April, 27 2026, 01:43pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dan Beeton
beeton@cepr.net
New Report Shows That Hardening of US Sanctions on Cuba Since 2017 Fueled a Sharp Increase in Cuba’s Infant Mortality Rate
A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) finds that the expansion of US sanctions against Cuba beginning in 2017 were likely the primary cause of a major increase in infant mortality in Cuba. The report, by Alexander Main, Joe Sammut, Mark Weisbrot, and Guillaume Long examines the unprecedented increase in Cuba’s infant mortality rate (IMR), which soared by 148 percent from 2018 to 2025. During this time, US unilateral economic coercive measures against Cuba were greatly tightened by President Trump and then largely maintained under President Biden before being tightened even further during the second Trump administration. Had Cuba’s IMR remained stable over the last eight years, then approximately 1,800 deaths of infants would not have occurred.
“The Trump policy of ‘maximum pressure’ on Cuba has killed a lot of babies — and, although we don’t yet have data for the last few months, it’s highly likely that more babies are dying now, and at an even higher rate than last year as a result of the current US fuel blockade targeting Cuba,” CEPR Director of International Policy and report coauthor Alexander Main said. “The question is how many more babies will have to die before the current economic siege against Cuba is lifted.”
The report notes that “In Cuba, where for decades the state has invested substantially in health care services, the IMR was … among the lowest in the Western Hemisphere, and lower than in the US,” but that “Since 2018 … Cuba’s IMR has increased from an annual rate of 4.0 per 1000 live births to a rate of 9.9 as of 2025.”
The paper also notes that Cuba, unlike its neighbors in the region, has not rebounded economically from the COVID-19 pandemic, averaging just 0.4 percent annual per capita GDP growth from 2020 to 2024, versus 3.2 percent for the Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole.
The report looks at the economic and social effects of the hardening of US sanctions since 2017, focusing in particular on the impact on Cuba’s health-care sector. Trump administration pressure on Cuba has included restrictions that have sharply diminished the island’s important tourism sector; severely limited exports of goods to Cuba — including essential medication and medical equipment; cut Cuba’s access to international financial markets by putting the country back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list; curbed remittances; pressured countries to end their partnerships with Cuba’s medical missions, and notably imposed a recent fuel blockade that prevents Venezuelan oil from reaching the island.
“US sanctions have targeted Cuba’s key sources of export earnings, such as tourism, remittances from Cuban Americans to their family members, and even by putting pressure on other countries to end primary care programs staffed by Cuban doctors. These measures sharply reduced Cuba’s capacity to pay for needed food and medicines,” CEPR International Research Fellow and coauthor Joe Sammut said. “Cutting off medical services exports is doubly cruel as these programs mostly serve marginalized communities in poorer countries, while bringing in foreign currency revenues to Cuba in a mutually beneficial trade. As such the increasing US sanctions have a negative health-care spillover even beyond the island of 10 million people.”
As the report discusses, recent research has shown that unilateral, broad economic sanctions are as deadly as armed conflict, killing some 564,000 people annually, according to a study by CEPR economists Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón, and Mark Weisbrot published in August in The Lancet Global Health. More than half of these deaths are children under five, and deaths of infants are even more disproportionate, since they are three-quarters of the under-five population.
“The sanctions on Cuba starkly illustrate how these economic sanctions work: they target the civilian population, often with the goal of provoking regime change,” said Mark Weisbrot, CEPR Co-Director. “This can dramatically increase death rates, as shown statistically in the Lancet Global Health study of economic sanctions throughout the world. The increased mortality in Cuba fits this pattern, and the causality is visible.”
The US Senate may vote as early as Tuesday, April 28, on a War Powers Resolution introduced by Senators Tim Kaine, Adam Schiff, and Ruben Gallego to “to prevent [US] Armed Forces from engaging in hostilities [against Cuba] unless authorized by Congress.”
