By: Mariana Perez
On February 27, 2026, President Donald Trump floated the idea of a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. After a campaign event in Texas, he stated, “[t]he Cuban government is talking with us. They’re in a big deal of trouble… They have no money, they have no anything right now. But they’re talking with us and maybe we’ll have a friendly takeover of Cuba.” These remarks followed the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro earlier in the year, an event that sent shockwaves throughout Latin America. The effects have been especially pronounced in Cuba, which lost access to Venezuelan oil exports. At the same time, U.S. efforts to block fuel shipments intensified the island’s energy crisis. For several weeks, Cuba’s 9 million residents have experienced widespread blackouts and shortages, disrupting access to electricity, internet, and essential services. In this context, renewed talks of a potential U.S. “takeover” raise pressing questions about the nature and limits of American influence in Cuba today.
Earlier U.S. involvement in Cuba was explicit and formalized. In 1903, the Platt Amendment granted the U.S. the right to intervene in Cuban affairs to preserve stability and independence. It also authorized a naval base at Guantanamo Bay and encouraged U.S. investment through infrastructure and public health initiatives. As a result, American companies dominated key sectors of the Cuban economy, particularly sugar production. Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt repealed the Platt Amendment in response to rising Cuban Nationalism, U.S. investment and influence remained deeply intertwined with Cuban financial and business affairs until the Cuban Revolution in 1959, when Fidel Castro took power.
Today, American influence in Cuba operates through far more indirect means. Rather than relying on formal legal authority, current policy centers on economic pressure, including sanctions and restrictions on fuel shipments. These measures have contributed to what analysts are calling “the gravest threat to the Cuban government’s survival since Fidel Castro’s communist revolution prevailed in 1959.” U.S. officials have linked the economic pressure to a need for broader political reform. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently stated, “Cuba’s economy needs to change, and their economy can’t change unless their system of government changes[.]” However recent actions reveal a complex approach. On March 29, the U.S. Coast Guard allowed a Russian tanker carrying crude oil to reach Cuba, despite the blockade. President Trump acknowledged the situation, stating that the Cubans “have to survive,” while insisting that the broader goal of regime change remains unchanged. While these methods differ from earlier periods of direct intervention, they raise similar questions about how external pressure can shape Cuba’s economic and political landscape without formal control.
These developments have generated cautious optimism among members of the Cuban diaspora in the U.S., many of whom view increased pressure as a potential pathway to change on the island. Yet it remains unclear whether such change will materialize. The Cuban government has signaled a willingness to engage in discussions with the U.S. but has refused to accept responsibility for its role in the island’s ongoing crisis. History suggests that predictions of Cuba’s transformation should be treated with caution. A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that there was a “better than ever chance that Fidel Castro’s government will fall during the next few years,” – that report is from 1993.
What will happen next remains unclear. The U.S. has increased pressure on Cuba while also signaling a willingness to allow limited relief, creating an uncertain path forward. Whether this leads to further instability, reform, or a broader shift in U.S. influence in the region, one thing is clear: Cuba has once again become a central focus of American policy.
