Danish company replaces Hong Kong firm at Panama Canal after US pressure

PANAMA CITY — Danish shipping giant Maersk will temporarily take over operations at two strategic Panama Canal ports, replacing Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison, the Panama Maritime Authority (AMP) announced Friday.

The announcement comes one day after the Panama Supreme Court ruled that CK Hutchison's contracts were unconstitutional. The court found that the agreements showed "disproportionate bias" toward the Hong Kong firm.

The ruling follows repeated threats from U.S. President Donald Trump, who claimed his administration would seek to regain control over the waterway to counter what he described as Chinese dominance. Subsidiaries of CK Hutchison have managed the ports of Balboa and Cristobal since 1997.

The Panama Canal is a critical global trade artery, handling approximately 40% of all U.S. container traffic.

Washington welcomed Panama's decision to strip the contracts from the Hong Kong firm. Meanwhile, the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated it would take all necessary measures to protect the legal interests of Chinese companies.

The transition of operators at the Panama Canal is far more than a localized contract dispute; it represents a definitive geopolitical victory for the Trump administration’s foreign policy. By successfully framing the presence of a Hong Kong-based firm as "Chinese control" over a critical global strategic asset, Washington exerted sufficient pressure to catalyze a domestic legal pivot in favor of U.S. interests.

The selection of Denmark’s Maersk—a conglomerate headquartered in a NATO allied nation—is a calculated strategic pivot. By replacing an operator viewed by Washington as an extension of a geopolitical rival with a trusted partner, the move effectively neutralizes U.S. security anxieties regarding one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints.

This development establishes a formidable precedent. Smaller nations with critical infrastructure managed by Chinese-linked entities may now face similar diplomatic and economic pressure. The signal from Washington is unambiguous: U.S. national security imperatives can, and will, supersede existing commercial frameworks. Furthermore, it underscores Washington’s willingness to leverage its influence to reshape the sovereign decision-making of its regional partners.

For Panama, the outcome underscores an increasingly precarious balancing act. While the decision aligns the country with U.S. security priorities, it leaves Panama vulnerable to economic retaliation from Beijing, a primary customer of the canal. Panama now finds itself at the center of a superpower tug-of-war, forced to weigh the benefits of a traditional security alliance against the risks of alienating a major commercial stakeholder.