The U.S. plans to charge the 94-year-old former President of Cuba Raúl Castro with crimes relating to Cuba’s destruction of two planes in 1996, according to anonymous officials cited by CBS News.

Although a spokesperson of the U.S. Justice Department declined to comment on the matter, Florida’s Attorney General announced in March that the southern American state would reopen an investigation into Raúl Castro’s involvement in the 1996 incident. 

The revelation comes amidst growing tensions between the U.S. and Cuba, as the Trump administration continues to increase punitive sanctions against the island’s economy and threaten the leadership with political regime change. 

Castro, who is the younger brother of revolutionary icon Fidel Castro, served as president from 2008 to 2018. Although no longer head of state, Rául Castro remains an influential figure in Cuban politics: he retains the title of Army General and his grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, is allegedly a leading figure in ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and Cuba. 

Republican lawmakers, particularly those with connections to the sizable Cuban-American community in Florida such as Carlos Giménez and Mario Díaz-Balart, have repeatedly called for Castro to be indicted. A grand jury would have to issue the indictment after being presented with evidence. 

In February 1996, two planes belonging to the Miami-based group Hermanos al Rescate (Brothers to the Rescue) – an activist group which aided refugees fleeing from Cuba to the U.S. by boat – were shot down by the Cuban Air Force.

The issue of whether or not the planes were in international or Cuban airspace is still debated. 

Four people died as a result of the attack and, in March 1996, the U.S. government under President Bill Clinton signed the Helms-Burton act into law. 

The act strengthened economic sanctions against the Cuban government and stipulated that the U.S. commercial embargo on Cuba could only be lifted after Cuba became a democracy under non-Castro leadership. 

Although Fidel Castro was President of Cuba in 1996, several U.S. members of Congress have argued that Raúl must have been responsible for the order to shoot down the planes as he was Cuba’s defense minister at the time. 

Independent Mexico-based Cuban journalist Jorge Alfonso Pita told Latin America Reports about the potential implications of the U.S.’s supposed intention to indict. 

“I don’t believe this accusation is intended to lead to Raúl Castro being prosecuted,” argued Alfonso. “It seems like a gesture to appease the Cuban-American and Republican lobby, so that Trump and Rubio can say ‘we won’t allow impunity’ while they sit down to negotiate with El Cangrejo [Fidel Castro’s grandson] and Cuban intelligence.”

The move to indict the younger Castro may, however, not be purely symbolic; the capture and subsequent extradition of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the U.S. in January demonstrates the Trump administration is willing to both charge foreign leaders and bring them to trial. 

Maduro is now facing federal charges related to “narco-terrorism” while in custody in New York. 

Latin America Reports reached out to Cuban officials for comment on the potential indictment, but they declined. 

Featured Image: Former U.S. President Barack Obama and then Cuban President Raúl Castro in the Estadio Latinoamericano in Havana, during the former’s historic visit to the island.  

Image Credit: White House via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post US allegedly planning to indict Cuban revolutionary leader Raúl Castro appeared first on Latin America Reports.

Cuba has “absolutely no fuel oil and absolutely no diesel”, according to the country’s Energy Minister, Vicente de la O Levy.

His comments, made to state-run media on Wednesday, underline the severity of Cuba’s energy crisis, which has been intensified by a near-total U.S. blockade on fuel imports since January. 

The effects of the fuel shortages were felt immediately, with widespread power outages on Wednesday night sparking protests in Havana. Though the protests soon dissipated, large sections of eastern Cuba remained in darkness on Thursday. 

While Cuba has domestic reserves of natural gas and crude oil, it lacks the money to maintain or upgrade its refineries, which are necessary to convert high-viscosity crude oil into fuel oil, essential to electricity generation. 

“Cuba is open to anyone that wants to sell us fuel”, Levy implored.

However, Cuba has largely been cut off from international oil imports by the U.S., which threatened to impose tariffs on any country supplying oil to Cuba and severed Venezuelan oil supplies to the Cuban state.

Despite this, Russia sent an oil tanker to help alleviate the crisis in March and China has also helped Cuba mitigate its reliance on imported fuel by helping install solar parks across the island. 

Nevertheless, it is unclear if any country would be willing to provide Cuba with enough oil to sustain its national grid indefinitely. There is also no guarantee that the U.S. would allow new foreign oil imports to arrive. 

The U.S. is reportedly considering sending the island a humanitarian aid package worth US$100 million to ease the effect of its own oil blockade of the island, with CIA Director John Ratcliffe visiting Havana yesterday to discuss “intelligence cooperation, economic stability, and security issues”. 

Ratcliffe is likely the first CIA Director to visit the island since 1953, as the U.S. and Cuba have been staunch geopolitical adversaries since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959. 

