

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Maybe—and stick with me here, Marco—the fact that the United States has had a near-total embargo on Cuba since before the Beatles’ first album might have something to do with its struggling economy?" said one critic.
As Cuba works to restore electricity to millions of people plunged into darkness across the fuel-starved island, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday blamed Cuba's socialist government for the nation's economic crisis—a crisis largely caused by 65 years of US economic embargo and exacerbated by President Donald Trump's tightened fuel blockade.
"Suffice it to say that the embargo is tied to political change on the island," Rubio told reporters at the White House. "The law is codified, but the bottom line is, their economy doesn’t work. It’s a nonfunctional economy."
"That revolution—it's not even a revolution, that thing they have—has survived on subsidies," he added. "They don’t get subsidies anymore, so they’re in a lot of trouble, and the people in charge, they don’t know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge."
Rubio—whose parents fled the island during the rule of pro-US dictator Fulgencio Batista—dismissed Cuba's proposed economic reforms, including opening the country to investment from Cubans living abroad.
“Cuba has an economy that doesn’t work in a political and governmental system that can’t fix it. So they have to change dramatically," he said. "What they announced yesterday is not dramatic enough. It’s not going to fix it. So they’ve got some big decisions to make over there."
Rubio added that although the Trump administration is currently focused on its war of choice in Iran—one of 10 countries attacked during the two terms of the self-proclaimed "president of peace"—the US would "be doing something with Cuba very soon."
The US has been doing something with Cuba since the 19th century, when it invaded and seized the island from Spain. In the 20th century, it supported successive dictatorships and, after the Fidel Castro-led revolution ousted Batista, imposed an economic embargo on the island that has been perennially condemned by an overwhelming majority of United Nations member states for 33 years.
In addition to the embargo—which Cuba's government says has cost the nation's economy more than $200 billion in inflation-adjusted losses—the US tried to assassinate Castro many times and supported the militant Cuban exiles who launched the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Other Cuban exiles carried out numerous terror attacks targeting Cuba's economy—and sometimes innocent civilians.
In language reminiscent of the US imperialists who conquered the island in 1898, Trump told reporters Monday, “I do believe... I’ll be having the honor of taking Cuba.”

This, after Trump said last month ahead of talks with Cuban officials that he might launch what he called a "friendly takeover" of the island. The president has also boasted about the tremendous economic suffering caused by his illegal embargo and fuel blockade, which is widely unpopular and has been called a form of "economic warfare."
“Officials in the US must be feeling very happy by the harm caused to every Cuban family,” Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío said Monday.
In Havana, residents hardened by decades of privation carried on the best they could without power. Some struggled in the dark.
“The power outages are driving me crazy,” 48-year-old Dalba Obiedo told The Associated Press. “Last night I fell down a 27-step staircase. Now I have to have surgery on my jaw. I fell because the lights went out.”
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel last week acknowledged that high-level talks with US representatives were underway. Recent reporting by Drop Site News cited an unnamed White House official who accused Rubio—a longtime advocate for regime change in Cuba—of trying to sabotage the talks.
Some observers believe that Trump wants Díaz-Canel to face a similar fate as Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—who was kidnapped in January during a US invasion and is now jailed in the United States—while others warn that the United States cannot be trusted in talks, pointing to recent accusations by Oman's foreign minister, who said American negotiators duplicitously scuppered an Iran peace deal that "was within our reach."
However, instead of regime change, Trump may be seeking what some observers are calling regime compliance, which is likely why he did not move to oust Maduro's subordinates. Unlike Venezuela, Cuba has no oil, but it was once was a magnet for US investment—both legal and otherwise.
Last week, a trio of Democratic US senators introduced a war powers resolution to stop Trump from attacking Cuba without the legally required authorization from Congress. Numerous war powers resolutions concerning Iran, Venezuela, and the dozens of boats Trump claims—without providing evidence—were transporting drugs from South America have all failed to pass the Republican-controlled Congress.
"While we're busy destroying the Gulf, our side project is implementing a total siege on the island of Cuba," said one progressive critic. "Unbelievably cruel."
Cuba faced an island-wide blackout on Monday amid an energy crisis resulting from President Donald Trump's decision to ramp up the United States' decadeslong and legally contested blockade of the Caribbean country by cutting off shipments of Venezuelan oil.
"A total disconnection" of the island's electrical system had occurred, but "the causes are being investigated, and protocols for restoration are beginning to be activated," the Cuban Ministry of Energy and Mines said on social media. It later added that "no faults" were reported in the units operating when the grid collapsed, and "the restoration process continues."