“This legislation pending in Congress right now argues persuasively that the current blockade constitutes a military participation in hostilities that is unlawful according to the US Constitution and law because it has not been authorized by Congress,” Weisbrot said.
“The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention when there is armed conflict, and can be prosecuted as a war crime. This would appear to be applicable now that the current naval blockade involves the US military.”
The report also describes the vulnerability of newborn babies in Cuba to the impact of blackouts and fuel scarcity — as recently reported by The New York Times. “The blockade has had a particularly dire effect on Cuba’s health-care infrastructure, with frequent power outages interrupting the use of critical equipment for the treatment of patients, including incubators for premature babies, and ventilators to help sick newborns breathe,” Guillaume Long, CEPR Senior Research Fellow and coauthor said.
The report notes: “Given the effects of the US energy blockade, it is highly likely that Cuba’s infant mortality rate has increased significantly since December of 2025, when it had reached 9.9 per 1000 live births. Other key health indicators, such as life expectancy and maternal mortality have also very likely deteriorated since the beginning of the year.”
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
Bernie Sanders Leads Senators in Demand to End Super PACs in Democratic Primaries
“We cannot allow unlimited outside spending to distort our elections or drown out the voices of working people."
Apr 27, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading a coalition of Democratic senators pushing for the party's leaders to require candidates to swear off billionaire- and corporate-backed super PACs, or political action committees, in this year's primary elections.
Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined the independent senator from Vermont to send a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin on Sunday.
Five of the senators are members of a group of Senate Democrats known as the "Fight Club" that has formed to oppose Schumer's preferred candidates in contested Democratic primaries, many of whom are closely aligned with the party's traditional corporate backers.
While the senators applauded the DNC's resolution last month broadly condemning the influence of dark money in party elections, calling it an "important first step," they said Democratic leaders needed to take more "concrete steps to curb the influence of dark money," particularly the artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency industries and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"Corporate-funded super PACs are shaping the 2026 elections as we speak, and the scale of their resources is unprecedented," the senators said. "Crypto-aligned groups are preparing to spend $200 million, and AIPAC-affiliated groups already control more than $90 million. The AI industry has already spent over $185 million this year alone. These sums are being deployed to influence Democratic primaries and overwhelm candidates who rely on grassroots support."
April's broad anti-dark money resolution was passed by the DNC in lieu of one that directly singled out “the growing influence” of AIPAC, specifically over its more than $100 million spending blitz in 2024 to oust progressive candidates. Despite a dramatic shift toward opposition to Israel among Democratic voters over the past three years, that resolution was voted down by a DNC panel.
AIPAC continues to dump massive amounts of money behind its preferred candidates. The senators' letter notes that "in Illinois alone, outside groups spent over $50 million in recent Democratic primaries." Nearly half of that money was spent by AIPAC, which secretly funneled money to support its candidates using shell groups that appeared to be unaffiliated.
The group has used similar tactics in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Ala Stanford, a candidate for Pennsylvania's 3rd District in Philadelphia, was recently revealed to have received $500,000 worth of backing from AIPAC through a super PAC despite claiming to have received no support from the Israel lobby.
Meanwhile, in Maine, a clique of Republican billionaires who back Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)—including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Palantir CEO Alex Karp—also recently dropped $2 million to fund an ad campaign seeking to hamper the chances of the Democratic Senate primary front-runner Graham Platner.
"We cannot allow unlimited outside spending to distort our elections or drown out the voices of working people," the senators said in Sunday's letter.
The senators noted Schumer's past statement that overturning the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door for the flood of corporate money into elections by allowing individuals to independently spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates, was "probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy.”
They said that while reversing the ruling remained a "critical long-term goal," the party "has the authority—and the responsibility—to act now with clear, enforceable rules."
