The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) says the new security command does not change the coordination model for protecting the Canal, while a lawyer warns that the structure could violate the Constitution. The Panama Canal’s security arrangements have sparked intense legal and constitutional debate following joint U.S.–Panamanian defense agreements and a Supreme Court ruling annulling port concessions. Critics and constitutional experts question whether bilateral security coordination compromises national sovereignty or breaches the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, while governments maintain the framework respects domestic law. Supreme Court Port Ruling: The Panama Supreme Court declared long-standing terminal concession contracts unconstitutional, shifting operational control. Arguments for Constitutional Strain: Critics and domestic activists argue that foreign military proximity and high-level pressure hint at an erosion of autonomy, risking a domestic constitutional breakdown and backlash over national dignity.