While Cuba has endured power outages in recent years that officials and experts have blamed on both the condition of the country's system and US sanctions, there have been multiple major blackouts in recent months, since Trump sent soldiers to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and seized control of Venezuela's nationalized oil industry.
"Officials in the US [government] must be feeling very happy by the harm caused to every Cuban family," Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío told CNN of the latest outage. The network noted that it had reached out to the White House for comment.
Blasting the blackout as "a direct consequence of Trump's economic warfare," Manolo De Los Santos of The People's Forum in New York City said on social media Monday that "the US has deliberately cut off fuel, spare parts, and equipment, crippling an already fragile grid. It's a genocidal siege, designed to starve and break the Cuban people into submission."
Similarly highlighting how "decades of US sanctions have made it harder for Cuba to access the fuel, equipment, and financing needed to maintain its energy grid," New York state Sen. Jabari Brisport (D-25), a democratic socialist, declared that "it's time to end the blockade and pursue diplomacy."
The blackout on the island of nearly 11 million people came after Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly confirmed on Friday that his government recently held "sensitive" talks with the Trump administration "to determine the willingness of both parties to take concrete actions for the benefit of the people of both countries."
Specifically, according to The Associated Press, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants and longtime supporter of regime change on the island—and top aides met with Raúl Guillermo Rodriguez Castro on the sidelines of a Caribbean Community leaders meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis last month.
During his Friday remarks to reporters, Díaz-Canel also emphasized the impacts of Cuba not receiving oil shipments for over three months, including disruptions to communications, education, healthcare, and transportation across the island.
While Trump was speaking with reporters on Monday, he called Cuba a "failed nation," and claimed that "Cuba also wants to make a deal, and I think we will pretty soon, either make a deal or do whatever we have to do." He also signaled that any such action would come after the illegal war his administration and Israel are waging on Iran.
Although Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently helped Senate Republicans block Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) war powers resolution intended to halt Trump's assault on Iran, Kaine has now partnered with Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) for a similar measure on Cuba.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) took to social media on Monday to weigh in on the grid collapse: "Cuba has gone dark. Trump's vindictive oil embargo—along with a sanctions regime that has starved Cuba of opportunities to develop its solar and wind—is depriving innocent Cuban citizens of basic necessities and creating a humanitarian crisis. Trump must end the embargo."
Markey and two other Massachusetts Democrats, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jim McGovern, had previously written to Trump in February to call for an end to the oil embargo, stressing that "Cuba poses no credible national security threat to the United States," and "the overt strategy of choking off oil imports to the island is inflicting severe hardship on the Cuban people, who rely on imported fuel for electricity, transportation, healthcare, and clean water."
"Taking action that sparks a humanitarian crisis as a means of leverage is not a strategy that results in long-term success or reflects who we are as Americans," they argued. "Policies that intensify fuel shortages, cripple essential services, and deepen economic desperation risk destabilizing not only Cuba, but the broader Caribbean region."
In Caracas, the situation is tangled, contradictory, and volatile. But amid the uncertainty, one thing felt clear: the Venezuelan left is not collapsing. It is recalibrating.
On our recent delegation to Venezuela, one quote echoed again and again — a warning written nearly two centuries ago by Simón Bolívar in 1829:
“The United States appears destined by Providence to plague America with misery in the name of liberty.”
For many Venezuelans, that line no longer feels like history. It feels like the present.
The January 3 US military operation that seized President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores marked a dramatic escalation in a conflict that Venezuelans describe not as sudden but as cumulative—the culmination of decades of pressure, sanctions, and attempts at isolation. “We still haven’t totally processed what happened on January 3,” sanctions expert William Castillo told us. “But it was the culmination of over 25 years of aggression and 11 years of resisting devastating sanctions. A 20-year-old today has lived half his life in a blockaded country.”
Carlos Ron, former deputy foreign minister and now with the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research, described the buildup to the invasion as the result of a carefully constructed narrative. “First there was the dangerous rhetoric describing Venezuelans in the United States as criminals,” he said. “Then endless references to the Tren de Aragua gang. Then the boat strikes blowing up alleged smugglers. Then the oil tanker seizures and naval blockade. The pressure wasn’t working, so they escalated to the January 3 invasion and kidnapping of President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and the deaths of over 100 people.”
While in the United States the events of January 3 have largely been forgotten, replaced by a devastating war with Iran, in Venezuela the reminders are everywhere. Huge banners draped from apartment buildings demand: “Bring them home.” Weekly protests call for their release.
In the Tiuna neighborhood of Caracas, we met Mileidy Chirinos, who lives in an apartment complex overlooking the site where Maduro was captured. From her rooftop, she told us about that dreadful night, when the sky lit up with explosions so loud her building shook and everyone ran outside screaming.
“Have your children ever woken up terrified to the sound of bombs?” she asked.
We shook our heads.
“Ours have,” she said. “And they are US bombs. Now we understand what Palestinians in Gaza feel every day.”
She told us psychologists now visit weekly to help residents cope with the trauma.
Within days of the US invasion, the National Assembly swore in Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as acting president. President Trump publicly praised Rodríguez for “doing a good job,” emphasizing his strong relationship with her. But from the beginning, she has been negotiating with the United States with a gun to her head. She was told that any refusal to compromise would result not in the kidnapping of her and her team, but death and the continued bombing of Venezuela.
The presence of US power looms large. Nuclear submarines still patrol offshore. Thousands of troops remain positioned nearby. Every statement and decision made by the government is scrutinized. And on February 2, despite Trump’s praise for Delcy Rodríguez, he renewed the 2015 executive order declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security.
The visits from the heads of the CIA and Southern Command have undoubtedly been difficult for the government to swallow. Delcy’s revolutionary father was tortured to death in 1976 by a Venezuelan government that worked closely with the CIA. The US Southern Command coordinated the January 3 attack.
But the government is not without leverage.
“The United States thought the state was weak, that it didn’t have popular support, that the military was divided,” said Tania Díaz of the ruling PSUV party. “January 3rd could have triggered looting, military defections, or widespread destabilization. None of that happened.”
The United States has overwhelming military dominance, but it was also aware that millions of Venezuelans signed up to be part of the people’s militia. This militia, along with the army that remained loyal to the government, gave Washington pause about launching a prolonged war and attempting to replace Delcy Rodríguez with opposition leader María Corina Machado.
While Machado enjoys enthusiastic support among Venezuelan exiles in Miami and the Trump administration recognized her movement as the winner of the 2024 election, the picture inside Venezuela is very different. The opposition remains deeply divided and Trump realized there was no viable faction ready to assume power.
Besides, as William Castillo put it bluntly: “Trump does not care about elections or human rights or political prisoners. He cares about three other things: oil, oil, and oil.” To that, we can add gold, where the US just pushed Venezuela to provide direct access to gold exports and investment opportunities in the country’s gold and mineral sector,
Certainly, under the circumstances, the Venezuelan leadership has had little choice but to grant the United States significant influence over its oil exports. But while Trump boasts that this is the fruit of his “spectacular assault,” Maduro had long been open to cooperation with US oil companies.
“Maduro was well aware that Venezuela needed investment in its oil facilities,” Castillo told us, “but the lack of investment is because of US sanctions, not because of Maduro. Venezuela never stopped selling to the US.; it is the US that stopped buying. And it also stopped selling spare parts needed to repair the infrastructure. So the US started the fire that decimated our oil industry and now acts as if it’s the firefighter coming to the rescue.”
In any case, the easing of oil sanctions—the only sanctions that have been partially lifted—is already bringing an infusion of much-needed dollars, and the government has been able to use these funds to support social programs.
But in Venezuela the conflict is not seen as simply about oil. Blanca Eekhout, head of the Simon Bolivar Institute, says US actions represent a brazen return to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine originally warned European powers not to interfere in the Western Hemisphere, but over time it became a justification for repeated US interventions across the region.
“We have gone back 200 years,” she said. “All rules of sovereignty have been violated. But while the Trump administration thinks it can control the hemisphere by force, it can’t.”
The historical contradiction is stark. In 1823, the young United States declared Latin America its sphere of influence. A year earlier, Bolívar envisioned a powerful, sovereign Latin America capable of charting its own destiny. That tension still echoes through the present.
Bolívar’s dream is also being battered by the resurgence of the right across the region. The left in Latin America is far weaker than during the days of Hugo Chávez. Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa have been replaced by conservative leaders. Cuba remains under a suffocating US siege. Progressive regional institutions like CELAC and ALBA have faded, and the vision of Latin American unity that once seemed within reach now feels far more fragile.
In Caracas, the situation is tangled, contradictory, and volatile. But amid the uncertainty, one thing felt clear: the Venezuelan left is not collapsing. It is recalibrating.
As Blanca told us before we left:
“They thought we would fall apart. But we are still here.”
And in the background, Bolívar’s warning continues to drift through the air—like a storm that never quite passes.