02 February 2026

Cuba’s government has condemned “in the strongest terms” the decision by President Trump to sign on 29 January an Executive Order that threatens to impose tariffs on any nation exporting “directly or indirectly” any type of oil to Cuba.

In a formal declaration, Cuba’s Government said on 30 January that the new escalation represented an attempt by the US government “to impose an absolute blockade on fuel supplies to our country.” Observing that the US decision ”constitutes a flagrant violation of international law” and that Cuba is “not subject to sanctions by the international community,“ it noted that Washington ”through blackmail, threats, and direct coercion of third countries” is attempting the “economic strangulation”  of Cuba.

The international community, it wrote, “faces the unavoidable challenge of defining whether a crime of this nature can be a sign of what is to come or whether sanity, solidarity and rejection of aggression, impunity and abuse will prevail.” Cuba’s government added that nothing will break its “resolve to defend its national sovereignty and prevent Cuba from falling, once again, under US domination.”

At press time, speaking aboard Airforce One, President Trump said: “We are talking with the people of Cuba, with the highest officials in Cuba. We’ll see what happens. I think we’re going to reach an agreement with Cuba.” No further details were provided.

US Executive Order argues Cuba presents a threat to national security

According to the Executive Order a US “national emergency” exists in respect of  Cuba. The Cuban government’s actions, it states, constitute “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” It argues that “The policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Cuba are designed to harm the United States and support hostile countries, transnational terrorist groups, and malign agents seeking to destroy the United States.”

The measure allows for US Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, to determine whether a country sells or supplies oil to Cuba, and subsequently for the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to decide whether and to what extent an additional tariff should be imposed on any nation’s products.

Speaking after signing the Executive Order, President Trump told reporters that “It seems it will not be able to survive.” Describing Cuba as “a failed nation” he said that “many Cuban Americans who were treated very badly and would like to return.”

The measures invoked by the order appear intended to force the Cuban government to negotiate under duress some form of transition by controlling and limiting the oil supply as a calibrated weapon. They may also be designed to allow for some shipments to be made under US control, to ensure continuing compliance with whatever understanding or agreement might be reached, avoiding if possible a complete breakdown in Cuban society and a consequent humanitarian crisis, or a direct conflict.

At press time it was unclear how third countries will react to the order which is extraterritorial in effect and runs counter to successive votes at the UN over many years in relation to the US embargo.

In a related development, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS Harry Truman, and an accompanying battle group have been undertaking live fire exercises 96 km north of eastern Cuba, and according to some reports other US naval vessels are present to Cuba’s south. Their location highlights Washington’s ability, if required, to interdict sanctioned shipments of oil while also posing the potential threat of military action.

Mexico halts oil supplies and seeks dialogue with US

Responding to President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on countries that send oil to Cuba, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum, warned on 30 January that the measures could cause a humanitarian crisis in Cuba. Setting out Mexico’s response at her daily press conference she said that the US measure would affect the “hospitals, food and other basic services of the Cuban people, a situation that must be avoided through international law and dialogue between the parties.”

Continuing, she said “We need to know the scope because we also don’t want to put our country at risk in terms of tariffs,” while stressing the importance of resolution through diplomacy and non-confrontation. Sheinbaum noted that she had asked Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Juan Ramón de la Fuente, to make immediate contact with the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to learn the exact nature of the new measure, and to inform him that “a humanitarian crisis must be prevented.” Mexico, Sheinbaum said, will seek alternative ways to help the Cuban people at “a difficult time.”

Two days before President Trump signed the  Executive Order, Mexico’s President had repeated her earlier assertion that her government will make its own decisions regarding when and how it will continue to supply oil to Cuba.

Speaking on 27 January she told the media: “As we have said, it is a sovereign decision, and Pemex makes its own decisions …. when and how it is sent …. And it depends on what Pemex defines based on the contracts, or, in any case, on the government’s humanitarian decision to send it under certain circumstances.”

Her comments followed widely reported US pressure on the Mexican government and ongoing deliberations within her government about how to balance its relationship with the US and Cuba, in the light of the forthcoming review of the USMCA trade agreement with the US and Canada, and Mexico’s continuing exchanges with Washington on bilateral security issues relating to narcotics interdiction and migration.

