President Donald Trump has placed Cuba at the forefront of his administration’s international policy priorities, consistently stating the Communist-controlled nation will be “next” after U.S. armed forces operations in Venezuela and Iran. At the same time, covert talks between Washington and Havana persist in private.
The intensifying language has prompted analysts to question whether the Trump administration aims for authentic regime change, a controlled transformation, or merely expanded opportunities for American commercial enterprises on the island territory located just 90 miles from Florida’s coastline.
Delivering remarks at the Future Investment Initiative summit in Miami on March 27, Trump discussed his administration’s recent armed forces achievements before turning attention to Cuba. “I built this great military. I said you’ll never have to use it, but sometimes you have to use it. And Cuba’s next, by the way. But pretend I didn’t say that.”
The remarks came after the U.S. armed forces seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, and the elimination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in combined U.S.-Israeli operations on Feb. 28. Trump has increasingly escalated his rhetoric, informing journalists aboard Air Force One, “Cuba’s going to be next.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose parents emigrated from Cuba, has been more forthright regarding the administration’s goals. Rubio testified to Congress in January, “We would love to see the regime there change.” In March, he added that Cuba’s leaders “don’t know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge.”
The Trump administration has been suffocating Cuba’s economy via an oil embargo that specialists claim has driven the island to its most critical condition since the Soviet Union’s dissolution. The approach escalated after the cessation of oil deliveries from Venezuela following Maduro’s capture, resulting in countrywide electrical failures throughout Cuba.
The embargo displayed indications of uneven application in late March, when a Russian vessel transporting approximately 700,000 barrels of petroleum reached the port of Matanzas without U.S. interference. The White House stated the delivery did not constitute a formal modification in sanctions strategy and that subsequent determinations would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trump, communicating aboard Air Force One, minimized the occurrence, saying: “Cuba’s finished.”
Notwithstanding the combative stance, both governments have verified active discussions. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel recognized in March that conversations are taking place but remain “still far from an agreement.” Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, Carlos Fernández de Cossío, characterized the talks as both serious and sensitive, while maintaining that regime change is “absolutely” off the table.
The matter of what “taking Cuba” truly signifies has split observers and potentially the administration internally. Paul Hare, who served as British ambassador to Cuba from 2001 to 2004, recognized competing groups within Trump’s team, some prepared to negotiate agreements with the current leadership for commercial entry, others demanding total regime change.
Christopher Hernandez-Roy, senior fellow and deputy director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said “regime management” represents the only realistic option. He observed that Cuba’s authority framework has survived for almost seven decades and demonstrates proficiency at suppression, rendering it a more challenging objective than Venezuela.
Lawrence Gumbiner, a career diplomat who directed the U.S. Embassy in Havana during Trump’s first term, presented a different perspective. He proposed that Trump perceives Cuba as untapped ground for American commercial interests after six decades of financial inactivity, with possibilities encompassing shipping, transportation, tourism, and construction.
Gumbiner forecast that any resolution would incorporate financial openings initially, with fresh Cuban leadership functioning under substantial U.S. influence. He likened the prospective configuration to the position currently occupied by Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, cautioning that the communication would be transparent: comply or face consequences.
The Cuban government has resisted Washington’s influence. In an April 12 interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” his first American broadcast interview, Díaz-Canel warned that a U.S. invasion “would have costs” and vowed Cuba would fight back. “If that happens, there will be fighting, and there will be a struggle, and we will defend ourselves, and if we need to die, we’ll die,” he said.
Cuban President Díaz-Canel took over the presidency from Raúl Castro in April 2018, becoming the first individual since 1976 not from the Castro family to officially govern the country. Nevertheless, numerous observers regard Díaz-Canel as a figurehead, with the Castro family retaining substantial influence in the background through the military enterprise GAESA, which oversees roughly 60 percent of Cuba’s economy.
Hernandez-Roy described removing Díaz-Canel’s as primarily symbolic, noting “he’s not the person that actually wields the power in the country, but it would be seen as a symbolic win by the United States.”
As talks proceed and Trump’s language escalates, the destiny of the island nation remains uncertain. Rubio informed Fox News in February that the administration would “have more news on that fairly soon,” indicating substantial developments may be nearing in the intricate confrontation between Washington and Havana
In the same NBC interview, Díaz-Canel said Cuba is “open for foreign investment in oil exploration and drilling,” calling it “an opportunity for American businessmen and firms.” He added that while a deal with the U.S. government is “possible,” it remains “difficult.”
On April 3, Cuba freed more than 2,000 detainees, presenting the action as a humanitarian measure for Easter. Analysts at The Guardian depicted the release as a probable sign of continuing secret negotiations between the two governments.