08 June 2026

The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has told a US Senate hearing that for change to occur in Cuba it will be necessary that “new people take power or a new mentality is imposed.” 

“I really don’t think this system is susceptible to reform, unless new people take power or a new mentality is imposed.” “We have spoken with them and offered them what I consider necessary for the recovery of their economy,” Rubio told legislators.  

Describing Cuba as a ‘failed state’  and a threat to the US, Rubio indicated more accurately than on previous occasions that Cuba “continues to host a considerable number of intelligence facilities for gathering information on behalf of China and Russia,” rather than suggesting that China and Russia control such facilities.

Questioned about Washington’s designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, he observed that “all violent, radical, and left-wing terrorist groups in the Western Hemisphere have at some point had the support of Cuba,” and obtained their initial funding from Havana.

Regarding the hardships being endured by the Cuban people, he suggested that this was because the Cuban military linked business conglomerate GAESA, which he said generated “around 70% of Cuba’s GDP,” had failed to spend the derived income on projects of benefit to Cubans, such as the country’s failing power generation and distribution system. 

Amplifying his remarks to Senators a day later, the US  Secretary of State told the House Foreign Affairs Committee how he believed, a transition might be achieved. His goal, he emphasised, was to avoid chaos. “I think we want to look at models like the Czech Republic or Poland, at how they made the transition. And one of the things they did was preserve certain institutions in their society to bring stability and longevity to the project,” Rubio explained.

Cuba, he said, has “technocrats” able to deliver economic change, but they are presently powerless. “I think there are some technocrats you can work with,” but this “becomes a little more difficult as you climb the ranks, due to the ideological leanings that some have.”

Continuing, he said: “Clearly there are individuals within the power structure who understand that what they have is not sustainable and that it must be rebuilt. But they have no power. And if they do, they don’t know how to use it.” Previously Rubio, who is of Cuban descent, has suggested that Washington’s “preference” would be “a negotiated diplomatic agreement.”

Absence of clarity about what happens next

Rubio’s remarks raise questions about how both Havana and Washington decide to take forward the sporadic now seemingly stalled exchanges they have been having.

They continue to take place against a background of speculation and lobbying by some in the US Department of War (formerly of Defence), who suggest that if Trump was to go further than the present siege – something so far he appears disinclined to do – the next point of escalation could be a limited military strike on Cuba with the objective of further ratcheting up Washington’s leverage. 

However, there is also an awareness among senior US officials with a long-term  understanding of Cuban dynamics that any such action could spark a migration crisis with Cubans seeking to flee by sea or attempt to enter the US naval base at Guantanamo. There is also a concern that should any attempt at change by Washington be undertaken without the support of Cuba’s junior ministers and senior technocratic officials in lower tiers of the Cuban administration, Cuba could rapidly become unstable and ungovernable. Such an outcome, it is argued, would additionally cause significant political problems in the US for the Trump Administration in the run up to the mid-term Congressional elections in November. 

Despite this, it is also clear that Cuba’s options are narrowing. Once sporadic street protests are becoming more common, including in Havana, Santiago de Cuba and other cities, hardship is commonplace, there are limits to  repression in a country that believes it may have to fight ‘a war of all the people,’ and the support of international allies and regional friends for Havana is unlikely to go any further than present rhetoric, humanitarian assistance, and diplomatic support. 

This suggests, if it is not already too late, that it would be in Havana’s interest to rapidly free its potentially dynamic private sector, divest many of the areas in which GAESA  operates making its entities subject to transparency and taxation for social benefit, and to genuinely open the country to much needed foreign investment, particularly in relation to utilities and infrastructure. Any pragmatic change of this kind could enable the emergence of a more forward-looking political leadership enabling a reduction in the power of the state so that the country as a whole and its people see living standards improve in ways that enable many of the social gains experienced in the past to be restored.

Whether Cuba’s still cohesive collegiate, ideologically-oriented leadership is able or prepared to take such bold steps, or the US can design with others on the island rather than in Florida, a viable, realistic, and lasting response of economic benefit to both nations remains to be seen.

Photo credit: https://x.com/SecRubio/media?lang=en

08 June 2026, Issue 1318

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