama.

[Nate Halvorson]

That was Reveal's Nate Halvorson and reporter Andrea Salcedo. In a moment, we go back to another time and another president who played politics with the Panama Canal.

[Andrea Salcedo]

We bought it, we paid for it, and General Torrillo should be told we're.

[Al Letson]

Going to keep it.

[Nate Halvorson]

You're listening to reveal.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Hello, listener. My name is Najeeb Momini and I.

[Nate Halvorson]

Am a producer here at Reveal. Reveal is a nonprofit news organization and.

[Eddie Pinto]

We depend on support from our listeners, listeners like you.

[Nate Halvorson]

Donate [e-mail] donate. It helps fund the stories that we tell and helps me feed my cat. So thank you. From the center for Investigative Reporting and prx, this is Reveal. I'm Al Letsin. So what is President Trump's endgame with Panama? Is his talk about retaking the canal just a bluff, a negotiating tactic? Or is he using the canal as a political wedge issue to rally his base? For decades, both Republican and Democratic presidents agreed that America is better off with Panama controlling the canal. That's why the US Decided to give it back to Panama in the first place. The tipping point was in 1964, when the US was still in control of the passageway and a 10 mile buffer zone around it. Panamanians had become resentful of the US Military presence. And that year, things boiled over in a dispute over flags. What should fly over schools, post offices and other public buildings in the Canal Zone? The American flag. The Panamanian. Both. Neither. After a group of American students hoisted the US Flag over their high school in the Canal Zone, a group of Panamanian students from another school heard about it and grabbed one of their flags and marched over to the American school. A scuffle broke out. The Panamanian flag was torn. And soon in Panama, an incident over the display of rival flags by Panamanian and American students set off days of bloody rioting. Panamanian demonstrators stormed into the zone, planting flags in the ground. American Canal Zone police were overwhelmed and called the US Military for backup. Police and army soldiers fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition and used tear gas on the crowds.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Panamanians have claimed 21 deaths and upwards of 400 persons injured from unidentified acts of violence. It also claimed the lives of three soldiers.

[Nate Halvorson]

After three days of bloody clashes, there was finally calm. But Panama cut off diplomatic relations with the US the day after the clashes began, President Johnson called Senator Richard Russell to brief him on a phone conversation he had with the President of Panama.

[Andrea Salcedo]

He immediately said that he wanted to revise all of our agreements, and that would have to be done.

[Nate Halvorson]

This recording of President Johnson is from the LBJ Library archives.

[Andrea Salcedo]

But I was cold and hard and tough as hell so far as exactly right, so far as this concern. I was damn tired of attacking our flag and our embassy and our.

[Nate Halvorson]

Johnson may have been tough as hell, but he knew that controlling the canal had become more trouble than it was worth, especially at a time when other Western powers were packing up and leaving their foreign colonies.

[Andrea Salcedo]

And Americans came to realize this was not good for their image in Latin America. Everywhere. But also that if they had to secure the canal, if there was this uprising against the canal, it would require at least a force of 100,000American troops. So they realized this was not sustainable.

[Nate Halvorson]

That's David Korn, Washington Bureau chief for Mother Jones. David's been covering D.C. politics for a long time and wrote about the Panama Canal in his book American Psychosis.

[Andrea Salcedo]

And starting with LBJ in the early 60s, every presidential administration was negotiating and talking with Panama about how to give the Canal back while retaining the right to use the canal.

[Nate Halvorson]

So, David, in 1977, Jimmy Carter signed the treaty with Panama, handing over full control of the canal by the year 2000. But that triggered a backlash among some Republicans who used language almost identical to what we're hearing today with from Donald Trump.

[Andrea Salcedo]

There was a big fight in the 1970s over the canal. And in some ways, it did begin with Ronald Reagan. In 1976, he was running in the Republican presidential primary challenging President Jerry Ford. And he lost the first few primary contests and his campaign was really on the ropes. He had served as governor of California. He was a very prominent figure and represented the right wing of the Republican Party. But it looked like he was going to lose and his political career was on the line. And then after a few primaries in, he grabbed the Panama Canal issue. The Panama Canal Zone is sovereign United States territory just as much as Alaska is, as well as the states carved.

