The U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Gridley docked in Panama City for multinational military drills spanning South America, the latest in a series of expanding security engagements between Washington and Panama City that have drawn street protests and sharp political debate over sovereignty and foreign military presence on Panamanian soil.
The deployment comes after a bilateral meeting between Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino, the Panama Canal Authority Administrator, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth produced a joint statement and a new security Memorandum of Understanding. That agreement opens the door to increased joint activities at shared locations, but it has also triggered public backlash in a country where memories of U.S. military control over the Canal Zone remain vivid.
Destroyer Arrives for Regional Exercises
The USS Gridley docked in Panama City as part of broader South America drills. The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer’s port call signals that the U.S. Navy is treating Panama not just as a diplomatic partner but as a staging point for regional military coordination. The visit fits a pattern of stepped-up American military engagement across Central and South America, where Washington has sought closer operational ties with partner nations to address drug trafficking, migration, and maritime security.
What distinguishes this deployment from routine port calls is its timing. It follows a rapid sequence of diplomatic and military agreements that have deepened the U.S. footprint in Panama within a compressed window. For ordinary Panamanians, the sight of an American warship in their capital’s harbor carries weight that goes well beyond standard alliance management. The Canal Zone, returned to Panamanian control in 1999, remains a potent symbol of national sovereignty, and any expansion of U.S. military activity near it draws scrutiny.
Security Pact Signed After April Bilateral Meeting
The formal framework behind the USS Gridley’s visit traces back to an April 8, 2025, bilateral meeting between President Mulino, the Panama Canal Authority Administrator, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The three officials issued a joint statement referencing a security Memorandum that enables increased bilateral activities and support for mission needs at joint-use locations. The statement also referenced additional security cooperation instruments, though specific details of those instruments were not publicly released.
The MOU matters because it provides legal and logistical scaffolding for exactly the kind of naval visit now taking place. Without it, each U.S. military exercise in Panama would require ad hoc diplomatic clearance. With it, both governments can plan recurring joint activities with less friction. For the Pentagon, that means faster response times and more predictable access. For Panama, it means deeper integration into U.S. regional security architecture, with all the benefits and political risks that entails.
Panamanian officials have framed the agreement as a way to support canal security and broader national defense needs without ceding control of territory. The emphasis on “joint-use locations” is deliberate: facilities remain under Panamanian sovereignty while being available for U.S. forces to use for specific missions and training. Critics, however, argue that repeated access can, in practice, resemble a semi-permanent presence, especially when combined with regular ship visits and air operations.
Special Operations Training Expands
The naval deployment is only one thread in a broader expansion. U.S. Special Operations forces have been conducting combined training with Panamanian counterparts and formalizing their engagement commitment. These are not one-off exercises. According to the Department of Defense, U.S. forces conduct ongoing training events in Panama that extend beyond any single drill cycle.
The formalization of special operations cooperation represents a qualitative shift. Ad hoc training visits can be quietly scaled back when political winds change. A formalized commitment, by contrast, creates institutional expectations on both sides. Panamanian special operations units gain access to American equipment, tactics, and intelligence-sharing pipelines. The U.S. military gains a trained partner force in a strategically critical corridor between Central and South America. The practical effect is that American operators are now a recurring presence in Panamanian training environments, not occasional visitors.
U.S. officials present these activities as capacity-building rather than force projection. Training packages typically focus on counter-narcotics missions, maritime interdiction, and border security, areas where Panama’s security forces face persistent pressure. By embedding with Panamanian units, U.S. personnel can tailor instruction to local terrain and operational realities. Yet the same embedded posture that improves training also heightens perceptions that Washington is once again deeply involved in the country’s internal security apparatus.
Protests and the Sovereignty Question
Not everyone in Panama views this deepening relationship as a net positive. Protests have occurred in Panama over the security deal with the United States, driven by public sensitivity to any expansion of American military presence. The U.S. embassy responded by stating that there are no military bases in Panama, a distinction that matters legally but may not satisfy critics who see joint-use locations and recurring training exercises as functionally similar.
President Mulino has taken a firm public stance, stating that he will not renegotiate the security deal. At the same time, Panamanian authorities say the agreement includes a termination clause, a detail that serves as a political safety valve. By pointing to the exit provision, Mulino can argue that Panama retains sovereign control over the arrangement even as it deepens military ties with Washington. The tension between these two positions, firm commitment and available exit, reflects the difficult balancing act any Panamanian leader faces when engaging with the U.S. military.
The protests tap into a strain of Panamanian political identity that predates the current government. American military installations operated in the Canal Zone for decades before the 1999 handover, and any suggestion that the U.S. is re-establishing a permanent footprint triggers strong reactions. The distinction between a “base” and a “joint-use location” may be clear in diplomatic language, but on the streets of Panama City, the line blurs quickly. Demonstrators have framed their opposition not only in anti-imperialist terms but also as a defense of hard-won constitutional prerogatives over national territory.
Domestic critics also question the transparency of the security arrangements. While the joint statement outlined broad themes (support for canal security, counter-narcotics cooperation, and regional stability), it did not spell out the full scope of activities or the number of U.S. personnel that could rotate through Panamanian facilities. Opposition figures argue that such details should be debated in public and, potentially, in the legislature, rather than negotiated solely through executive channels.
Regional Security Pressures Drive the Partnership
The strategic logic behind the expanding U.S.-Panama security relationship is straightforward. Panama sits at the narrowest point of the land bridge connecting North and South America, making it a critical chokepoint for drug trafficking routes, migration corridors, and maritime commerce transiting the canal. Washington has long viewed Panama as essential to regional stability, and the current round of agreements reflects an effort to formalize what had previously been a more informal cooperation pattern.
For Panama, the calculation is more complex. Closer ties with the U.S. military bring access to training, equipment, and intelligence that would be difficult to match from other partners. They also promise additional resources for securing the canal, a vital national asset whose disruption would carry global economic consequences. Yet every new exercise and every additional visit by U.S. forces risks fueling perceptions that the country is sliding back toward a protectorate-style relationship.
Supporters of the agreement argue that Panama cannot tackle transnational crime and maritime threats alone. They contend that joint patrols, shared radar coverage, and integrated command-and-control structures are necessary to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated smuggling networks. In this view, the presence of a destroyer like the USS Gridley for multinational drills is evidence that Panama is plugged into a broader security web, not surrendering its autonomy.
Opponents counter that security challenges, while real, should not be used to justify an open-ended foreign military role. They warn that reliance on U.S. forces can crowd out investment in domestic institutions and leave Panama vulnerable to shifts in Washington’s priorities. For them, the protests are not simply about one ship visit or one MOU but about the long-term trajectory of the country’s foreign and defense policy.
A Test Case for Post-Canal Relations
The USS Gridley’s arrival thus functions as a test case for how far and how fast U.S.-Panama security cooperation can expand in the post-Canal Zone era. On paper, the arrangements emphasize partnership, joint decision-making, and respect for Panamanian sovereignty. In practice, the optics of a U.S. warship in Panama City, coupled with regular special operations training and new legal frameworks, revive old questions about power imbalances and historical grievances.
How the two governments manage this moment will shape not only bilateral ties but also regional perceptions of U.S. engagement. If the exercises proceed smoothly and the benefits (improved interdiction, enhanced canal security, and professionalized forces) are visible to the Panamanian public, the current backlash could ease. If, instead, the cooperation is seen as opaque, heavy-handed, or open-ended, the protests sparked by the latest agreements may prove to be the beginning of a broader reckoning over the country’s security posture.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
