From the Panama Canal standoff to Honduras: Trump reasserts Washington’s grip on Central America

When Donald Trump publicly questioned control over the Panama Canal, alarms went off across Central America. It was not just another bombastic statement in the Republican’s provocative style — it was the first visible sign of a policy that once again places the region under U.S. oversight. Trump revived old interventionist instincts by interfering in Honduras’s presidential election and threatening to cut aid to Central American governments as leverage to force them into agreements aimed at curbing migration. Once again, the isthmus appears on Washington’s radar — not as a strategic partner, but as a backyard to be controlled.

Wounds from U.S. interference still fester in Central America. Since the 19th century, the United States has turned the region into a priority of its foreign policy — one subject to Washington’s designs. The logic was always the same: protect economic, commercial, and geopolitical interests under the guise of hemispheric stability and security.

In 1909, the U.S. intervened in Nicaragua to force the fall of president José Santos Zelaya, who was accused of challenging U.S. and European interests. But the country’s subjugation was cemented with the military occupation of U.S. Marines in 1912, which lasted until 1933 and installed a puppet government led by Anastasio Somoza García before the Marines withdrew. That imposition marked the beginning of one of the longest-lasting and bloodiest family dictatorships in Latin America, which endured for more than 40 years.

The U.S. has a long history of interventions in the region. In 1954, Washington orchestrated the overthrow of Guatemala’s democratically elected president, Jacobo Árbenz, through a CIA-backed covert operation that marked the beginning of decades of violence and civil war. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration funded and supplied the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla force aiming to topple Nicaragua’s Sandinista government — a strategy that escalated into a civil war claiming over 50,000 lives. In 1989, 24,000 U.S. Southern Command troops invaded Panama to remove dictator Manuel Antonio Noriega, in an operation that left dozens of civilians dead and solidified the image of the United States as the region’s ultimate arbiter.

That past is more than just historical memory. Trump’s return to the White House has revived a policy of direct pressure, devoid of diplomatic nuance. Experts consulted by EL PAÍS interpret this strategy as an attempt to counter China’s growing influence in what Washington still considers its natural sphere of influence. Central America, crisscrossed by key trade routes and in urgent need of investment, has become a battleground in the global power struggle.

“Central America is viewed by the United States as a strategic obligation that must remain within its sphere of influence,” explains Carlos Murillo, professor of International Relations at the National University of Costa Rica. According to the academic, this renewed version of the Monroe Doctrine — which he defines as a “Trump Doctrine,” based on economic and political coercion — will become increasingly visible. “Central American countries have no room to maneuver if they receive threats of tariffs or even military intervention, as happened in the past with Panama,” he says.

Murillo argues that the United States seeks to reclaim the global hegemony it held in the mid-20th century and, to do so, considers it essential to exercise political, economic, and military control over the Western Hemisphere.

The new policy of interference began just days after Trump returned to power in January 2025, when he insisted on the need to “take back” the Panama Canal. “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,” he declared. Trump accused the Panamanian government of “severely” overcharging U.S. ships and suggested that Washington could retake control of the infrastructure. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino immediately rejected Trump’s statements, responding that “the canal is and will remain Panama’s.” Latin America rallied behind the Central American country.

Geopolitical analyst Ángel Martínez, from Swansea University in Wales, explains that Trump sees regaining control of the canal as a way to secure a quick and symbolic victory. “It kills several birds with one stone: it reaffirms geopolitical power, connects with a nationalist narrative that mobilizes his supporters, and reinforces the idea that the United States will not tolerate Chinese expansion in its immediate vicinity,” he explains. According to Martínez, “recovering” the canal does not necessarily mean direct administration; it could also involve imposing preferential conditions for U.S. ships or retaining the ability to monitor maritime traffic. “That is also a way of taking control,” he explains.

The next chapter of this new era of intervention played out in Honduras. Trump explicitly intervened in the presidential elections to support the conservative candidate Nasry Asfura, who was ultimately declared the winner after a long and chaotic recount that plunged the country into weeks of uncertainty. “I hope the people of Honduras vote for Freedom and Democracy and elect Tito Asfura President!” Trump wrote on Truth Social a few days before the election. The U.S. president also pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been sentenced in New York to 45 years in prison for his ties to drug trafficking, a decision that shocked Hondurans.

“The average Honduran has a lot of faith in the United States and sees it as a benchmark for what we aspire to be,” explains Lucía Vijil, a researcher at the Center for Studies for Democracy (Cespad), from Tegucigalpa. “The United States is our main trading partner, and what it says about Honduras carries enormous weight. Trump sees everything in terms of business: money, strategic agreements, profits. There is no real interest in strengthening institutions or democracy.”

For decades, U.S. interventions were justified under the guise of defending democracy, although in practice it led to military dictatorships and authoritarian regimes in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. “For the last 15 years, with its ups and downs, the United States had been an ally on issues of democracy and human rights. That is no longer the case,” says Katya Salazar, executive director of the Due Process Foundation, based in Washington. In her view, democracy is also being undermined in the United States. “Undue interference in foreign elections is unprecedented and worrying,” she warns. “I have no doubt that the United States will get involved in other elections, promoting the election of not just right-wing presidents, but far-right presidents who share Washington’s new Christian and nationalist values.”

The next test for this policy will be Costa Rica, which will hold elections on February 1. The country is experiencing an authoritarian drift under the government of President Rodrigo Chaves, who, barred from seeking reelection, is trying to ensure the continuity of his policies through the official candidacy of Laura Fernández. According to analyst Murillo, the Costa Rican executive branch is showing “evident subordination” to Washington, visible in decisions such as accepting deported migrants from third countries — a policy that mirrors the model promoted by the United States in El Salvador.

El Salvador occupies a central place in Trump’s regional strategy. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele maintains a privileged relationship with Washington. “There are personal and political ties. Bukele has been skillful in positioning himself as a reliable partner for the United States,” explains Carlos Cascante, an academic at the University of Costa Rica. Honduras, experts add, is also of particular interest because it is home to the only U.S. military base in Central America.

Trump’s disregard for democracy is even more evident in his approach to Nicaragua. Despite reports of crimes against humanity committed by the regime of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo, Washington has applied only limited pressure. A Politico report revealed that Managua cooperates with the United States in the fight against drug trafficking, which has spared Ortega and Murillo “from Trump’s wrath.” Still, signs of pressure do exist: Ortega recently released several political prisoners, and the U.S. State Department demanded the unconditional release of all of political prisoners.

According to Cascante, U.S. pressure on Nicaragua is mainly exerted through commercial channels. Analyst Murillo, however, believes the regime has little room to maneuver. “You can’t have a troublesome neighbor in your backyard,” he says. Ortega knows that neither Russia nor China would come to his aid in the event of a direct intervention.

The word “intervention” has thus returned to the Central American political vocabulary. A region marked by the memory of occupations, coups, and wars now watches as the United States returns with a ruthless policy. Once again, Central America appears on Washington’s radar — not as a community of sovereign nations, but as a strategic space that must fall in line, seemingly at any cost.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition