“Barricades of ideas are worth more than barricades of stones” – José Martí (1891).
Among the multitude of narratives surrounding the current Cuban oil crisis, one of the most surprising concerns the statement made by Secretary of State of the United States Marco Rubio on 27 March 2026: “There isn’t a blockade surrounding Cuba. The reason why Cuba doesn’t have oil and fuel is because they want it for free”.[1] Earlier that same year, the Trump administration articulated that Cuba represented a threat to national security. In response to this perceived threat, the US imposed a trade tariff on any country that trades oil with Cuba.[2] Thus, a country that relies on oil-based fuels to create 83% of its electricity, as well as imports 60% of its oil has found itself without oil partners.[3]
Meanwhile, Cuba is in rolling blackouts.
The aim of this essay is to show a historical continuity regarding US foreign policy towards Cuba. It also aims to show that the current energy disaster does not exist in a vacuum, that it is indeed part of a larger violent structure which, for sixty years, has left Cuba’s population fighting for survival. As part of this struggle, this essay will highlight the current embargo’s effect on the healthcare system. Preceding that section, however, it will discuss a history of embargos on Cuba. Beyond the main aim of this paper, a peripheral aim is to show how there has been an additional goal concerning the blockade implemented earlier this year; that aim, on top of the original goal of regime change, is punishment.
Embargo a history
A history of Cuba is a history of imperialism. In the one-hundred-and-twenty-four years that Cuba has existed as an independent country, Cuba has been embargo-free for only fifty-six. Additionally, as early as the first years of the Cuba’s post-Spanish history, it was subject to the Platt Amendment, which declared:
“That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence… All acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected.”[4]
After providing much needed support in their fight against colonial Spain, the first few years of an independent Cuba saw a US occupation. Cuban General Máximo Gómez expressed his surprise and confusion as to the American presence, stating:
“None of us thought that [the American intervention] would be followed by military occupation of the country by our allies, who treat us as people incapable of acting for ourselves, and who have reduced us to obedience, to submission, and to a tutelage imposed by force of circumstance.”[5]
Notably, independent Cuba’s history began at the same time the United States became a global power. Cuba’s geostrategic location has made it the gateway to the Gulf of Mexico, and indeed the gateway to the Caribbean. In this era of growing US global power, Cuba’s destiny became intertwined with that of the United States.
The decades of US presence in Cuba quickly evolved into anti-US sentiment. Fifty-four years after independence, the US-backed Batista regime faced a band of bearded rebels led by Fidel and Raúl Castro, and Ernesto “Che” Guevara in the Sierra Maestra mountain range. The United States embassy in Havana, however, had full confidence that the Batista regime would protect US interests. A message from the US embassy in Havana in 1958 stated:
“The Cubans are basically and firmly pro-American. The Batista Government has taken a resolute stand against Communism, breaking off diplomatic relations with Soviet bloc countries, and giving constant support to the United States in its efforts to prevent the spread of Communism in the world.”[6]
While economic sanctions in Cuba are mostly associated with the Cold War fight against Global Communism, when one outlines the timeline of the first sanctions as well as the continuation of the economic war past the fall of the Soviet Union, a bigger picture comes to light. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, was the president of the United States that isolated Cuba to the extent to which the island had to resort to the Soviet Union for economic and military aid. Like today, one of the great determinants of Cuba’s relationship with the world can be reduced down to oil, a resource essential in producing energy that powers hospitals, homes, and infrastructure.
Highly dependent on the United States due to its post-independence occupation, waging economic war with Cuba during the 1960s would decimate the Cuban economy, or so US policy makers believed. Set on regime change, the United States stopped its energy deliveries to Cuba, prompting the Castro regime to acquire their oil elsewhere. The Soviet Union, aware that this could be an opportunity to not only undermine the United States, but also acquire an ally at its doorstep, offered to trade oil with the island nation in exchange for sugar. US oil companies, unhappy with this go-around, applied pressure to the Cuban government and denied its request to refine the crude Soviet oil. This triggered the nationalization of all the refineries that could be found in the island.[7] A massive hit to US control of the energy infrastructure of the country, the United States retaliated by releasing its most powerful weapon in this economic war.
