Trump’s strategy toward the Suez Canal may unfold in the coming days.
Trump’s strategy toward the Suez Canal may unfold in the coming days.
By Islam Farag, from Cairo / Egypt
Since taking office last January, U.S. President Donald Trump has been attempting to reshape the global trade system. Attention has only been drawn to one aspect of this effort: his fervent desire to use tariffs to adjust the balance of trade between the United States and many other countries.
On April 2, significant and varying tariffs were announced on imports from China, the European Union, and many allied countries, with the aim of reducing the trade deficit, which reached $131.4 billion in January 2025, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
An overlooked aspect
However, the other aspect that has not received much attention is his pursuit of controlling major shipping lanes, as part of a comprehensive strategy that blends economic protectionism, diplomatic pressure, and military influence, to “Make America Great Again,” in line with his election campaign slogan.
Despite the numerous questions raised by this strategy, with its various aspects, regarding its ability to achieve its goals amid the complexities of international laws and state sovereignty, he is pursuing it relentlessly, undeterred by dissenting voices both domestically and internationally.
Trump’s ambitions for maritime dominance stem from the idea that controlling maritime chokepoints grants the United States unparalleled economic and political leverage.
On March 15 of this year, the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) launched a comprehensive investigation into congestion in shipping lanes, including the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, the Malacca Strait, and the Strait of Gibraltar.
The investigation aimed to assess the restrictions impacting U.S. trade. It proposed imposing significant penalties and fines on ships owned or built by China to reduce Beijing’s influence in the shipping industry. Some of these fines could reach up to $3 million per voyage undertaken by those ships. The sanctions extend to banning ships flying foreign flags, particularly Chinese ones, from American ports.
This investigation does not appear to be merely a technical measure as much as it is part of an attempt to impose a unipolar maritime system that serves American interests, with no regard for the international balances that have prevailed since the end of World War II.
Trump’s statements regarding the purchase of Greenland and the reclamation of the Panama Canal reinforce this perception. According to the Arctic Council, U.S. control over Greenland would provide influence over the Arctic Passage, through which 5% of global trade passes.
At the same time, according to the World Economic Forum’s 2024 report, the Panama Canal, which is suffering from drought and delays of up to 20 days, serves as a pressure point against China, which controls 70% of the global shipbuilding industry.
The U.S. administration realizes that its attempts to dominate global trade routes scattered across the globe might provoke backlash from its allies, but it remains unconcerned by this possibility.
Black Sea Navigation Deal
It can be said that this issue has also been a pressing concern for the current U.S. administration during its handling of the Ukrainian war. Last March, the administration announced an agreement reached in U.S.-mediated talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between Russia and Ukraine to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea.
According to White House, both parties agreed to eliminate the use of force and prevent the use of commercial ships for military purposes in the region. The stated goal was to restore the flow of commercial shipping, particularly grain exports, which had been severely disrupted since the collapse of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, mediated by the United Nations and Turkey in 2023. The United States also pledged to facilitate the return of Russian agricultural exports and fertilizers to global markets, suggesting a link between securing navigation and easing some sanctions.
According to observers, this reflected a comprehensive approach linking national security with economic interests. In this context, the Black Sea was considered an arena for asserting U.S. influence against Russia, with a focus on stabilizing trade as a diplomatic pressure tool.
However, this agreement has sparked controversy. The Kremlin linked its implementation to the lifting of sanctions on Russian banks— a condition not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. statement— suggesting conflicting interpretations. Meanwhile, European Union countries expressed concern that the agreement might weaken the sanctions regime against Russia without providing lasting security guarantees for Ukraine.
Silent Focus
And while the U.S. administration’s desire for maritime dominance has been openly declared regarding the Panama Canal, Greenland, and the Black Sea, it remains clear yet unspoken when it comes to one of the world’s most crucial waterways—the Suez Canal.
The canal, which connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, is a critical transit point for both commercial and military vessels. It significantly shortens the distance between Asia and Europe, saving approximately 10 days compared to the route around the Cape of Good Hope.
However, the canal has faced a very difficult period since the start of Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip in response to the events of October 7, 2023, when the Palestinian resistance launched a surprise assault on Israel, capturing numerous Israeli civilians and military personnel.
Israel’s response led to the emergence of a military support front for the resistance, with one of its key actors being the Houthis in Yemen, who launched missile attacks against Israel. This escalation threatened navigation in the Red Sea, prompting many shipping companies to reconsider using the canal, which handles 12% of global trade and 22% of container trade. As a result, the canal’s revenues dropped by 25% to $7.2 billion, according to statements by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi in December 2024.