Although the two nations are involved in official diplomatic negotiations, tensions between Washington and Havana have been rising dramatically. The North American superpower has repeatedly threatened the Cuban leadership with political regime change and has ratcheted up punitive sanctions against officials and economic entities deemed to be linked to the Cuban regime. 

Although the U.S. claims its measures are solely targeted at the Cuban government, the punitive measures have contributed to an economic and humanitarian crisis that is harming many ordinary Cubans, with hospitals, schools and workplaces facing shortened operating hours because of power cuts. 

Critics of the Cuban regime, however, argue that the energy shortages and the humanitarian suffering in the Caribbean nation are a result of the political leadership’s authoritarianism, economic mismanagement and corruption.

Featured Image: An oil refinery near Regla, Cuba 

Image Credit: Marcel601 via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post Cuban energy minister announces country has run out of fuel oil and diesel  appeared first on Latin America Reports.

Pete Hegseth, the highest-ranking official in the United States Department of War, told a congressional hearing on Tuesday that he considered Cuba a national security threat, citing the Caribbean nation’s alleged intelligence sharing with and support for U.S. adversaries, such as Russia. 

His comments came the same day that U.S. President Donald Trump said the White House was still entertaining negotiations with Cuba, although he also said the regime was going “down.”

The mixed signals fuel speculation that Washington may be preparing an operation in Cuba similar to its intervention against Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro in January.

“We’ve long been concerned that a foreign adversary using that kind of location, that close to our shores is highly problematic … we don’t want foreign adversaries attempting to use that environment,” Hegseth told Cuban-American Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart. 

Venezuela’s association with U.S. geopolitical adversaries, namely Russia and China, was a key factor in the U.S. attacking the country and removing its President Nicolás Maduro in a military operation.  

U.S. President Donald Trump also criticized Cuba yesterday, calling it “a failed country and only heading in one direction – down!”. The U.S. leader also, however, wrote that “Cuba is asking for help, and we are going to talk!!!” 

The Cuban government had previously confirmed that it was engaged in talks with the U.S. in order to de-escalate the brewing tensions between the two nations. It is unclear whether Trump is referring to a continuation of these existing talks or is proposing a higher-level meeting between Cuban and U.S. leaders. 

Emerging parallels to Venezuelan operation 

Criticism of Cuba’s alliances is not the only sign that the U.S. is seeking to conduct a Venezuela-style regime change operation there. Before Maduro’s capture, surveillance flights over Venezuela by the U.S. military increased significantly, a pattern which seems to be repeating itself over Cuba. 

According to CNN, the U.S. Navy and Air Force have flown at least 25 intelligence-gathering flights over the Cuban coastline since early February, with the vast majority of them taking place near the major cities of Havana and Santiago de Cuba. Before February, such flights had been very rare. 

These intelligence flights follow a recent intensification of sanctions against Cuba by the Trump administration, months of a near-complete U.S.-enforced oil blockade of the island nation and repeated threats of regime change by Trump’s government. 

The U.S. government had also enforced a blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers and escalated its rhetoric of threatened regime change before striking the nation. These parallels may not be a coincidence; successive U.S. administrations have seen weakening both Cuba and Venezuela simultaneously as key ideological priorities. 

In 2018, then-U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton called the two nations – along with Nicaragua – part of a “troika of tyranny” that threatened U.S. interests in Latin America in 2018. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also previously mentioned that a positive effect of regime change in Venezuela would be the debilitation of the Cuban government.

Venezuela had been a longtime Cuban ally and, as the nation with the world’s largest oil reserves, was Cuba’s primary oil supplier for decades; the Chavista Venezuelan government and the communist Cuban one had been close regional allies. 

However, the removal of Maduro from office and his replacement by Delcy Rodríguez, who has so far acquiesced to U.S. pressure, seems to have severed the Cuban-Venezuelan alliance. 

The political risks of U.S.-backed regime change in Cuba 

Dr Andrew Gawthorpe, a U.S. foreign policy and history lecturer at Leiden University, spoke to Latin America Reports about the similarities between the geopolitical developments in Cuba and Venezuela. 

“Current events [in Cuba] look like those which preceded what happened in Venezuela”, argued Gawthorpe, noting that the “activity could be a prelude to a direct attack … or it could be an attempt to pressure the Cuban government into making concessions to U.S. demands. It’s hard to tell which it is.” 

The professor also noted that Washington is tied up with its war against Iran right now, which may complicate any intervention against Cuba.

“What happens in the Caribbean is connected to what is happening in the Middle East. The Pentagon has moved a large amount of its military capacity to the Middle East for the war with Iran, and it might still need more,” said Gawthorpe. 

He also warned that an attack on the Caribbean nation in the midst of the ongoing U.S.-Iranian conflict could prove politically imprudent: “Although it’s possible that Trump might be tempted by the idea of a quick win in Cuba … it’s politically and militarily risky to take on another military engagement” 

The U.S.-Iran war, which began in February, has grown increasingly unpopular with the U.S. public, with Silver Bulletin reporting that over 55% oppose the conflict as of today.

Gawthorpe believes that the Iran conflict is contributing to a shift in U.S. public opinion towards conflict aversion, a factor that Trump would have to consider before striking Cuba. 

“In America right now there is a tremendous appetite for the administration to focus on domestic problems – especially the cost of living – and to not spend its time starting foreign wars which have little relevance to the average American. This feeling is particularly strong in Trump’s base.” 

However, the operation to remove Maduro, given its success and the lack of U.S. casualties associated with the operation, had lower disapproval ratings. Reuters reported in January that only 34% of Americans disapproved of the raid, while 33% approved. 

“Americans in general – and Trump’s base also – are not going to get too exercised over something that looks exactly like the seizure of Maduro: a quick operation without American casualties that nets someone they see as a bad guy,” explained Gawthorpe.

But, such an operation would not be without its risks: “The big risk for Trump would be that he can’t guarantee that any operation in Cuba is going to go the same way.”

Featured Image: Former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro being escorted off a plane in New York by U.S. DEA agents after his capture by U.S. Special Forces.  

Image Credit: Drug Enforcement Operation via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post Spectre of Venezuelan-style regime change grows in Cuba despite Trump promise of U.S.-Cuba talks appeared first on Latin America Reports.

High-ranking members of the Trump administration have intensified their rhetoric towards Cuba in recent days, with President Donald Trump himself joking last week that the U.S. Navy would attack the communist island after it has completed its operations against Iran. 

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that Cuba was a “failed regime” run by “incompetent communists” while dismissing the significance of a months-long U.S. fuel blockade against the island nation of 10 million. 

The threats, however, are not merely rhetorical. Trump also signed an executive order on Friday introducing further sanctions against the Cuban government. 

These measures target officials deemed to be working in the security, energy, defense, financial services and mining sectors of the Cuban economy. The order also authorized secondary sanctions against anyone accused of facilitating transactions with these officials. 

This weekend’s announcement marks the latest example of a series of punitive measures that the U.S. has introduced against the island since the beginning of the year. 

In addition to restricting the island’s oil supply, the U.S. has declared Cuba an extraordinary threat to U.S. national security and pressured countries in the region to cancel decades-old medical agreements with Cuba. 

Domestic attempts to prevent military action fail 

Some members of the Democratic party, however, have been urging the Trump administration to show restraint towards Cuba. 

Last week, the majority-Republican Senate blocked a Democrat-backed resolution which would have prevented Trump from authorizing military action against Cuba without congressional approval. 

The resolution lost by a vote of 51-47, with all Senators voting along party lines with the exception of Republican Senators Rand Paul and Susan Collins, who supported the resolution, and Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it. 

This is not the first time that Democrats have attempted to limit Trump’s capacity to circumvent congress and approve military action abroad; the U.S. Senate has rejected resolutions seeking to block U.S. military action against Venezuela and further action in Iran. 

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine cited the economic blockade as a key reason for his sponsorship of the resolution, calling the sanctions tantamount to an “act of war”. 

Republican Senator Rick Scott, who has been an outspoken supporter of U.S.-backed political regime change on the island, introduced the point of order which stopped the resolution’s adoption. 

Scott asserted that the resolution was unnecessary as Trump has thus far not deployed any troops to the island and, this notwithstanding, argued that “President Trump is doing everything he can to bring back freedom and democracy all across Latin America, and we should do everything we can to support him”.

Probability of political conflict grows

The Cuban and U.S. governments are currently negotiating a potential solution to the brewing tensions between the two nations, but sources close to the Trump administration’s negotiating team have revealed that the U.S. sees the removal of current Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel as key to any successful deal. 

However, the Cuban government has been emphatic in its opposition to any form of U.S.-enabled political change on the island: Díaz-Canel told NBC that he would not step down as a result of U.S. pressure under any circumstances.

In light of this political impasse, the recent escalation of rhetoric by the Trump administration and the failure of the U.S. Senate to restrict Trump’s capacity to strike the island, a U.S.-instigated attempt at forcing political regime change appears increasingly likely. 

Stephanie Cepero, the co-founder of the Florida-based Cuban dissident organization Cuban Freedom March, spoke to Latin America Reports about the implications of the recent Senate ruling and increasing U.S. sanctions, as well as her hopes for comprehensive political change. 

“When you cut off GAESA [the Cuban military conglomerate that controls a large portion of the Cuban economy], when you sanction Díaz-Canel directly, when you choke the regime’s access to hard currency — you are hitting the people responsible, not the people suffering”, Cepero argued. 

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla disagrees, calling the sanctions “illegal and abusive” and tantamount to “collective punishment against the Cuban people”. 

Cepero also characterized the Senate ruling as “the right outcome”, accusing the proponents of the Democrat-led resolution of attempting to “tie the President’s hands at a moment when U.S. leverage over the regime is arguably stronger than it’s been in decades.”

“The Cuban dictatorship has survived for over 60 years in part because of predictable, toothless U.S. policy. Uncertainty is a tool. Removing it prematurely would have been a gift to Havana, not to the Cuban people,” she continued. 

Large elements of the sizable Florida-based Cuban-American community have long pressured successive U.S. administrations to take more decisive action against the Cuban state, citing its human rights abuses, imprisonment of dissidents and restriction of civil liberties. 

Cepero believes that the change long sought after by the Cuban-American constituency could be imminent given the Trump administration’s current harsh stance towards the Cuban government. 

“A U.S. administration willing to hold firm on pressure without blinking creates real conditions for change … pressure [must be] sustained and intensified until there is meaningful, verifiable political change on the island. Half-measures and relief valves only delay the inevitable. The Cuban people deserve freedom now,” the dissident concluded. 

The Cuban government, however, has promised to resist any attempts to force political change upon the island; Díaz-Canel warned that millions of Cubans, including him, would be willing to sacrifice their lives to resist a U.S. attack on Cuba and its Revolution. 

Featured Image: Pro-Trump Cuban Americans celebrate his first inauguration in 2017. 

Image Credit: VOA via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post U.S.-Cuba tensions escalate amidst new sanctions and failed attempts to prevent conflict  appeared first on Latin America Reports.

The leaders of Mexico, Spain and Brazil called for Cuba’s sovereignty to be respected as it continues to face threats by Washington.

The joint statement came during a meeting of left-wing leaders in Spain and also vowed to send humanitarian aid to the crisis-ridden island.

The plea comes as the President Donald Trump administration ratchets up punitive measures on the communist-run island in the hopes of forcing political regime change. 

“We express our deep concern regarding the serious humanitarian crisis the Cuban people faces … [and] we reiterate the need to respect at all times international law and the principles of territorial integrity, sovereign equality and the peaceful settlement of disputes”, said Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva in a joint statement on Saturday. 

Although the U.S. was not directly mentioned, the plea appears to be aimed at the White House as tensions rise between the two neighbors. Since news broke on Wednesday that the Pentagon is ramping up preparations for an operation against Cuba, a U.S. Navy surveillance drone has been observed flying over Cuba’s coast for several hours and Trump has promised that “a new dawn for Cuba” is imminent. 

Hope for a peaceful solution, however, remains. Havana and Washington are currently engaged in official diplomatic negotiations; a U.S. government delegation visited Havana earlier in April, marking the first visit of an official U.S. government plane since former President Barack Obama’s trip in 2016.

The U.S. delegation reportedly informed their Cuban counterparts that they saw an end to political repression, the liberation of high-profile political prisoners and economic liberalization as prerequisites for easing the longstanding economic and commercial embargo on the island. 

These sanctions, which have historically been condemned by the vast majority of the international community at the United Nations General Assembly, have caused far-reaching material shortages on the island and hindered the island’s ability to engage in international trade and commerce, according to UN experts. 

Recently, the U.S. intensified sanctions, declaring Cuba a national security threat and blockading the vast majority of oil destined for the island, which is now facing an acute humanitarian and economic crisis as a result of the intensified measures.

Sheinbaum, Lula and Sánchez’s promise of support represents the latest in a series of international offers and shipments of aid. Sheinbaum’s own government has already sent humanitarian shipments to the island, and the Chinese, Chilean and Canadian administrations have also sent or pledged to send aid to the island. 

Furthermore, a civilian humanitarian aid mission to Cuba, which brought food, medicine and solar equipment to the island, was organized in March. 

Featured Image: Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva during the former’s visit to Brazil in 2024.

Image Credit: Ricardo Stuckert via Flickr

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post International calls for US-Cuba de-escalation grow amid latest threats appeared first on Latin America Reports.

The United States is preparing options for a possible military operation against Cuba, according to a report today by daily newspaper USA Today. 

Two sources reportedly familiar with the matter told the paper that the Pentagon is increasing its preparedness in case U.S. President Donald Trump orders the military to intervene on the island, a possibility which Trump and various other high-ranking figures in his administration have mooted. 

In response, the Cuban government said that while it did not want Washington to attack, it was prepared for any possible intervention.

This year, relations between the two ideological adversaries have become more tense than at any other point since the end of the Cold War, with the U.S. removing Cuba’s closest political ally Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela and imposing a complete blockade on non-private fuel imports during the first three months of 2026. 

However, the commencement of high-level diplomatic talks between the two nations and the recent arrival of a Russian oil tanker in Cuba – which Trump said he had “no problem” with – suggested that mutual desire for a peaceful resolution to tensions was growing. 

But earlier this week, Trump said that the U.S. “may stop by Cuba” after the conflict with Iran reaches a resolution, which may be an indication that ongoing diplomatic talks between Cuba and the U.S. that seek to de-escalate tensions are progressing poorly.  