"National and state parties should require all Democratic candidates to sign a pledge opposing billionaire- and corporate-backed super PAC spending on their behalf in Democratic primaries," they said. "The DNC, state parties, and committees working to elect Democrats to the House and Senate have many potential tools at their disposal to enforce that pledge, including withholding endorsements for those who make endorsements in the primary, and they should use whatever tools necessary to do so."
Sanders has said that simply requiring candidates to take a pledge is not enough and that party leaders need to be diligent about holding them to it.
“If the Democrats are going to be honest and consistent in terms of their concerns about money and politics, they’ve got to clean up, in my view, their own house immediately,” he said in an interview on Saturday. “That means getting super PACs out of Democratic primaries, congressional as well as presidential.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Death on the Job' Report Details Workplace Safety Decline Under Trump
"From the dismantling of critical federal agencies and laws to the expansion of unregulated, untested AI technology, the protections that workers fought and died for are under serious threat," said the AFL-CIO president.
Apr 27, 2026
Since returning to the White House last year, President Donald Trump has revived his war on workers and their labor unions, including by making US workplaces less safe, according to an annual report released Monday by the AFL-CIO.
The AFL-CIO published its 35th annual "Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect" report on the eve of Workers Memorial Day on Tuesday, and in the lead-up to International Workers' Day, or May Day, on Friday—for which organizers have already planned more than 3,000 events demanding an economy that serves "workers over billionaires" across the United States.
"Over the last 35 years of this report, job safety agencies' resources have diminished dramatically, even as their responsibilities have grown immensely," the publication notes. "For instance, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is now in charge of 85% more establishments, 44% more workers, and new hazards and technologies, yet Congress has reduced its budget by 10% and staffing by 26%, including a 16% reduction in inspectors."
"These percentages have massive impacts on such a tiny agency and very real personal effects on workers and their families," the report continues. "Agencies now have a paltry number of staff to write standards, analyze data, conduct inspections, perform oversight on states, orchestrate needed research on important hazards, and respond to emerging threats. The number of OSHA inspectors has now hit a new low, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) does not have enough inspectors to meet its statutory requirement to inspect each mine multiple times a year."
While "more than 735,000 workers now can say their lives have been saved since the passage" of the Occupational Safety
and Health (OSH) Act, "too many workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness, or death as chemical plant explosions, major fires, construction collapses, infectious disease outbreaks, workplace assaults, toxic chemical exposures, and other preventable tragedies continue to permeate the workplace," the document stresses.
"Workplace hazards still kill approximately 140,000 workers each year in the United States—including 5,070 from traumatic injuries in 2024 and an estimated 135,000 from occupational diseases each year," the report states. "That is more than 380 workers each day. Job injury and illness numbers continue to be severe undercounts of the real problem."
The publication points out that "Black and Latino workers are more likely to die on the job," while older workers and minors are also "at serious risk." According to the data, the deadliest industries in the United States are: agriculture, forestry, and fishing and hunting; mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; transportation and warehousing; construction; and wholesale trade.
"It is a disgrace that in 2026, being Black, Latino, or an immigrant can still be a death sentence on the jobsite," declared AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Fred Redmond, in a statement. He specifically called out the president's attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as those on immigrant communities.
"Our new report makes it terrifyingly clear that the Trump administration's anti-DEI, mass deportation agenda will only make this crisis worse," Redmond said. "When workers are afraid that reporting threats to their safety could result in their work permits being revoked and their families being ripped apart, and when employers fear that reporting workplace data will hurt their bottom line, we are all less safe: workers of color and white workers, immigrant workers and US-born workers. We must fight the Trump administration's attacks on communities of color like our fellow workers' lives are on the line—because they are."
