Cuba Under Pressure: Trump’s Policy, Its Human Cost, And The Broader Question Of American Expansion

Source: Silicon Bay Partners’ staff with assistance from ChatGPT
Photo: Havana, Cuba © Pedro Szekely

For all the debate over Donald Trump’s policy toward Cuba, there is a simple question that should not be lost: Americans themselves do not want to live under a government in which one leader has unchecked power over their lives. The United States is a democracy precisely because presidents are supposed to be temporary public servants, constrained by elections, courts, Congress, laws and the Constitution. And the latest public-opinion numbers make clear that Trump does not enjoy anything resembling universal support. A Pew Research Center survey in July found that just 34% of Americans approved of his job performance, while 64% disapproved; 42% of voters said their midterm vote was primarily a vote against Trump, compared with only 22% who described it as a vote for him. A newer Reuters/Ipsos poll put his approval even lower, at 33%.

If millions of Americans believe they should have the right to choose their own leaders—and to reject a president they do not want—then we should recognize that Cubans deserve that same fundamental right. The answer to Cuba’s authoritarian government cannot simply be to make ordinary Cubans suffer until they submit to a political outcome determined in Washington. Cubans should be free to determine their own future, just as Americans insist on determining ours. We can condemn repression in Havana, demand democratic reforms and support the Cuban people without treating Cuba as a possession to be controlled. The principle ought to be universal: no American wants to be ruled by Donald Trump against their will, and no Cuban should be expected to accept being ruled by anyone against theirs.

The relationship between the United States and Cuba has always been complicated by history, ideology, security concerns and the legacy of the Cold War. But in 2026, the relationship has entered a particularly dangerous phase. President Donald Trump’s administration has dramatically intensified economic pressure on Havana, while simultaneously raising questions about how far Washington is prepared to go to force political change on the island.

The consequences for ordinary Cubans have been severe. At the same time, it would be misleading to attribute Cuba’s crisis entirely to American policy: decades of economic mismanagement, centralized state control, corruption, inadequate investment and the Cuban government’s own restrictions have contributed substantially to the island’s problems. The important question is therefore not whether one side is solely responsible, but how much Trump’s policies have worsened an already fragile situation—and what the administration hopes to accomplish by doing so.

The squeeze on Cuba

The Trump administration has pursued what officials describe as a campaign of maximum economic pressure. The measures have included tighter sanctions and restrictions on Cuba’s access to petroleum. In June, Washington imposed additional sanctions on Cuba’s state-owned oil company, CUPET. Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that the company was connected to Cuba’s security apparatus and that some of its assets represented property unlawfully expropriated from Americans after the Cuban Revolution.

The timing is crucial. Cuba is heavily dependent on imported fuel. As access to petroleum has deteriorated, the country’s electrical grid has suffered increasingly severe failures. By August, some Cubans were experiencing blackouts lasting more than 20 hours a day, with consequences for transportation, food production, tourism, businesses and hospitals. Reuters reported that the country’s economic and political crisis had been intensified by the U.S. oil embargo and increased sanctions.

That does not mean that Washington created Cuba’s dysfunctional electrical system. It didn’t. Cuban authorities have spent decades failing to modernize infrastructure and diversify energy supplies. Experts quoted by WLRN concluded that both factors are contributing: Cuban mismanagement is a major underlying problem, while U.S. restrictions on fuel imports have pushed an already vulnerable system toward collapse.

That distinction matters. A government can be responsible for creating a crisis while a foreign government can make that crisis dramatically worse.

Why is Trump doing this?

The stated objective is political change.

Trump and Rubio have made clear that they do not regard the current Cuban government as a legitimate partner with which Washington should simply coexist. Instead, the administration wants to increase the pressure until Cuba’s leadership changes its behavior—or ultimately changes altogether.

That strategy reflects a longstanding American argument that Cuba’s communist government is authoritarian, hostile to U.S. interests and closely connected to America’s geopolitical rivals. The administration has also emphasized Cuba’s relationships with countries such as Russia and China.

There is another factor: domestic American politics.

Cuba has extraordinary symbolic importance in Florida, where Cuban-American voters have historically played an important role in Republican politics. Rubio himself is the son of Cuban immigrants and has spent years advocating a hard line toward Havana. His personal history and political philosophy help explain why Cuba has become such a prominent foreign-policy issue for the administration.

The administration’s calculation appears to be that economic pain can weaken the Cuban government and create conditions for political transformation. Rubio said in August that Washington was in no hurry and intended to continue increasing pressure.

The difficulty is that economic warfare does not necessarily produce democratic reform. It can instead make ordinary people poorer while giving an authoritarian government an external enemy to blame.

Who actually pays the price?

The Cuban government is the intended target. But much of the immediate cost is borne by people who have little or no control over Cuban policy.