Nevertheless, Cuban President Díaz-Canel repeatedly expressed his desire for peace with the United States in his first interview with U.S. media last Sunday, though he warned that he and the Cuban population would be willing to fight to defend the island from any aggression by Washington. 

In January, Havana ordered its forces to prepare for war and has hosted countrywide defensive drills to prepare for a potential invasion from the north, yet its ability to defend against a Pentagon-led operation is unknown. 

Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities, spoke to Latin America Reports about the likelihood of a U.S. military operation in Cuba. 

She speculated that, although the leak to USA Today was likely a negotiating tactic intended to pressure the Cuban government into making greater concessions in negotiations, “there is planning going on for such a [military] operation … Rubio has made his support for regime change in Cuba clear. Trump, too, would likely welcome a distraction from Iran that he can sell as a success”. 

The expert also explained what a potential intervention might look like: “I doubt they would use exiles, as this has failed in the past. A Maduro-style approach is possible. A more complete takeover of the island which is small and weak is an alternative”.

Kavanagh also weighed in on the chances of such an operation’s success. “[Although] 

defenders always have an advantage, I imagine the United States could overpower Cuba’s defenses. Holding the island for a sustained period might be more challenging”.

The U.S. has intervened several times in Cuba, which is situated approximately 90 miles off the coast of Cuba. In the early 1900s, the U.S. invaded the island on three occasions to protect American economic interests.

In 1961, after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, Washington also backed a failed invasion attempt of the island by anti-communist Cuban exiles, which came to be known as the Bay of Pigs. 

In a rally today, Díaz-Canel drew parallels between the latest threats and the infamous Cold War operation.

“The moment is extremely challenging and calls upon us once again, as on April 16, 1961, to be ready to confront serious threats, including military aggression. We do not want it, but it is our duty to prepare to avoid it and, if it becomes inevitable, to defeat it.”

Featured Image: The celebration of the 50th anniversary of the creation of the United States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) in Miami. USSOUTHCOM is the command of the U.S. military that would likely be responsible for overseeing any military operation against Cuba.  

Image Credit: Department of Defense via Wikimedia Commons License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post Pentagon reportedly preparing for action against Cuba appeared first on Latin America Reports.

A conversation between Kirsten Welker, moderator of NBC News’ talk show “Meet the Press”, and Miguel Díaz-Canel aired on Sunday, marking the first time that a major U.S. media outlet has interviewed the current Cuban president. 

The discussion focused on the current state of U.S.-Cuba relations and saw Díaz-Canel insist that he would not resign in the face of U.S. pressure while aguing that sanctions on the island were the driving factor behind his people’s suffering. 

The Cuban politician did, however, express hope that current diplomatic talks between the two nations would culminate in a peaceful resolution and reverse the recent escalation of bilateral tensions. 

1. Defiance towards U.S. threats 

Responding to reports that the U.S. sees his dismissal from power as key to any successful negotiation, Díaz-Canel emphasized that, “In Cuba, the people in positions of leadership are not elected by the U.S. government … we have a free, sovereign state”.  

Díaz-Canel warned that both he and the Cuban population would be prepared to fight for such independence; he told Welker that, if the United States attempted to enforce political regime change through military action, he himself would be “willing to give my life for the Revolution” and would not be alone in his conviction. 

Invoking the words of Cuban independence hero and general Antonio Maceo, Díaz-Canel warned that “whoever tries to take power over Cuba will only get the dust of its soil, drenched in blood, if he doesn’t perish in the struggle”. Such a sentiment, the politician warned, is universally shared amongst Cuban people because “that is how we have been trained”.

The current readiness of Cuba’s military and population for the kind of irregular and asymmetrical warfare that Díaz-Canel referred to in the interview is unclear. The Cuban National Defense Council announced in January that its regular and irregular forces would transition into a state of preparation for war. 

Also, Cuba has a mandatory national service program designed specifically to deter and defend against a U.S. invasion. Therefore, the regular forces of the Cuban military can theoretically be bolstered by a mobilization of a paramilitary force of over 1 million trained troops at any time.

Considering this well-practiced defensive posture, Díaz-Canel predicted that a U.S. invasion of the island “would be unsustainable and untenable”.  

Though there is no way to prove Díaz-Canel’s claims about Cuban political unity in the face of U.S. threats, Dr Philip Brenner, an expert in U.S.-Cuba relations and professor at American University who spoke to Latin America Reports about the state of U.S.-Cuba relations, argued that the Cuban anti-regime opposition finds itself in a weak position. 

“There is no legitimate opposition in Cuba, there is no opposition party”. Furthermore, when discussing the anti-regime Miami-based Cuban opposition movement, Brenner argued that he “see[s] no way in which people who have been living outside of Cuba will have an effect on the future of Cuba other than through investment … There is no movement in Cuba that would really bring any of these dissidents into a leadership position”.