Before the Cuban Revolution, the Sugar Act stipulated the United States import 700,000 tons of sugar at 2 cents above its market value.[8] This sale represented 65% of Cuba’s sugar exports.[9] Thinking that the oil blockade and the elimination of the Sugar Act would bring Castro to his knees, the United States adopted this red-line measure early in this Cold War conflict. The Soviets, however, having gotten closer to the Cubans, reached an agreement in which they would match the purchase of sugar the United States dropped, thus saving the Cuban economy.[10] While the Eisenhower administration did not cripple the Cuban economy, it did set the stage for US’s foreign policy towards Cuba during the Cold War.
The Kennedy administration continued this legacy. 1962 saw the extension of the suspension of the sugar imports, while his Foreign Assistance Act blocked any governmental program that offered economic or other assistance to the Cuban people.[11] While the drastic measures taken by the Eisenhower administration could be perceived to have little justification, as the island did not yet pose any real threat to the United States, the Kennedy administration saw a complete shift in tone. The Cuban Missile crisis, the formalization of Soviet relations with Cuba, as well as the solidification of communism as the regime’s ideology, brought the potential of a hot war to the United States. Cuba sits a meager 100 miles from the coast of Florida.
Future administrations oscillated in their policy towards Cuba. Notable administrations include the Reagan and the more recent Clinton and Obama administrations, with the former finding new ways to tighten the Cuban economy, while the latter two attempted to begin the process of normalization with the island nation.[12] The general justification of the United States foreign policy towards Cuba has been the fight against global communism, though that justification no longer held water after the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s. No embargo nor external act hurt the Cuban economy more than the loss of their largest and most powerful ally.
The years that followed the fall of the Soviet Union represented the most economically devastating. Between 1989 and 1993 Cuba lost 85% of its total trade. Its imports fell from 8.1 Billion Dollars to 1.8 Billion. Wages fell by 25% and the GDP fell by 32%. Ironically, it seemed that Moscow’s fate was bound to be the islands demise, not the embargos placed by Washington.[13]
The Cold War embargos, however, had little to no drastic effects on the healthcare of the island. Indeed, in the latter half of the twentieth century, life expectancy in Cuba increased by 12.2 years.[14] While a simplification, as the healthcare system of Cuba did suffer from complications due to a lack of medication and infrastructure, domestic policy as well as its strong relationship with the Soviet Union held Cuba’s overall public health at par with “developed countries.”[15]
Today’s embargo
While the effects of the Soviet disappearance were drastic, the Venezuelans, late to the socialist table, offered one solution to Cuba’s multi-faceted problems, a solution that, until January 2026, proved to be strategically profitable.
The removal of the acting president of Venezuela early in January 2026, Nicolas Maduro, proved a massive blow to the Cuban economy . Additionally, as of 29 January 2026, any party that trades oil with Cuba will be sanctioned by the United States. In the first two months of 2026 Cuba received no oil imports, forcing the country to depend solely on domestic production, which is about 30,000 barrels per day (bpd). Cuba needs around 100,000 bpd to run the economy.[16] In contrast, in 2025 Cuba imported around 1.2 million barrels per year, with 65% of this oil originating from Venezuela, 25% from Mexico, and Russia and Algeria providing around 10%.[17]
Reporting from la Habana, journalists Ed Augustin and Jorge Luis Baños of the New York Times paint a lively picture of the current situation surrounding the state of the healthcare system. Speaking to numerous patients and doctors, their investigative journalism shows that preventable deaths are happening on a daily basis. Alioth Fernandez, anesthesiologist of one of the largest pediatric hospitals in the country stated that the number of preventable deaths has risen from last year, after just two months of blockade.[18] Additionally, many of the vaccines that the country has in storage depend on refrigeration. Without a dependable source of energy, the vaccines run the risk of spoiling, a reality which doctors in Cuba are struggling to avoid. Additionally, the Government has reported that 90,000 surgeries have been delayed. Celia Sanchez, a protestor in one of the recent social movements against the blockade highlighted that those who suffer the most are individuals whose life depends on life-support machines. Hundreds of men, women, and children, depend on breathing machines and dialysis machines, equipment that cannot run without electricity.[19]
Cuba’s health success story is based less on in-patient care and more in preemptive medicine. The island’s lack of access to US or European medicines as well as equipment forced the country to innovate in their approach to health. Thus, preemptive medicine has become a pillar in the public health policy of the nation.[20] This policy, however, depends on multiple aspects of state infrastructure to work, notably the water supply and sanitation.