Faced with these "preventable" deaths, as AFL-CIO put it, the second Trump administration has taken an ax to job safety oversight and enforcement. Specifically, the report details, the administration has:
- Pushed out so many staff that job safety agency staffing is at new lows, leaving fewer inspectors than ever to cover a growing workforce;
- Instructed its OSHA and MSHA inspectors to focus on employer outreach and assistance, taking time and resources away from inspections with citations;
- Expanded OSHA penalty reductions for employers when they violate the law;
- Proposed twice to eliminate worker safety and health training grants, even though Congress has rejected these cuts so far;
- Proposed to eliminate the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, in charge of independent, nonregulatory investigations after an industrial explosion, leak, or other major incident;
- Stopped conducting MSHA impact inspections, a critical enforcement tool for focusing on mines with a poor history of compliance with MSHA standards, high numbers of injuries, illnesses or fatalities, or other indicators of unsafe mines;
- Issued zero criminal referrals for violations of the OSH Act;
- Indefinitely halted the enforcement of the silica standard in coal and metal/nonmetal mining;
- Extended deadlines for companies to comply with important Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chemical regulations that specifically protect workers, such as methylene chloride; and
- Proposed to remove dozens of OSHA and MSHA standards from the books and supported efforts to dismantle the regulatory process.
"Every worker should be able to go home safe and healthy at the end of their shift—but 55 years after the founding of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, that fundamental right is in danger," warned AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler.
"From the dismantling of critical federal agencies and laws to the expansion of unregulated, untested AI technology, the protections that workers fought and died for are under serious threat," Shuler said, as the Trump administration lobbies against legislation that would regulate artificial intelligence in Republican-led states.
"The labor movement refuses to go backward," she added. "More than five decades after a Republican signed the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act into law, we urge all members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle—to join us in this fight."
Both chambers of Congress are currently controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and recent votes on various war powers resolutions have demonstrated how most GOP lawmakers are unwilling to stand up to the president, even when he defies the US Constitution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Wars, Uncertainty, and Geopolitical Upheaval' Led to 2025 Global Military Spending Surge
"Given the range of current crises, as well as many states’ long-term military spending targets, this growth will probably continue through 2026 and beyond," said one researcher.
Apr 27, 2026
Global military spending around the world surged in 2025 in response to further eroding geopolitical stability, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute revealed in a report released Monday.
In its annual report on trends in global military expenditures, SIPRI found that global military spending in 2025 totaled nearly $2.9 trillion, a 2.9% increase over defense spending in 2024. Global defense spending now accounts for 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level since 2009.
Despite the Pentagon's ballooning budget, overall defense defense spending in the US actually decreased in 2025, as the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled US Congress stopped sending new military aid to Ukraine, which had received nearly $130 billion in military aid under President Joe Biden over the previous three years after it was invaded by Russia in 2022.
Even without additional US involvement, spending on the Russia-Ukraine conflict grew significantly in 2025, as Russia increased its defense spending by 6% and Ukraine increased its military expenditures by 20%.
"In 2025 military expenditure as a share of government spending reached the highest level ever recorded in both Russia and Ukraine," said Lorenzo Scarazzato, researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program. "Their spending is likely to keep growing in 2026 if the war continues, with revenues from Russia’s oil sales increasing and a major European Union loan expected by Ukraine."
The dip in US defense spending may not last long given that President Donald Trump has proposed a record $1.5 trillion military budget and the president's unauthorized war of choice with Iran has already cost US taxpayers an estimated $63 billion.
Both Israel and Iran spent less on defense in 2025 than the year before, although both countries are similarly likely to see a surge in spending given the conflict between the two countries that began when the US and Israel attacked Iran in late February.
Elsewhere in the world, the SIPRI report finds that defense spending in Europe grew by 14% in 2025, while growing just over 8% in Asia and Oceania.
The US, China, and Russia were the three biggest military spenders, and their combined spending of $1.48 trillion represented more than half of the global total.
Xiao Liang, researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, said that the big increases in defense spending came in response to "another year of wars, uncertainty, and geopolitical upheaval with large-scale armament drives."
"Given the range of current crises, as well as many states’ long-term military spending targets," the researcher added, "this growth will probably continue through 2026 and beyond."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