However, growing anti-government dissent on the island could be a sign that the Cuban population is not as supportive of the Cuban political leadership as Díaz-Canel suggests. 

2. Hope for improved relations

Despite his warnings about the potentially deadly consequences of American aggression, Díaz-Canel stressed that “both the American and Cuban peoples deserve … peace” and reiterated his desire that the current talks between the U.S. and Cuba could achieve that peace. 

“I think dialogue and deals with the U.S. government are possible, but they’re difficult … Cuba has always been willing, throughout all the years of the revolution, … [to have] a civilized, neighborly relationship with the United States”. 

On occasion, both sides have shown willingness to engage in high-level diplomatic talks, as was the case when revolutionary leader Raúl Castro and former U.S. President Barack Obama oversaw a normalization in relations in the mid-2010s. 

Nevertheless, Cuba’s posture during the Cold War, when it aligned with the USSR, the principal ideological adversary of the U.S., was more hostile. 

Specifically, Díaz-Canel listed the various areas of potential cooperation between the two countries, including combatting “drug trafficking, fighting terrorism, [working on] migration, issues of … transnational crime”. 

There has indeed been cooperation in these areas before; the U.S. previously agreed with the Cuban government to the admission of at least 20,000 legal migrants from Cuba a year, a deal designed to reduce irregular migration between the countries and slow the exodus of the Cuban population to American shores.

Despite their governments’ mutual hostility, the U.S. and Cuban Coast Guards have also historically cooperated in operations against drug trafficking and terrorism. 

Although Díaz-Canel saw continued and further cooperation on such issues as desirable, his positivity about the negotiations had a strong caveat; “we have always said that we need to build that relationship from a position of respect, from a position of equal footing, without having conditions imposed on us”. 

In practical terms, that means that discussions about the nature of Cuba’s leadership and internal political system are off the table for Cuban negotiators. 

Dr. Brenner emphasized the importance of this perceived diplomatic equality to any solution: “What the United States has to understand dealing with Cuba is that Cuba is not going to respond to threats, to the appearance of giving in to U.S. demands. They want to have a respectful negotiation that is mutually satisfactory”.

3. Identifying U.S. sanctions as principal cause of Cuban suffering

The Cuban leader decried American sanctions, calling them “genocidal” and referring to them collectively as “the blockade”. Díaz-Canel attributed the Cuban people’s suffering solely to the “policy of permanent hostility by the U.S. government at the national level.” 

Because of the U.S. sanctions, he argued, “we lack financing to buy food, to buy supplies for our production and services [industries] … [to buy] the medicine that we need and to carry out the repairs that we need for our national energy system and our industrial factories”. 

“Cuba is a country that has been under attack, …  [having suffered] over 60 years of the blockade … We are talking about the longest running blockade in the history of mankind, the most severe blockade, a blockade that is not only aimed at the Cuban people but at the American people and other peoples”, Díaz-Canel added.

Many, including representatives of the United Nations, agree that U.S. sanctions on Cuba impoverish the country’s population by causing shortages of spare parts, machinery, food, medicine, fuel and other essential goods and services. 

Dr. Brenner also pointed out that Cuba’s inclusion in the U.S. State Department’s state sponsors of terrorism (SST) list “makes it … [particularly] difficult for Cuba to engage in international commerce because most international transactions, regardless of whether the United States is actually involved, … travel through New York banks … [which are] very loathe to handle any transaction that involves Cuba” for fear of being sanctioned under the SST. 

Others, however, point to Cuban government mismanagement, failure to reform and corruption as key factors in the nation’s economic woes. 

Although Díaz-Canel suggested that he himself and Cuba’s collective leadership may have made some errors in economic judgement, he did not specify any and told Welker that the Cuban “people who are suffering … largely understand who the main culprit is”. 

4. Openness to economic, not political, reform

Cuban negotiators have stressed that any reforms implemented after negotiations with the U.S. and Cuba conclude will be economic in nature. Some of these reforms have already been announced; Cuban Americans will now be allowed to invest in businesses on the island and remittances sent from abroad will be able to be withdrawn in cash as U.S. dollars in Cuban currency exchange offices. 

Dr. Brenner suggested that such reforms demonstrated that the Cuban government is “willing to bend a lot … to regularize its relationship with the United States”. 

Díaz-Canel made occasional reference to these changes and indeed seemed enthusiastic about the possibility of greater American participation in Cuban economic life. 

“We can have investments and businesses from America, businesspeople in Cuba. We have a Cuban community living in the United States and we should also provide them with facilities, both in the United States and here … American people can come to Cuba for cultural and sporting exchanges … and exchange healthcare [expertise]”, he said. 