In light of its crucial role in ensuring the flow of maritime traffic in the Red Sea, the United States announced the launch of Operation Prosperity Guardian in December 2023. This multinational security initiative aims to safeguard navigation in the Red Sea, with the participation of countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Spain.
While this initiative represents a commendable and welcome effort to re-secure navigation through this strategic artery, the investigation recently launched by FMC is not viewed from this perspective at all. This is especially true when considering the fierce campaign waged by Trump against the Panama Canal, including threats of military occupation under the pretext of exorbitant fees imposed on transiting American ships. That campaign ultimately concluded with a U.S.-led consortium gaining control over the companies managing the canal’s main ports in Latin America, in a deal valued at $19 billion. What transpired was less about reducing fees and more about an attempt to curb China’s growing dominance over the canal.
What confirms that Trump is harassing the Suez Canal in the same manner and with the same objectives are those leaks published by The Atlantic magazine last month, which pertain to American plans to bomb the Houthis in Yemen.
Based on what was revealed by journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the magazine, after being accidentally added to a chat group on the “Signal” app that included senior administration officials, part of the discussions among the administration officials implicitly suggested that the United States needed to clarify to Egypt and Europe what it expected in return for striking the Houthis. This indicates that the Trump administration is clearly seeking some gain in exchange for those attacks, especially since the United States is not significantly affected by disruptions to navigation through the canal, where its trade accounts for no more than 3%, compared to 40% for European trade.
Trump’s Next Target for Pressure
Therefore, according to observers, Trump’s strategy toward the Suez Canal may unfold in the coming days through attempts to exploit it as a tool to pressure adversaries like China, which heavily relies on this passage for transporting 60% of its exports to Europe.
However, according to an informed Egyptian source, raising such a matter with the Egyptian government could heighten tensions between Washington and Cairo, given the canal’s status as a historic symbol of sovereignty and national decision-making independence.
“On the other hand, the matter is bigger than a unilateral decision by the Egyptian government. The Constantinople Convention, signed in 1888, permanently ensures the neutrality of the canal and regulates freedom of passage through it. Following the nationalization of the canal in 1956, Cairo reaffirmed its commitment to the terms of the convention while retaining its rights of sovereignty and management in exchange for guaranteeing neutrality and freedom of passage,” the source added.
The source pointed out that Egypt’s commitment to this international convention has so far protected Egypt from any pressures that could be exerted by conflicting military alliances.
On the other hand, the aforementioned investigation focused on technical issues such as the narrowness of the waterway and the unidirectional flow in 40% of its route, which limits its capacity to accommodate giant ships exceeding 230 meters in width. It also pointed to delays resulting from Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.
However, according to the source, Egypt has developed the canal over the past decade and added a parallel 35-kilometer channel, increasing its capacity to an average of 97 ships per day, which refutes any claims of chronic bottlenecks in the canal.
The source denied the existence of a technical problem, pointing out that the entire matter is nothing more than an American desire to exploit the Houthi crisis to justify its intervention in pursuit of political objectives, particularly in countering the movement of Chinese—and possibly Iranian—ships.
A Costly Gambit
Observers expect the Americans to use indirect tools to impose their conditions on the canal’s management, perhaps most notably the annual aid to Egypt valued at $1.3 billion, which could be leveraged to impose terms on the canal’s administration. This might include imposing fees on ships using the canal if they do not comply with American standards.
However, these observers rule out the effectiveness of such pressures in achieving their goals because Cairo is fully aware of the grave danger of circumventing the Constantinople commitments.
According to these observers, any American pressure of this kind would represent a costly maneuver. China would respond by supporting and developing alternative routes. Additionally, imposing fees on European ships could push Brussels to forge alliances with China, thereby strengthening the Silk Road.
On the other hand, imposing additional restrictions or fees on the movement of ships through the Canal for political reasons would exacerbate energy and food prices, delivering a blow to the global economy. Moreover, any alternative routes that ships might resort to in response to such sanctions would be longer, resulting in higher carbon emissions – a development that runs counter to the goals of both corporations and the international community to curb global warming.
In the end, Cairo will be the sole loser when it comes to its strategic and economic interests – a consequence that implies, among other things, that the United States stands to lose an important ally in maintaining stability in the Middle East.