Could the Panama Canal become a flashpoint in U.S. foreign policy? In recent weeks, Donald Trump has stirred controversy by suggesting that the canal should be returned to the United States—and hasn’t ruled out using military force to make it happen. His remarks, made during his presidential inauguration, have sparked heated discussions about the potential consequences of such a move. The Panama Canal has been under Panamanian control since 1999, following a historic agreement ratified under President Jimmy Carter. This decision marked the end of a quasi-colonial era and was supported by leaders from both political parties, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Since then, the canal has operated smoothly, with over two-thirds of its traffic involving U.S. ports. However, Trump’s assertion that the canal should be handed back to the U.S. has been met with strong resistance. Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino has made it clear: “Every square meter of the Panama Canal belongs to Panama, and will continue to be.” The idea of reclaiming the canal through military means is no small feat. The canal zone spans over 500 square miles, and Panama’s population of 4.5 million could pose significant challenges to any occupation effort. Experts estimate that U.S. troops would need to deploy around 90,000 soldiers to maintain control, a massive undertaking for a president who has long criticized military interventions. Moreover, any disruption to the Panama Canal could have far-reaching effects on global trade. The canal handles about 6% of the world’s trade, and instability in the region could compound existing disruptions caused by conflicts in other key trade routes like the Red Sea. While Trump is known for his unconventional approach, the logistics and consequences of retaking the Panama Canal make it a highly risky endeavor. Whether it’s through diplomacy or force, this idea may be more of a political statement than a practical plan.