The Cuban president cited the recent cooperation of U.S. and Cuban healthcare practitioners on a potentially revolutionary Alzheimer’s drug developed by Cuba’s Center for Molecular Immunology (CIM) as a potential blueprint for future American-Cuban cooperation in key sectors. 

Following the U.S. operation to capture Cuban ally and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. left the Venezuelan regime intact but decided to effectively control the Venezuelan oil industry. 

Perhaps Díaz-Canel is hoping for a similar arrangement of political continuity with greater economic exchange in Cuba; during the interview, he said, “We’re open for foreign investment in Cuba, in oil exploration and drilling. There will be an opportunity for American businessmen and firms to come and participate in Cuba’s energy sector”. 

The Cuban leader even expressed admiration for the development of Vietnamese and Chinese “socialism”; Vietnam and China both retain their one-party communist political systems with more market-oriented, less centrally-planned economies than Cuba. 

Díaz-Canel’s admiration of such systems could suggest that he is open to steering Cuba in the same economic direction as Vietnam and China, though he clarified that the beginning of those two nations’ major economic development coincided with the lifting of U.S. sanctions, which clearly remains the Cuban leader’s economic priority. 

5. Rejection of human rights criticism

Towards the end of the interview, Welker challenged Díaz-Canel on Cuba’s human rights record, citing the detention of Maykel “Osorbo” Castillo Pérez, a Cuban musician and the co-founder of the Cuban anti-government dissident organization Movimiento San Isidro. 

Osorbo was sentenced to nine years in prison in 2022 for alleged “public disorder and defamation of institutions and organizations”. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has concluded that he was detained solely on the basis of pro-democracy activism. 

Díaz-Canel did not directly address Osorbo’s individual case, but instead attacked what he viewed as a manipulative media-driven campaign to discredit Cuba’s political system.

“They [the media] speak about political prisoners in Cuba … there are people in Cuba who are not in favor of the revolution … and they protest on a daily basis in different ways against the revolution and they are not in prison”.

The narrative that Cuba arbitrarily detains peaceful opponents, he continued, “is a big lie … [designed] to vilify and to engage in a character assasination of the Cuban Revolution”. 

Various human rights groups contradict this claim; Amnesty International, for example, reports that Cuban authorities routinely restrict freedom of expression, criminalize peaceful dissent and mistreat arbitrarily detained prisoners. 

Díaz-Canel, however, claimed that those imprisoned were not peaceful opposition activists, but rather malicious actors who ”promote vandalistic acts and disrupt safety … often financed by terrorist organizations and … agencies of the U.S. government which promote subversion against Cuba”. 

Those prisoners, he went on to argue, “would be in jail in any country in the world … for engaging in vandalism and [seditious] crimes”. 

Amnesty International refutes this claim too, reporting that the Cuban authorities label activists and journalists “common criminals, mercenaries and foreign agents” to legitimize their detention. 

Human Rights Watch (HRW) corroborates these claims; according to HRW the majority of the approximately 1,500 people detained after the widespread protests of 2021, were peaceful demonstrators or bystanders. 

Cuban NGO Justicia 11J also claims that, of the 760 prisoners of conscience still behind bars in Cuba in March, 358 were arrested for their participation in the 2021 protests. 

Featured Image: Cuban exiles in Miami hold placards calling for an end to the Cuban dictatorship and criticizing Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel

Image Credit: Luis F. Rojas via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel’s NBC interview: 5 key takeaways appeared first on Latin America Reports.

The Cuban government announced last Friday that it would free 2010 prisoners to coincide with Easter celebrations. 

According to a statement by the Cuban Embassy in the United States, those released will include young people, women, adults over 60, those due for early release, foreign citizens and Cubans who reside abroad.

Although the embassy described the decision as a “humanitarian and sovereign gesture”, some speculate that the release is a response to increasing U.S. pressure on the Cuban government.  

Since his re-election, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire for regime change on the island. Though Cuba and the U.S. are currently engaged in diplomatic negotiations to de-escalate the recent significant increase in tensions between the two nations, Trump has not ruled out the prospect of an “unfriendly takeover” of Cuba. 

The Trump administration’s operation to forcibly remove Cuban ally Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela – Cuba’s former primary oil supplier – and his three-month blockade of non-private fuel imports to the island in early 2026 indicate an aggressive American posture. 

The Cuban government, however, has stated that its political system is not up for negotiation. 

The regime has expressed its willingness to accept certain economic reforms which could improve its commercial relationship with the United States and liberalize its largely centrally planned economy. 

Specifically, authorities have announced that Cuban Americans will be allowed to invest in businesses on the island and that remittances sent from abroad can be withdrawn in cash as U.S. dollars in Cuban currency exchange offices. 

Lianys Torres Rivera, Cuba’s Chargé d’Affaires at the Cuban embassy in Washington, even revealed that Cuba was willing to allow the U.S. to participate in the island’s “economic transformation”. 

