Eurasia Press & News
As of May 2026, President Donald Trump is intensifying pressure on Cuba, implementing a near-total fuel blockade and signing executive orders to widen sanctions, aimed at forcing regime change or economic surrender. Describing Cuba as a failing state, Trump has publicly stated the US will “take over” the island, targeting its energy and security sectors, amid severe power outages and a humanitarian crisis there.
Dimensions of the US administration’s actions and rhetoric include maximum pressure and sanctions. An executive order signed around May 2, 2026, targets individuals and entities in Cuba’s security, energy, and financial sectors, intensifying a 67-year campaign. Trump joked and suggested that the US could “take over” Cuba to fix its problems, which campaign officials later explained as aiming for economic “liberation” and a “friendly takeover”.
Currently, the US is actively blocking oil supplies from Venezuela and Mexico, causing severe energy shortages in Cuba. The administration aims to end the communist government, forcing reforms such as privatizing state-run businesses, increasing private investment, and strengthening ties to U.S. interests. This is as advised by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and, everyone knows, that Rubio. Rubio and other key figures in the Trump cabinet are not giant-like figures from previous times (never mind if one sharply disagreed with their political views). Trump and his current leadership team find themselves in positions too difficult for them to handle, lacking the skills to succeed – kind of square peg in a round hole. From the way US international and domestic policies are proceeding; these are people completely misaligned for their particular roles. USA today witnesses the rise of mediocracy. So, if this team with its low competence meddles with Cuba, the results would be disastrous Cuba.
Cuba has rejected the “unilateral coercive measures” as an illegal “takeover” attempt, with leaders vowing to defend their sovereignty. Its leaders are “Ideological geniuses but can’t take Cuba fast-forward only because of the brutal and confining blockade of sixty years.
Trump with his limited cognitive abilities and lack of depth and vision insists: ‘Cuba is next’! Next after what? Venezuela or Iran? The US has begun a “fraught détente” with the new Venezuelan leadership, considering it a window of opportunity to regain access to Venezuelan oil. But long-term diplomatic stability is uncertain despite Maduro’s abduction, who may never return thanks to a duty-bound judiciary that will do Trump’s bidding. The people may not have forgiven what the US did to their leader. In Iran, as of early May 2026, analysts and defense experts widely regard US war goals of regime change or total capitulation – as highly unlikely. The US is no longer the dominant power of the world. The emergence of BRICS and other alliances within it have already scuttled the power mongering that the West once pushed on global political dynamics. The lessons from Vietnam, Afghanistan are haunting the USA. Iran and Libya may have been severely disrupted, but there was no victory and it is realistic to pronounce that these countries will make a comeback – just as Vietnam has.
Back to the focus on Cuba. The U.S. embargo on Cuba remains in place primarily due to legislative requirements (codified by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act), which require Cuba to meet specific democratic and human rights reforms – such as transitioning to a pluralistic democracy and releasing political prisoners – before it can be lifted. Domestic politics, including the influence of Cuban-American voters and the desire to maintain pressure on the communist government, also fuel its continuation.
Under the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, the power to lift the embargo was transferred from the executive branch to Congress, requiring specific conditions regarding the liberation of political prisoners and democratic elections.
The influential Cuban-American community in key states like Florida historically advocates for the embargo to pressure the Cuban government.
The U.S. maintains the embargo to incentivize political change, targeting the ruling Communist Party for its crackdown on protesters and human rights violations.
A significant factor in maintaining the sanctions is the unresolved issue of properties confiscated from American citizens and companies during the 1959 revolution. The U.S. has maintained concerns over Cuba’s allyship with other adversaries and its alleged role in regional destabilization.
While many in the international community, including the United Nations, have long called for the removal of the sanctions, citing humanitarian concerns, the policy remains a key tool in U.S.-Cuba relations. A United States embargo has prevented U.S. businesses and citizens from conducting trade or commerce with Cuban interests.