Reuters reported that the issue of oil shipments to Cuba had become an internal debate within Sheinbaum’s government, with divisions emerging over whether to maintain, reduce, or suspend crude oil supplies out of concern about possible US retaliation, and those who see the supply of oil to Cuba as a moral obligation and an investment in regional stability. The news agency also reported that US Navy drones had been flown over routes similar to those followed by tankers transporting Mexican fuel across the Gulf of Mexico to Cuba.

Figures published in the Mexican media, shipping tracking data, and academic analysis suggests that Mexico became in 2025 the main supplier of oil and derivatives to Cuba. However, it is hard to know the true level of the previous oil supply from Venezuela as Venezuelan oil destined for China or elsewhere may have been partially transhipped at sea for delivery to Cuba, or alternatively sold on by Cuba to earn foreign exchange. It is also not known how much oil Cuba holds in its strategic reserve.

In early January, the oil tanker Ocean Mariner reportedly delivered about 86,000 barrels of fuel to Cuba from Mexico. Since then, there have been no further sailings. More generally, most analysts believe that Cuba needs around 110,000 barrels per day to cover its basic energy needs, of which about 40,000 come from domestic production.

Díaz-Canel tells Party members Cuba facing a multifaceted threat

Speaking on 30 January, President Díaz-Canel told an Extraordinary Plenary Session of the Provincial Council of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) in Havana that faced with US aggression “we have to be prepared, and we are preparing” for a multifaceted form of warfare.

In remarks to provincial council members reported in full in Cuba’s state media, he suggested that recent statements made by President Trump and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, “reveal the intention to reinforce pressure and economic aggression against Cuba without ruling out military action.”  Referring to the 32 Cubans who died fighting US forces in Venezuela, he said that Washington must calculate “what an attack on Cuba would cost it.” “Never,” the Cuban President asserted, “will surrender be an option, and hard times like these must be faced with courage and bravery,” he told the last of fifteen similar provincial meetings scheduled before the present crisis unfolded.

In this light, he said: “our Party, the State, the Government, the Revolutionary Armed Forces, the Ministry of the Interior and the united people are prepared to confront any additional blockade measures and any threat or military aggression with the same courage and determination as those Cubans who died in Venezuela.

Later, in conciliatory language, he said: “we have the capacity and the willingness to engage in dialogue with the United States government. The problem is that dialogue cannot take place under pressure. Dialogue must be conducted on equal terms, with respect, and without preconditions.“ He also noted that work will continue with friendly countries and the international community who support Cuba every year when the UN votes against the US embargo.

Trump Administration has a range of options

According to multiple reports, the Trump Administration has developed a suite of options beyond tariffs for the US President to consider. These include paralysing the Cuban economy through a naval blockade and attempting to identify a viable interlocutor in Cuba to negotiate change with.

The Wall Street Journal, Politico, and Reuters all citing unnamed sources in the US administration suggest that Washington has assessed that the Cuban economy is on the brink of total collapse and the country’s government is uniquely vulnerable following its loss of support from Venezuela.

The print and online publications variously quoted Administration sources as indicating that the US “does not yet have a detailed plan to overthrow the Cuban leadership”; the US military operation in Venezuela offers a potential model for action; the US administration “is seeking contacts within the Cuban government who could help organise a change of power on the island by the end of 2026”; “the country’s government has never been so vulnerable” as now; and the Cuban economy “is on the brink of total collapse.” Politico’s sources additionally suggested that any blockade could be justified under the 1994 US Helms-Burton Libertad legislation.

Referring to the US media reports on 24 January, Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Carlos Fernández de Cossío, described such media “leaks and speculation” as “a brutal assault against a peaceful nation that poses no threat to the US,” while noting that such measures are “irrefutable proof“ that the economic hardships faced by the Cuban people are primarily caused by Washington.

Uncertain times lie ahead for Cuba and Cubans

What is still unclear is who the US believes it might negotiate with or facilitate a transition in a country where all strategic decisions are collegiate, higher inter-related levels of the Cuban leadership remain cohesive, and matters of great national importance require the public endorsement of Cuba’s former President, Raul Castro.