Meanwhile, Trump recently declared that he had “no problem” with a Russian oil tanker loaded with an estimated 730,000 barrels of crude oil docking in Cuba. 

These potential diplomatic overtures may represent the softening of the previously adversarial negotiating positions of both nations, which could indicate that a negotiated solution is on the horizon. 

Was the prisoner release a concession? 

The Cuban government has consistently rejected claims that its decisions are influenced by Washington. In March, the Cuban government released 51 prisoners after talks with the Vatican, but explicitly denied at the time that the release was in any way a result of U.S. coercion. 

Nevertheless, Havana has used the tactic of releasing prisoners to improve bilateral relations with Washington before; in 2025 the Cuban government released over 500 prisoners early because of a deal that was made between Joe Biden’s administration and the Cuban government. 

In exchange, Biden removed Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism shortly before his term ended, a decision that was quickly reversed when Donald Trump came to power. But the Cuban government still upheld its end of the deal and freed the prisoners. 

Some believe the latest prisoner release announcement comes in response to Washington easing the oil blockade on the island.

“Trump announced that he would allow the entry of a Russian oil tanker into Cuba and that he will assess case by case from now on the entrance of oil ships in Cuba. That is a concession, he is opening a crack in the oil blockade,” Jorge Alfonso, an independent Cuban journalist based in Mexico City, told Latin America Reports. The prisoner release is “probably the way that Cuba is responding to that”, continued the journalist.

However, Alfonso warned that this potential concession should not be misinterpreted as a sign that Cuba is willing to fundamentally change its internal, authoritarian political system: “They haven’t released political prisoners, they have only released people processed for other felonies … It is also important to note that this release is also a way for the Cuban government to alleviate pressure on the [strained] jail system regardless of U.S. pressure.” 

Indeed, as of March 2026, Cuba has the second highest number of prisoners per 100,000 in the world, after El Salvador. Cuba’s poor prison conditions have begun to provoke dissent, with a protest recently breaking out in the La Canaleta jail in Ciego de Ávila because of dwindling food supplies and poor sanitary conditions. 

The prisoner release may therefore be a pragmatic move rather than a sign of the regime loosening its grip; President Miguel Díaz-Canel reiterated in a recent interview on NBC (set to air on Sunday) that he has no intention of resigning. 

More negotiation or confrontation? 

Progress in negotiations does not automatically rule out the possibility that the United States might launch some kind of military operation to force political changes. Just two days before the Trump administration decided to attack Iran, the U.S. and Iran had been engaged in talks which reportedly produced a bilateral agreement on sanctions relief for Iran.

Despite Trump’s recent precedent of opting for military force over diplomacy, analysts believe this is unlikely in Cuba’s case.

“I do not expect a military intervention by the U.S. … I expect that there will continue to be talks between the two governments, and it is conceivable that Washington will reduce its pressure on the island in response to initiatives by Havana to open opportunities for U.S.-based businesses,”  Eric Hershberg, Professor of Government at American University and expert, told Latin America Reports.

The White House’s repeated threats of regime change against Cuba could be part of a strategy that the U.S. President has used before. Hershberg explained that Trump often acts aggressively towards foes and then de-escalates before claiming an ultimate diplomatic victory. 

“Cuba may turn out to be another instance of Trump-era American menacing that doesn’t achieve its purported objectives, in this instance overthrowing the Cuban political system,” concluded the academic. 

Washington’s decision to strike an alliance with current Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice-President under Maduro, instead of installing opposition leader María Corina Machado could suggest that Trump has little interest in changing foreign adversaries’ internal power structure. 

Instead, the Venezuela case would suggest that Trump prefers obliging adversaries to align more closely with the U.S. diplomatically, rather than pushing for comprehensive regime change. 

However, this preference is not necessarily shared by all of the Trump base or his high-ranking cabinet members, especially with regards to Cuba. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for example, has a long history of calling for the current Cuban Government’s removal from power. Rubio told reporters as recently as mid-March that, for the Cuban domestic situation to improve, “they have to get new people in charge”. 

The historically powerful Florida-based Cuban-American lobby is also likely to oppose any negotiation that allows the Cuban Communist Party to continue its one-party rule of the island. 

Various Cuban opposition groups signed the so-called “Freedom Accord” in early March, a document which outlined the opposition’s plan for a democratic transition on the island and intention to “dismantl[e] the criminal enterprise that is the Communist Party of Cuba”. 

Cuban American voters have historically supported Trump, and will likely lobby him to push for systematic internal changes in Cuba in negotiations. 

Featured Image: Boniato Prison, near Santiago de Cuba. The facility, which remains in use today, was the site of Fidel Castro’s imprisonment after the failed attack on the Moncada barracks in 1953

Image Credit: Greg0611 via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post Could latest Cuba prisoner release mark an advance in Havana-Washington talks? appeared first on Latin America Reports.