[Nate Halvorson]

From the Louisiana Purchase.

[Andrea Salcedo]

We bought it, we paid for it, and General Torrillo should be told, we're.

[Nate Halvorson]

Going to keep it.

[Andrea Salcedo]

We paid for it, we built it, it's ours, he said over and over again.

[Eddie Pinto]

We.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Once he embraced the Panama Canal as an issue, he started winning Republican primaries. Much of Latin America depends upon the.

[Eddie Pinto]

Knowledge that the canal will be run impartially and efficiently by the United States.

[Andrea Salcedo]

A few Latin American voices have championed Torrillo's position, but most remain silent, possibly because of concerns about United States withdrawal from the canal.

[Nate Halvorson]

I do not believe we should ratify this treaty.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Now. It wasn't good enough. Eventually, Jerry Ford came back and won the nomination. But Ronald Reagan proved he was competitive. Everyone looked at him as the next heir apparent in the Republican Party. Had he not had that success with the Panama Canal Treaty, his career might have been over at the end of that campaign.

[Nate Halvorson]

So, of course, Jimmy Carter ended up winning that election. But the debate over the canal continued with lots of intense lobbying, even from some Hollywood stars like John Wayne. Right.

[Andrea Salcedo]

It turns out that John Wayne, the symbol of conservative America, was actually in favor of the treaties. He had been married to a woman from Panama. He had a lot of connections there, some business connections, and he understood why it was important to give the canal back to the Panamanians, and that that would lead to actually greater security for the canal and it wouldn't have to become an occupied US Military zone, which is way it was heading. All right, anybody else?

[Nate Halvorson]

Say it now because I don't want to ever hear it again.

[Andrea Salcedo]

I don't like quitters, especially when they're not good enough to finish what they start. So he wrote Ronald Reagan a letter saying, you have your facts wrong. You're misinforming the American public. He wrote op eds. He was very public about this. So he became a big figure in this very, very contentious fight that helped to fuel Ronald Reagan's rise to the presidency in 1980, and in some ways leads us directly to Trump and MAGA right now.

[Nate Halvorson]

Has this always been somewhat of a partisan issue? I mean, I know John Wayne was on the right, but he seems to be an outlier.

[Andrea Salcedo]

No, Ronald Reagan turned it into an ideological issue, not so much a partisan issue. The Panama Canal issue, up until Ronald Reagan, was bipartisan. You had Republican and Democratic administrations both believing that they had to negotiate some form of turnover of the canal to Panama. The far right of the Republican Party joined with the John Birch Society, one of the most extreme groups out there, to make this their top issue when Jimmy Carter was president. And in fact, you saw the far right attacking moderate Republicans who supported the treaty. You had mail coming in from conservative activists to the offices of Republicans in the Senate accusing them of being controlled by Jews, Jewish Bankers accusing them of treason and traitorous behavior. It was a moment when the new right, using direct mail and other, at the time, new devices, were looking for wedge issues that pushed emotional buttons. Gun control, abortion, school prayer, and the Panama Canal. And they used it to attack moderate Republicans and to attack Democrats. And the direct mail they sent out, well, it's kind of like blogging or tweeting of today. It was often filled of disinformation. It was a way to get around the media, to give people different takes on what was in the news. And it worked because America just lost the Vietnam War and Republicans knew that. A lot of Americans, you know, felt bad about that, felt ashamed, felt some disgrace. And this was a way to flex the muscle and regain that superpower status. And we see now Donald Trump make America great again. Bring it, you know, bring back the good old days using the Panama Canal. Talk about taking over Greenland and even talk about acquiring Canada in the same sort of way, flexing muscle on issues that don't really make sense, but they're emotional.

[Nate Halvorson]

If we were to try and take it back, I mean, you would think that that means military intervention. Is there any other way that he could pressure the Panamanians to return the canal to America?