It is also uncertain how without significant levels of internal Cuban administrative support, peaceful ‘regime change’ might be engineered by the US let alone subsequently managed. More than sixty years of Communist control has, irrespective of the hardships faced by many Cubans, ensured that almost every aspect of decision making in Cuba is delivered through its committed Communist Party leadership and cadres, with the involvement of a complex web of overlapping military, political, parliamentary, government, military and state enterprises, and civil organisations. There is also no organised opposition on the island, and Cuba’s history suggests that if required, significant numbers may for nationalistic or ideological reasons choose to fight or resist external pressure.

Despite this, and President Diaz Canel’s fiercely nationalistic remarks, he has continued to stress that his government is willing to engage in a dialogue with Washington if it is based on “equality” and “respect,”  and that any understanding or negotiation does not involve coercion.

The nature of any dialogue between Cuban and US officials through back channels or the existing bilateral mechanism used annually to discuss migration and security issues remains unclear. In the past the Vatican and Norway have acted as interlocutors, and  more recently Mexico has offered its services should both sides wish it. Cuba’s leadership is following closely the US approach to Venezuela and the ways in which Washington’s transactional dialogue with its acting President, Delcy Rodriguez, is moving forward with almost all of its leadership and its political institutions remaining intact.

National Defence Council says Cuba transitioning to ‘a state of war’  

Cuba’s National Defence Council has met to review the island’s military preparedness in the event of a conflict with the US, according to a brief official statement published in Cuba’s state media on 17 January. The body is responsible for assuming control of the country in the event of a conflict. The statement indicated that the Council met to “analyse and approve the plans and measures for the transition to a state of war,” and that Raúl Castro “remained informed of the activity, which he described as good and efficient.” Cuba’s President leads National Defence Council meetings.

According to official reporting, the meeting focussed on increasing and improving preparedness and the “cohesion of the governing bodies and personnel relating to mobilisation in relation to Cuba’s strategic military doctrine of a “War of the Entire People.”.

Although no further details were provided, subsequent Cuban media coverage quoted President Díaz-Canel as saying on 24 January, National Defence Day,  that the “best way to avoid aggression is for imperialism to have to calculate what the price of attacking our country would be. And that has a lot to do with our preparedness for this type of military action.”

Separately the Cuban News Agency (ACN) has highlighted actions being undertaken by the Provincial Defence Council for the province of Camagüey to ensure that in the event of a blockade or conflict the structure of its staffing, management and communications systems is complete. The report noted that  “different subgroups were reviewed in a scenario of unconventional warfare and fighting against an enemy invasion.” Other issues considered according to ACN included “fire extinguishing and protection of workers against bombing” at various sites. In addition, “food preparation, and water supply to the population” was reviewed.

The detailed report also noted that a special training unit from the state telecoms company ETECSA demonstrated its ability to “guarantee communications and the protection of the media.” It indicated also that exercises relating to the concept of a war of all the people had involved Provincial, Municipal and Zone Defence Councils, practical exercises involving special forces, and the use of anti-aircraft defence systems, artillery, and drones.

Most analysts believe that the Cuban military would for ideological and nationalistic reasons fight or resist any US incursion. However, Cuban media coverage suggests that the island may not be fully prepared organisationally for a conflict and does not have the most modern weaponry and communications, indicating that any involvement by US forces would likely rapidly devolve to alternative and territorial forms of warfare. Conversely, if as appears likely, the US Administration does not for domestic political reasons wish to see US troops die in Cuba, Washington may choose to resort to targeted strikes.

Cuba has an established escalatory system of political and economic preparedness in relation to a range of external threats and scenarios. Between 1991 and 1995 Cuba experienced a period of extreme austerity during what was known as ‘The Special Period in Peacetime’  following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the sudden halt to the economic support it provided. Under Cuban law the declaration of a state of war is for the National Assembly or, if that is not possible the Council of State. The President and the National Defence Council focus on operational control, mobilisation and the response to any attack or incursion.

02 February 2026, Issue 1309

The Caribbean Council is able to provide further detail about all the stories in Cuba Briefing. If you would like a more detailed insight into any of the content of today’s issue, please get in touch