Fuel shortages affect ambulances, public transportation, electricity generation, agriculture and food distribution. Businesses cannot operate normally. Hospitals struggle when electricity and transportation become unreliable. And families already coping with shortages face another obstacle to simply getting through the day.

This creates a fundamental moral and strategic question:

If the objective is to remove or transform Cuba’s government, how much suffering among ordinary Cubans is an acceptable price for achieving that objective?

Supporters of the Trump strategy would answer that the Cuban leadership has been given decades to reform and has repeatedly refused. They argue that easing pressure without obtaining political concessions would simply allow the government to survive.

Critics respond that the policy risks punishing the population without achieving regime change—and that a humanitarian crisis can actually strengthen the government’s political narrative.

The evidence so far provides reason for caution. Cuba is experiencing extraordinary hardship, but the government has not simply collapsed. Instead, negotiations have continued alongside the pressure, and Havana has undertaken some market-oriented reforms.

Cuba and the larger question: Is America becoming more expansionist?

Cuba cannot be viewed entirely in isolation from the administration’s broader foreign-policy rhetoric.

Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring or controlling territory that currently belongs to other countries or territories.

Greenland

Greenland has been the clearest example. Trump has repeatedly argued that American control of Greenland is necessary for national security, citing its strategic Arctic location. His administration has also emphasized the territory’s natural resources and its importance as competition with Russia and China intensifies in the Arctic.

The problem is that Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenlandic leaders have repeatedly rejected the idea that the territory is for sale.

That makes the issue fundamentally different from an ordinary trade or diplomatic negotiation. Acquisition would require the consent of the people concerned.

Canada

Trump has also repeatedly spoken about Canada becoming part of the United States, at times referring to Canada as the “51st state.” He has mixed that rhetoric with arguments about trade, the border and national security.

Canada, however, is a sovereign country and a close American ally. There is no serious indication that Canadians have voted or otherwise expressed a desire to surrender their sovereignty.

Consequently, Canada’s appearance on Trump’s rhetorical map should be distinguished from an actual U.S. government plan to annex Canada.

The Panama Canal

Trump has also challenged the existing arrangement governing the Panama Canal and previously said that he would not rule out military force in pursuing American control.

Here again, the administration frames the issue primarily around American strategic and economic interests. But Panama is a sovereign nation, and the canal is governed under treaties and international arrangements.

Venezuela

Venezuela is an even more consequential example because events there have moved beyond rhetoric. The Trump administration’s actions toward Venezuela have dramatically altered the regional balance and, in turn, affected Cuba’s access to Venezuelan oil.

That connection is critical to understanding the Cuban crisis. Cuba’s dependence on Venezuelan petroleum meant that changes in U.S.-Venezuelan relations could have enormous consequences in Havana. The subsequent pressure on Cuba helped produce the energy crisis now gripping the island.

What is the common thread?

It would be too simplistic to say that Trump is trying to “take over” every country he discusses.

Greenland, Canada, Panama, Venezuela and Cuba are very different cases, and the administration has different objectives in each.

But there is a common theme: Trump’s foreign policy places unusually heavy emphasis on American power, territorial access, strategic resources, economic leverage and the idea that U.S. strength should produce favorable outcomes—even when the other country strongly objects.

That represents a significant departure in tone from the traditional post-Cold War emphasis on alliances, international institutions and negotiated limits on American power.

The administration calls this approach necessary realism. Critics call it expansionism.

The danger of the Cuba precedent

Cuba may ultimately be the most revealing test.

If economic pressure produces a negotiated transition toward greater political freedom, Washington will argue that its strategy worked.

If it instead produces prolonged shortages, migration, suffering and confrontation without meaningful political change, the policy will look much less like liberation and much more like collective punishment.

And if military intervention were ever added to the equation, the consequences could be vastly greater.

Cuba is only 90 miles from Florida. A military confrontation there would not be an abstract geopolitical event. It would affect the Caribbean, the United States, Latin America and potentially relations with Russia and China.

The wisest approach should therefore distinguish between pressuring a government and impoverishing a population.
The Cuban government deserves scrutiny for repression, corruption, economic mismanagement and restrictions on political freedom. But ordinary Cubans should not have to bear unlimited suffering simply because their government is unpopular in Washington.

Likewise, the United States has legitimate security interests in the Caribbean, the Arctic, the Panama Canal and the Western Hemisphere. But legitimate interests do not automatically create legitimate claims to another country’s territory.

The central question facing Trump’s foreign policy is therefore larger than Cuba:

Can American power be used aggressively to defend American interests without abandoning the principle that other peoples have the right to determine their own political future?

Cuba is becoming the test case. Greenland, Canada and Panama are part of the larger conversation. And the answer will say a great deal about what kind of world the United States intends to help create.