[Andrea Salcedo]

You know, Panama is one of the most pro American countries in Latin America, and it takes a lot to, I think, tick them off. But this talk of taking back the canal is indeed doing that. And we have to remember we gave them the canal because we had decided that it created too much conflict to be down there and running this canal. And because if there was unrest, we'd have to have 100,000 troops to secure the canal. So there's no way to do this without military force. The Panamanians love the canal. Obviously, it's a big source of income for them. So you're really talking about going to war and becoming, if you win the war, an occupying power. And just think, just to try to do this, all the dislocation, the economic instability that would. That would happen if the canal had to be closed for any amount of time. America uses the canal more than any other nation. We'd be hurt the most by this. So in any sane world, talk of taking control of the canal, particularly by military force, would be a complete non starter. But again, the reason that Ronald Reagan pushed this issue so hard back in the 70s is that it had emotional appeal to a bloc of American voters. And when Donald Trump talks like this, he's talking like a strongman. And he knows that for some Americans, that's Very appealing.

[Nate Halvorson]

David Korn is the Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones. Thank you so much for coming in.

[Andrea Salcedo]

Good to be with you.

[Nate Halvorson]

In a moment. Is there a strategy that connects Trump's policy on Panama with his other moves on the world stage?

[Al Letson]

I think it's very easy to look at some of Trump's fairly deranged tweets about conquering Canada and say, oh, this is fundamentally ridiculous, but they are coming from a place of national security concerns.

[Nate Halvorson]

You're listening to Reveal.

[Al Letson]

Hey, this is Misa from Reveal. How many episodes have you listened to? 5, 500. And how many times have you donated? It's free to listen to these shows, but great journalism is anything but free to produce. It takes millions of dollars a year to make Reveal, and the truth is it would not be possible if listeners did not support it. So please donate today. Just text the word give to 888-57REAL. That's 888-577-3832 or visit revealnews.org donate. Thank you.

[Nate Halvorson]

From the center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, this is Reveal. Al. I'm Al. This week's show is about how the Trump administration is straining relations with America's friends and allies. As we've heard, Trump's tough talk about reclaiming the Panama Canal may play well with his political base, but what's the strategy behind it? And how about some of his other foreign policy decisions? What's the game plan? With me to connect the dots is Emma Ashford. Emma is a columnist at Foreign Policy magazine and a senior fellow at the Stimson center in Washington. Emma, thanks so much for talking to me today.

[Al Letson]

Great to be here.

[Nate Halvorson]

So, at the beginning of his term, President Trump talked a lot about invading Panama, taking control of Greenland and Canada, too. But he's kind of gone quiet recently. Was this just about him getting fixated, then quickly moving on, or is there something else?

[Al Letson]

Look, I mean, I think we can all agree that in this administration, attention span remains an issue, but I would point to two specific factors for why the administration and President Trump himself is talking less about this. One is that in a practical sense, the issues are now being worked through by the bureaucracy. Right? So the fact that it's moved to that practical stage, I think is part of it. And then, of course, I think the other problem is we've seen these huge issues elsewhere, whether that's Iran, whether that's Ukraine coming up to the top of the agenda and pushing this stuff down.

[Nate Halvorson]

So when Trump talks about putting America first, how does that fit into the idea of grabbing other territory.

[Al Letson]

I think it's very easy to look at some of Trump's fairly deranged tweets about conquering Canada and say, oh, this is fundamentally ridiculous, but they are coming from a place of national security concerns. Now, we could have a debate about whether these are serious, genuine national security concerns. We could absolutely have a debate about whether threatening to invade is a good way to achieve US Goals. But in each of the three big cases here, the Panama Canal, access to military bases in Greenland, or US in the Arctic, which is where Canada comes in, there is sort of a genuine kernel of national security concern behind it. In the case of the Panama Canal or Latin America more broadly, a lot of these threats that, that we're talking about aren't really military threats. They're about Chinese intelligence gaining access to critical systems that might be useful in a conflict, or they're about China buying up a bunch of port infrastructure in various places. To me, none of that screams military solutions. That's very much about trade and diplomacy. There's ways to negotiate that that don't require seizing territory. I think that's where this goes off the rails in this administration.

[Nate Halvorson]

Do you think that Greenland is specifically about having a strategic advantage if a war broke out?

