Experts Warn of China’s Grip on Key US and Latin American Ports

Chinese Cosco Shipping Rose container ship sails near the new Cocoli locks, in the Panama Canal, Panama on Dec. 3, 2018. Luis Acosta/AFP via Getty Images

Experts testifying before a congressional subcommittee said Chinese companies have stakes in ports throughout the Western Hemisphere—including five major U.S. ports—that pose security concerns.

While China’s influence on the Panama Canal may be the shiny object at the moment, China has been steadily securing port investments and critical infrastructure agreements throughout America’s backyard.

Testimony at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security on Feb. 11 suggested China has made particularly strategic port investments in Panama, Peru, and Brazil. Experts said Chinese companies hold interest in three Mexican ports, one at St. John’s Harbor in Antigua and one at Freeport, Jamaica.

The hearing examined China’s strategic port investments in the Western Hemisphere and what America can do to counter the communist regime’s influence at home and in the Americas.

Close to Home

Issac Kardon, a senior fellow for China studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, testified about China’s influence at U.S. ports during the hearing.

Kardon said that two Chinese state-owned enterprises—Costco Shipping and China Merchants Group—along with the Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison, are the leading Chinese partners in U.S. ports.

These Chinese firms hold minority stakes in terminals at the ports of Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, and Miami at Long Beach, he said.

Almost 130 ports globally have some degree of Chinese ownership or operation, according to testimony from Ryan Berg, director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

More than half of China’s ports sit on major shipping lanes and strategic choke points in the Western Hemisphere, he added.

Beijing’s national security law amounts to state-mandated espionage, Berg said, referring to requirements that Chinese companies cooperate with state intelligence gathering.

“The United States has shaken its post-war stupor,” said Berg. “The U.S. is no longer asleep at the switch, as strategic rivals set down roots in our shared neighborhood.”

Panama Canal

Two of Panama’s five principal ports—Balboa on the Pacific side and Cristóbal on the Atlantic side of the Panama Canal—are controlled by CK Hutchison, which is a significant concern for many security analysts who fear the waterway could be sabotaged or blocked should a conflict between Washington and Beijing erupt.

Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.), chairman of the subcommittee, said President Donald Trump was right to focus on Chinese companies operating ports at the Panama Canal, an essential artery for global commerce and U.S. naval operations.

Panama's Foreign Minister Javier Martinez-Acha (R) walks next to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio after their meeting at the presidential palace in Panama City on Feb. 2, 2025. Arnulfo Franco/AFP via Getty Images

“This gives Beijing a strategic position over one of the world’s most important waterways and provides the [Chinese Communist Party] CCP with an opportunity to exert influence over commercial shipping, gather intelligence on American and allied vessel traffic, and potentially restrict the mobility of our navy in a time of crisis,” Gimenez said.

After taking office in January, Trump doubled down on his assertion that the canal was being operated by China and vowed to intervene, prompting denials from Beijing and Panama.

“China is operating the Panama Canal,” Trump said during his inaugural speech. “And we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”

Panama announced in January that it is auditing the Hutchinson port concessions.

After a diplomatic visit from Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Feb. 2, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino announced he would not renew an agreement to continue China’s Belt and Road infrastructure program—a significant win for Trump’s pressure campaign.

Gimenez argued that the United States can’t and won’t accept a scenario where a foreign adversary controls infrastructure critical to U.S. security, dusting off the Monroe Doctrine to bolster his point.

“For more than two centuries, under the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, the United States has been the primary guarantor of stability and security in the Western Hemisphere, ensuring that trade routes vital to our economic security remain free from foreign adversarial dominance,” he said.

Security guards walk past a billboard for the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation at the forum's venue in Beijing on May 13, 2017. Wang Zhao/AFP via Getty Images

Countering China

Matthew Kroenig, an Atlantic Council think tank vice president, said America should work with neighboring countries to “decouple” from Chinese investments in ports and other critical infrastructure.

Kroenig said Panama’s audit of ports controlled by Chinese companies could offer an opportunity for U.S. companies and its allies to win control of the ports if the concession is rebid.

Latin American countries eying economic benefits from allowing Chinese investments may not understand the full costs that come due further into the deals.

“Through its investments, China cements access to resources, captures elites, gains leverage over governments, shifts national policies in its favor, and undermines democratic norms, transparency, and environmental standards,” said Kroenig, who previously worked on security issues at the CIA and Department of Defense.

Kroenig said America should make it clear that security risks exist for Latin American countries contracting with China for critical infrastructure, telecommunications, satellites, surveillance, and rare minerals.

Experts noted that the communist regime is known for embedding software into equipment—such as container cranes—which could leave countries open to Chinese espionage.

However, trade with China involving agriculture, for example, wouldn’t impact national security, he said.

Members of the Hutchison Port Holdings Trust board of directors pose for a photo during a ceremony to mark the inital public offering of Hutchison's China port unit of Hong Kong on the Singapore stock exchange on March 18, 2011. Simin Wang/AFP via Getty Images

Instead of trying to match China’s port investments symmetrically, the United States should leverage its network of maritime partners in Asia and Europe to compete with China, Kardon added.

Congress should prioritize legislation such as the SHIPS for America Act, which was proposed during the last Congress to build more ships and coordinate a national maritime strategy. He suggested creating a maritime security advisor to accompany the legislation.

Berg added that the United States could leverage the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and other multilateral financial institutions to launch a Chinese port buyback program in Latin American countries.

Likewise, the United States should help countries remove Chinese equipment from ports, such as Huawei equipment or ZPMC Chinese cranes.

“Our port industry believes the best counter to Chinese influence, especially at ports in our hemisphere, is strong leadership by the United States through strategic port investment; we must strive to keep our port infrastructure modern and globally competitive,” said Cary Davis, president of the American Association of Port Authorities.