The United States embargo on Cuba, initiated in the early 1960s, is one of the longest-running trade sanctions in modern history, often criticized as an erroneous tactic of overreach that has failed to achieve its primary goal of regime change while causing significant economic hardship for the Cuban population.
Despite lasting over six decades, the embargo has not brought about the intended political transition in Cuba. It has severely impacted the Cuban economy, with the Cuban government estimating costs at over \ (\$100) billion, affecting sectors such as medicine, food, and infrastructure.
The United Nations General Assembly has consistently voted to condemn the embargo, with overwhelming majorities passing resolutions calling for its end. As of October 2025, 165 nations voted for the resolution, with only 7 against, indicating international disapproval of the policy.
Critics argue the blockade – especially regarding fuel and vital resources – constitutes “collective punishment” against the civilian population rather than solely targeting the government.
The embargo has not forced Cuba to abandon its political system. Instead, proponents of lifting the sanctions argue that engagement is a better strategy for influencing change.
Some critics argue that the embargo is a “lie” because Cuba can trade with other countries, and the US actually supplies some products like poultry, suggesting the trade restrictions are symbolic or outdated, rather than a total blockade.
Despite criticisms, the U.S. has tightened sanctions, particularly under the Trump administration, targeting key sectors like energy, tourism, and finance.
The designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” has further increased financial restrictions and is frequently cited as a tool of undue pressure.
Supporters of the embargo argue that lifting it would “legitimize” an authoritarian regime and that it remains a necessary tool against a hostile government close to US territory. This argument is hogwash when one acknowledges that the USA is now dismantling democracy, targeting the independence of the judiciary, the press, and civil service. The level of democracy in the USA has reached its lowest point in over 50 years, primarily driven by this backsliding.
These assessments, often linked to the effects of a second Trump administration, position the US as facing an ongoing crisis rather than a consolidated democracy. The USA remains in a “pendular equilibrium,” still holding elections but with deeply degraded democratic norms.
Cuba contends with the United States by combining socialist ideology, diplomatic resistance, and regional alliances to withstand a long-standing economic embargo and pressures for regime change. The international community generally sides with Cuba by voting against the U.S. embargo at the UN, fostering trade, and offering humanitarian aid to bypass sanctions.
Cuba highlights the “asymmetrical relationship” and asserts its sovereignty, focusing on dialogue while preparing for defense, emphasizing it will resist any military aggression. Despite economic hardships, Cuba maintains a socialist system, defining itself against the American capitalist influence.
Cuba strengthens ties with Latin American and Caribbean partners to counter the U.S.-led “Western sphere” approach.
Facing a six-decade embargo, Cuba seeks alternative trade partners and relies on remittances, despite a ban on using the U.S. dollar in international transactions.
Cuba uses international platforms to condemn the blockade as illegal, gaining significant support at the UN.
Almost all countries in the UN General Assembly annually condemn the U.S. embargo, highlighting that it violates international law. Other countries continue trading with Cuba, often ignoring U.S. threats of sanctions, and provide investments to help stabilize the Cuban economy.
Countries offer humanitarian aid and technical support, especially following natural disasters, which help in the country’s recovery.
Allies use their diplomatic channels to urge the U.S. to normalize relations and lift the blockade.
After more than six decades, the truth is impossible to conceal: the embargo has not liberated Cuba—it has punished it. It has not dismantled its political system—it has hardened it. And it has not elevated the moral standing of the United States—it has exposed the contradictions at its core.
What persists is not policy success, but policy inertia—driven by ideology, domestic politics, and an unwillingness to admit failure. In a world no longer willing to submit to unilateral power, such tactics appear not as strength, but as desperation.
If the United States is serious about democracy and human dignity, it must begin by abandoning a strategy that has delivered neither. Until then, the embargo will remain what it has long been: not a pathway to freedom, but a relic of control – sustained at the cost of an entire people.