[Al Letson]

The Greenland issue is very much related to territory. And in fact, I think all of these issues are related to territory and to hard security concerns. The Arctic is melting, and, you know, we have seen in recent years more and more ships being able to transit through various northern passages, even heading into the winter months. Greenland is going to become strategically more important as a choke point for shipping. The Russians, the Chinese, are looking at shipping up there. So there are genuine security reasons to care about Greenland. Again, whether owning the territory or whether angering Denmark in order to do it is worth it. That's a separate problem.

[Nate Halvorson]

So has Trump's bullying tactics had any big wins?

[Al Letson]

There's a few places where I would say that he actually is getting results. One is European defence spending. We saw NATO allies a few weeks ago at the summit in the Hague talking about 5% of GDP defence spending. US leaders have been calling for this for years, but never really put any pressure on the Europeans. And Trump has actually managed to get results with his bullying. So there's one there. Another is in Panama itself. We are seeing, seeing the negotiation of a deal between some of the Panamanian authorities, the ports and the Chinese conglomerate that was involved. That was the concern for the Trump administration to try and get that Chinese company. I think they're based in Hong Kong, out of the management of the port. The deal would, I think, transfer ownership to BlackRock and some other companies. Now, whether that deal actually pulls through is still an open question. I believe it has to be approved in Beijing. That may be difficult, but if that deal were to be achieved, I would say that's probably a win as well.

[Nate Halvorson]

Even if Trump has had some foreign policy successes, it does seem that his bluster is pushing away longtime friends and allies of the United States. Is that something you're concerned about?

[Al Letson]

I think there are trade offs, to be sure. If we take, you know, European defense spending in NATO, for example, now that Trump is in their being rude, threatening to pull back from Europe, they're actually doing something. But there is always that risk that you anger other countries, that you push them away, and maybe they start to make decisions that are not necessarily in your interests. Where I really do worry with this administration, I think, is actually not on the military side or the defence side. It's on the trade side. It's the fact that right as we are saying, it's time to rebalance America's military relations with its allies, allies so that allies do more. We're also saying, but we're not going to trade with you and we're not going to do investment. And to me, that's the place where America is missing around the world. It's business, corporations, investment. It's not necessarily the military presence that's the problem.

[Nate Halvorson]

Watching the Trump administration and their foreign policy moves from a distance, it seems like it's a little willy nilly, it's all over the place. But do you see it that way? I mean, do you see a strategy here?

[Al Letson]

It's certainly chaotic. As somebody who watched the first Trump administration in D.C. as well this time around, there does appear to be somewhat more coherence. It's still a little chaotic. The president still tweets what he thinks. But I do think there's a slightly more consistent worldview inside the administration. And they're focused on things like reducing American military burdens overseas and to be frank, on things like immigration and some of these other issues that we don't typically include in foreign policy. But if you actually look at what say, Secretary of State Marco Rubio talked about when he went down to Latin America, or Pete Hegseth when he was down there recently, they were talking about migration, they were talking about deportation, they were talking about these things the Trump administration deeply cares about, just not necessarily the foreign policy part.

[Nate Halvorson]

So you feel like there's a point of view that the administration has, it's just, just the way they go about it is not necessarily, for lack of a better term, disciplined.

[Al Letson]

I think that's right. All presidential administrations vary in how much process they have internally. The Biden administration, I think, was on one end of this spectrum. Right. And that everything went through, you know, 100 levels of review in the interagency. The Trump administration is on the other end. Policy almost predominantly comes from Trump and his closest advisers and then sort of percolates downward. That doesn't necessarily mean that one is always better than the other, but you do tend to see a little more coherence, a little more reliability when you have that more process.

[Nate Halvorson]

Who's he listening to?

[Al Letson]

It does seem that Trump's cabinet officials are fairly influential. And Trump really does listen to Marco Rubio, he really does listen to Vice President J.D. vance, etc. But then there are a lot of people in and around the President who also weigh in on policy that we wouldn't think of necessarily as traditional advisers. Right. So folks that are in the media, conservative influencers. Again, every administration has these ties to some extent, but with Donald Trump, again, the process is very much about influencing an individual rather than necessarily working through a whole large bureaucratic process.

