China has seized about 70 Panamanian-flagged ships in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Panama Canal, U.S. officials said.
Published April 29, 2026
Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States issued a joint statement in support of Panama, criticizing China’s economic retaliation after the Hong Kong-based conglomerate lost a legal dispute over control of the Panama Canal ports.
In late January, Panama’s Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a decades-old agreement that had given a subsidiary of Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison control of the Panama Canal’s Balboa and Cristobal port terminals.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
In a joint statement on Tuesday, the six countries claimed that China had retaliated against Panama with “targeted economic pressure” against Panama-flagged vessels following the court ruling.
China seized nearly 70 Panamanian-flagged vessels in March, a number that “far exceeds historical norms,” according to the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission.
“These actions, following the decisions of Panama’s Independent Supreme Court regarding the Balboa and Cristobal Terminals, are a blatant attempt to politicize maritime trade and violate the sovereignty of the countries of the hemisphere,” the signatories said.
Separately, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on the X show that the United States is “deeply concerned” about China’s economic pressure on Panama.
“We stand in solidarity with Panama. Any attempt to undermine Panama’s sovereignty is a threat to us all,” he said.
China has previously accused the United States of trying to tarnish its reputation in Latin America with “bullying” and called the Panama Supreme Court’s ruling “absurd” and “shameful.”
U.S. Federal Maritime Commission Chairwoman Laura DiBella said last month that China’s seizure of Panamanian ships has implications for both Panama and the United States.
“These enhanced inspections were conducted based on unofficial directives and appear to be aimed at punishing Panama following the transfer of Hutchison’s port assets,” DiBella said.
“Given that Panamanian-flagged vessels account for a significant share of the U.S. container trade, these actions could have significant commercial and strategic implications for U.S. shipping,” he said.
“Countries know how vulnerable shipping is.”
Panama’s decision to void the contract held by CK Hutchison subsidiary Panama Ports Company comes at a time of increased media attention around the Panama Canal amid threats by US President Donald Trump to seize the strategic waterway.
President Trump made the 50-mile canal a focus of his second administration, claiming in his inaugural address in January 2025 that China “runs” the canal and vowing that the United States would “take back” control.
In addition to targeting Panama and its interests, U.S. officials claim that China is also retaliating against shipping giants Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC). MSC’s subsidiary had been given an 18-month contract to manage the Balboa and Cristobal terminals after CK Hutchison was fired.
The Federal Maritime Commission said in March that representatives from Maersk and MSC had both been summoned to China’s Ministry of Transport for “high-level consultations” and that Chinese shipping giant Costco had suspended operations at its Balboa terminal.
CK Hutchison, through a subsidiary of the Panama Ports Corporation, has filed a separate international arbitration against the Panamanian government, seeking more than $2 billion in damages.
Associate Professor David Smith from the Center for American Studies at the University of Sydney said the Panama Canal dispute and China’s retaliation were the latest examples of shipping becoming a political target from Latin America to the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea in the Middle East.
“We have taken for granted that the world runs on container ships sailing freely around the world,” he told Al Jazeera.
“What we’re seeing now is that countries know how vulnerable shipping is. They know they can cut off shipping lanes if necessary. It wouldn’t be surprising if ships and shipping in general become pawns in international politics in the future.”
