A new critique of the Trump administration’s Cuba approach argues that intensifying economic pressure—especially a fuel blockade—has driven hospitals, water systems, transportation, and farming toward breakdown, while critics say U.S. measures violate internat
For weeks. Cuba’s day-to-day functioning has been measured in what the country can still power—and what it can’t. In the assessment laid out by two Loyola University Chicago scholars. the sharpest loss is fuel: the fuel blockade in effect since January has. they say. pushed the electrical grid to the point of collapse.
Without fuel, the electrical grid cannot operate. Without electricity, water pumps that drive Havana’s water system cannot run. Without gasoline, the country’s transportation system has largely collapsed. Without diesel. farmers can no longer use tractors and instead “use oxen to plow their fields.” And without gasoline. trucks can’t transport cooking gas to the provinces. leaving people to cook with charcoal and wood scraps.
The consequence, in their telling, reaches beyond everyday hardship. Hospitals, they write, can now provide only bare emergency services when electricity fails. And they warn that water treatment plants will soon be unable to function—setting the stage. they say. for epidemics of cholera and other water-borne diseases.
That picture is offered alongside a broader dispute about intent and law. The critique argues that the Trump administration’s approach for Cuba amounts to a playbook centered on “intensify[ing] the hardship and suffering” until it triggers an uprising. If that fails, it says, the administration could pursue military intervention “along the lines of what occurred in Venezuela.”.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. it notes. has made no secret of his intent to bring about regime change in Cuba. The scholars frame that goal as incompatible with international law. They point to a provision in the United Nations charter stating: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” They also argue that military intervention would violate Cuba’s sovereignty.
The criticism further targets the U.S. sanctions regime, including measures that reach far beyond Cuba’s borders. It says the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act, adopted in the 1990s, prohibit U.S. nationals from engaging in trade with Cuba. Those laws. the critique says. also extend extraterritorially—penalizing companies from Spain. Mexico. Italy. and other countries that import Cuban goods. invest in Cuban enterprises. deliver goods by ship. or sell their products to Cuba.
Since 1992, the critique says, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly denounced these measures, “overwhelmingly,” as Cuba contests them year after year.
It also describes an additional set of shipping restrictions that it argues compound the crisis. The fuel blockade, in its view, is not the only pressure. It says Cuba relies heavily on maritime shipping for imports and exports. but that the U.S prohibits any ship—not only U.S. ships—from unloading goods in the United States for six months after a ship docks in Cuba for trade. with some exceptions. The critique adds that the U.S. has blacklisted numerous ships transporting goods. particularly fuel. to Cuba—creating risks of severe penalties for anyone using those ships to transport goods elsewhere.
The strain extends into finance. The critique says the U.S. has largely forced Cuba out of the global banking system. making it “nearly impossible” for Cuba to find banks that will process transactions needed to buy food and fuel. purchase spare parts for infrastructure. and conduct other essential commerce.
It points to measures announced by the Trump administration on May 1, saying those steps increased the risk for international banks so sharply that remaining banks in Cuba are now withdrawing.
The argument is not only political; it is rooted in human rights law and humanitarian obligations. The critique cites a finding by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that the embargo has undermined Cubans’ human rights. including rights to food. health. and education. It also invokes international humanitarian law, saying that it prohibits measures that compromise access to food and other necessities.
The critique then turns to language from international criminal law. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. it writes. genocide may occur by “[d]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” It adds that it is also a war crime to “intentionally us[e] starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival.”.
In the scholars’ view, the U.S. cannot credibly claim it is defending Cuban human rights while policies they describe as creating a humanitarian crisis produce predictable collapse. They argue that if Rubio and other officials are concerned about the welfare of the Cuban people. they should not pursue strategies that. in their framing. would produce “widespread and catastrophic human rights violations and untold suffering.”.
The critique is authored by Joy Gordon, PhD, and James Thuo Gathii. Gordon is described as the Ignacio Ellacuría Society of Jesus chair in social ethics in the Philosophy Department at Loyola University Chicago. Gathii. described as having a doctorate in juridical science. is identified as the Wing-Tat Lee chair in international law and a professor of law at Loyola University Chicago.
Cuba Marco Rubio sanctions fuel blockade human rights international law humanitarian crisis Havana cholera Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Torricelli Act Helms-Burton Act