[Nate Halvorson]

Is there a divide in his advisors, that is the hawks versus the restrainers?

[Al Letson]

Yeah, I think that's something that became very clear after the strikes on Iran a few weeks back. We see that even though people within the Republican Party have sort of adopted Trumpism, have adopted America first language, that they are pushing slightly different agendas within that framework. So there are folks in inside the administration who want to take a more bellicose approach. Yeah, hawks is a good description for them who want to use the US military more. These are the folks that were behind the attacks on Iran, sort of the Houthi bombings that happened prior to that. And then there are folks like I think the Vice President and to some extent Marco Rubio, Secretary of State as well, who are saying, you know, well, maybe we shouldn't do a bunch of military action right now. Maybe we should focus on these other longer term issues.

[Nate Halvorson]

So you live in Washington, you're immersed in these policy circles watching the twists and turns of Trump's foreign policy. What has made you go, ah, you.

[Al Letson]

Know, the policy choice that is the one that has me most concerned and that I think is such a bad choice is the gutting of America's soft power capabilities, the killing of usaid, the destruction of the Wilson Centre, which was a government associated think tank, cutting down the State Department by Several thousand staff. Again, all of these places probably needed reform. There were ways that we could have improved what we were doing. But especially if you're trying to have a less military heavy approach to the world, cutting our tools, our ability to actually interact with other countries, that seems to me to be an incredibly short sighted decision and I think we're going to regret it.

[Nate Halvorson]

So Donald Trump has said many times that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. I know this seems like a pretty far fetched idea to a lot of people, but I'm curious, what do you think he'd need to accomplish that?

[Al Letson]

At first this seemed as ridiculous to me as everybody else. And then I remembered that Henry Kissinger has a Nobel Peace Prize. And actually, if you look at the awardees for peace prizes, there are often some really horrible people who have managed to find a way to solve an intractable conflict with someone on the other side. Northern Ireland, Burma, all of these places. I think what Donald Trump would need in order to get a Nobel Prize is to actually resolve one of these large conflicts that he's been wrestling with. Iran is probably off the table at this point. He blew that with these military strikes. If he finds a way to get the Russians and Ukrainians to the table, I think that would be something that would qualify him for a Peace prize. I think in, in practice it is going to be for him about resolving a significant and difficult conflict. And I, I'm just not sure if he's going to be able to pull it out.

[Nate Halvorson]

Emma, thank you so much.

[Al Letson]

Really appreciated it. Thanks.

[Nate Halvorson]

Emma Ashford is a senior fellow at the Stimson center and author of an upcoming First Among US Foreign Policy in a Multipolar World. And before we go, I want to talk to you directly, just us, because, well, public media is at a crossroads. Earlier this month, Congress voted to strip away more than a billion dollars from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Losing federal funding will profoundly destabilize public radio stations across the country, especially those in rural and underserved communities. Public radio is all about reporting the truth. It's a public service that you've come to depend on. And right now it needs your support. So please give to your local station and do your part to preserve programs like Reveal and the local newsrooms that serve your community. You can find out more about the effort to restore federal funding by visiting protect my public media.org Please, we need your help. This week's show was produced by Michael Montgomery, Michael I. Schiller, Julia Haney and Daniel Friedman. Taki Telanitis edited the show Special thanks to Nadia Hamdan and Melvis Acosta, who was also our fact checker. Victoria Baranetsky is our General Counsel. Our production manager is the great Zulema Cobb. Score and sound design by the dynamic duo Jay Breezy, Mr. Jim Briggs and Fernando My Man Yo Arruda. They had help from Claire C. Note Mullen. Our executive producer is Bret Myers. Our theme music is by Camerado Lightning. Support for reveals provided by the Riva and David Logan foundation, the John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur foundation, the Jonathan Logan Family foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson foundation, the park foundation, the Schmidt Family foundation, and the Hellman Foundation. Support for reveal is also provided by you, our listeners. We are a co production of the center for Investigative Reporting and prx. I'm Al Letson and remember, there is always more to the story.

[Al Letson]

From prx.