Water treatment plants are being affected by the blockade. Due to their reliance on electricity to function, Cuba’s current lack of oil affects the country’s ability to distribute as well as treat the drinkable water in the country. The adverse health effects of not having access to clear drinking water puts pressure on the health infrastructure that is also struggling to function.[21] Antonio Rodríguez Rodríguez, president of the National Institute of Hydraulic Resources (INRH), stated on 26 March that 87% of the people of Cuba depend on electricity to access water.[22] The president of the INRH also stated that “13% of the population has alternatives to procure water outside of the electricity grid”.[23] According to a revolution allied newspaper, for the past few years the Cuban government has looked for alternatives to oil-powered electric generators. Rodríguez stated that gravity-fed water pumping stations, wind power, as well as solar power, are being explored as alternative options.[24] While the government seems to be reacting to the lack of fuel available, the reality on the ground stands that millions will not have access to clear water, if water at all, in the coming weeks or months. Water-borne illnesses will probably put more pressure the health infrastructure.
While the United States continues to insist that its measures towards Cuba are justified, world leaders seemingly disagree. On Monday 20 April German Chancellor Frederick Merz stated that Cuba posed no threat to the western hemisphere, making US hostile actions towards the country unwarranted.[25] President of Brazil, Lula de Silva, has called the blockade policy a “global embarrassment”.[26] Indeed, the United Nations itself has overwhelmingly condemned the current embargo, calling it “a serious violation of international law”.[27]
While there is a historical legacy that Trump is merely continuing, his policy is part of a wider regional strategy. The renewed efforts by the United Stated to impose a Monroe doctrine-style attitude in the Western Hemisphere began with a military operation in Venezuela. Trump’s attention and frustration towards countries that do not completely subscribe to US interests have included Panama, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, and Greenland.[28] In one way or another, all countries except Cuba have negotiated with or been overpowered by the United States. President Trump has stated that once his military operation in Iran culminates, more attention will be directed to Cuba. Indeed, Trump has stated that a “takeover” might occur. When asked whether this takeover was going to be violent he responded “It may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly takeover”.[29] Cuba, is thus suffering the consequences for continuing decades of policies that oppose US norms.
Conclusion
There is little that is new regarding Trump’s policy towards Cuba. Either Trump is tightening the screws that have been there for decades, or he is re-implemented regional foreign policy that is over one hundred years old. While there is much to say regarding Cuba’s domestic policy – its intolerance against regime critics, its lack of a free and fair media, as well as its historical lack of democratic procedures – Cuba’s right to choose its own path has been influenced by the United States. The US presence in the Cuban imagination have given the revolution a clear enemy with which to justify its cruel and un-democratic behavior. The historically long embargo has choked Cuba to the point where hospitals are in blackout and where infant mortality rates have risen. But while the United States is re-implementing policy, so is Cuba. They have sixty years of experience dealing with these aggressive economic policies, but for the first time in the history of the country, Cuba seems to be without strong allies. The embargo that threatens third parties halted Oil shipments from Mexico, its closest geographical ally. Cuba must now innovate to power up its infrastructure, or continue its decades-long policy towards the United States: resistance.
Gustavo Cabrera Pinzón is a doctoral candidate in History at the University of Oxford.
[1] “Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to Press.” United States Department of State, n.d. Accessed April 21, 2026. https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/03/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-press-8/.
[2] “Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba – The White House.” Accessed April 21, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/addressing-threats-to-the-united-states-by-the-government-of-cuba/.
[3] IEA. “Cuba – Countries & Regions.” Accessed April 21, 2026. https://www.iea.org/countries/cuba
[4] The Platt Amendment (1903) Treaty between the United States and Cuba Embodying the Provisions Defining the Future Relations of the United States with Cuba Contained in the Act of Congress 56th Congress, Session II, Ch. 803
[5] Cited in Rosen, Jonathan D. U.S.-Cuba Relations: Charting a New Path. With Hanna Samir Kassab. Security in the Americas in the Twenty-First Century. (Lanham, 2016), P. 37.
[6] Daniel M. Braddock, Counselor, Havana Embassy (for the Ambassador) to Department of State, Subject: ‘Comments and Suggestions on OCB “Outline Plan of Operations for Latin America,” ‘ February I8, I958, Despatch No. 66 6II.37/2I958, Washington: U.S. Department of State, Declassified Freedom of Information Act
[7] Ibid, 23-25; LeoGrande, William M. “A Policy Long Past Its Expiration Date: US Economic Sanctions Against Cuba.” Social Research 82, no. 4 (2015), 941
[8] Lamrani. The Economic War against Cuba, 23-24
[9] LeoGrande, “A Policy Long Past Its Expiration Date”, 940.
[10] Boughton, George J. “Soviet-Cuban Relations, 1956-1960.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 16, no. 4 (1974), 447-450.
[11] Lamrani. The Economic War against Cuba, 23-25.
[12] Ibid, 30-40
[13] Ibid, 28-30; Garfield, Richard, and Sarah Santana. “The Impact of the Economic Crisis and the US Embargo on Health in Cuba.” American Journal of Public Health (Washington, United States) 87, no. 1 (1997): 15.
[14] Drain, Paul K., and Michele Barry. “Fifty Years of U.S. Embargo: Cuba’s Health Outcomes and Lessons.” Science 328, no. 5978 (2010): 572.
[15] Ibid, 573; Kuntz, Diane. “The Politics of Suffering: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on the Health of the Cuban People. Report to the American Public Health Association of a Fact-Finding Trip to Cuba, June 6-11, 1993.” Journal of Public Health Policy 15, no. 1 (1994), 87-89.
[16] Worldometer, 2026. https://www.worldometers.info/oil/cuba-oil/#oil-production
[17] S&P Global 2026. https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/crude-oil/020926-cuba-faces-fuel-crunch-as-us-policies-squeeze-oil-imports?utm
[18] Augustin, Ed, Jack Nicas, and Jorge Luis Baños. “Pacientes en Cuba mueren a causa del bloqueo de EE. UU., dicen médicos.” En Español. The New York Times, March 26, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/es/2026/03/26/espanol/america-latina/cuba-salud-bloqueo-hospitales.html.
[19] Belly of the Beast. (9 April 2026). [Available in https://www.bellyofthebeastcuba.com/why-cuban-women-say-the-blockade-hits-them-first]
[20] Iatridis, Demetrius S. “Cuba’s Health Care Policy: Prevention and Active Community Participation.” Social Work 35, no. 1 (1990): 29–35.
[21] Escobedo, Angel Arturo, Yaxsier de Armas, Paul Jonas, and Imti Choonara. “Impact of Economic Sanctions on Child Health in Cuba.” BMJ Paediatrics Open 10, no. 1 (2026).
[22] CiberCuba, Redacción de. “El 87% del sistema de abasto de agua depende del SEN, justifica el régimen.” CiberCuba, March 27, 2026. [Available at: https://www.cibercuba.com/noticias/2026-03-27-u1-e208574-s27061-nid324239-87-sistema-abasto-agua-depende-sen-justifica-regimen.]
[23] Ibid.
[24] “Facing the Energy Blockade: Alternatives for Sustainability.” March 27, 2026. http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2026-03-27/facing-the-energy-blockade-alternatives-for-sustainability.
[25] Dw.com. “Merz : no hay motivo para una intervención de EEUU en Cuba.” Accessed April 21, 2026. https://www.dw.com/es/merz-dice-que-no-hay-motivo-para-una-intervenci%C3%B3n-de-estados-unidos-en-cuba/a-76872664.
[26] CNN Brasil. “Lula critica bloqueio a Cuba e chama embargo dos EUA de ‘vergonha global.’” April 20, 2026. https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/internacional/lula-critica-bloqueio-a-cuba-e-chama-embargo-dos-eua-de-vergonha-global/.
[27] OHCHR. “UN Experts Condemn US Executive Order Imposing Fuel Blockade on Cuba.” Accessed April 21, 2026. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/un-experts-condemn-us-executive-order-imposing-fuel-blockade-cuba. For more on the US violation of International Law in the Cuban context see: White, Nigel D. “Ending the US Embargo of Cuba: International Law in Dispute.” Journal of Latin American Studies 51, no. 1 (2019): 163–86.
[28] Feffer, John. “The Donroe Doctrine and the Cost of Foreign Policy by Spectacle – FPIF.” Foreign Policy In Focus, January 20, 2026. https://fpif.org/the-donroe-doctrine-and-the-cost-of-foreign-policy-by-spectacle/.
[29] Chambers, Francesca, and Bart Jansen USA TODAY. “Trump Says Regime Change in Cuba May Be ‘friendly Takeover’ or Not.” USA TODAY. Accessed April 21, 2026. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/09/trump-cuba-friendly-takeover/89074669007/.
Oxford Review of Latin American Studies 