Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Trump talks tough on Cuba — but how much is really changing?

REUTERS/Joe Skipper
President Trump announced the policy change before a crowd in Miami.

Surrounded by Cuban-American leaders, dissidents from the Castro regime, and a cheering crowd, President Donald Trump spoke, in no uncertain terms, about the drastic changes he will be making to the relationship between the U.S. and Cuba.

In a speech last Friday in Miami, Trump vowed to undo the diplomatic reopening that his predecessor, Barack Obama, initiated in 2014. He called that approach, which relaxed tough sanctions on the island nation, “terrible and misguided.” He blasted the communist regime, headed by Raul Castro, as oppressive and depraved.

“Now that I am your president,” Trump proclaimed, “America will expose the crimes of the Castro regime.”

It was a textbook example of the tough talk that is expected from this president. But his fiery rhetoric did not match the substance of the policy change he was selling: Trump’s administration will make it more difficult for Americans to travel to Cuba, and more difficult for U.S. companies to do business there, but certain major changes — like open embassies — will remain in place.

To U.S.-Cuba observers, and some Minnesota lawmakers who have made increased engagement with the island nation a priority, the president’s announcement was symbolically significant as a step back to a half-century-old policy they believe is a failure.

For these critics, though, the silver lining is that Trump’s changes are narrow, and ambiguous, giving them room to keep advocating for a continued opening with Cuba, particularly in Congress, where lawmakers could fully reshape the U.S.-Cuba relationship — if they can muster the support.

A new relationship

Over the last two and a half years, the U.S.-Cuba relationship, which had been largely stagnant for the past half-century, has changed significantly.

Embassies in Washington and Havana, closed since 1961, reopened. Travel to the island nation, which was previously difficult without skirting the law, became much easier: Americans who did make the trip had long traveled with group tours, but the Obama administration relaxed restrictions, allowing individuals to go to Cuba as long as they did so under the guise of at least one of 12 broad categories for approved travel.

Policies implemented by the Obama administration also gave U.S. companies a role in facilitating that travel: The government permitted U.S. air carriers to begin direct commercial flights between airports in the U.S. and Cuba and permitted cruise ships carrying American tourists to sail between U.S. and Cuban ports.

U.S. business investment in Cuba became easier, as the administration lifted restrictions on doing business with a state-run Cuban corporation, closely linked to the country’s military, that holds tremendous sway in operating Cuba’s lucrative tourism sector.

That opened the door for U.S.-based Starwood Hotels, the world’s largest hotel company, to open its first Cuban hotel, and make plans to open more. Other U.S. businesses made similar plans, like home-rental platform Airbnb, which was authorized by the government to operate in Cuba.

Since these changes took effect, record numbers of Americans have visited the island. According to the Cuban government, between 2015 and 2016, the number of Americans traveling to Cuba increased by 74 percent. Philip Brenner, a Cuba policy expert at D.C.’s American University, says 290,000 Americans visited Cuba in 2016; in the first five months of 2017 alone, that same number made the trip.

In Congress, more lawmakers than ever are on record supporting the measures that would finally open up U.S.-Cuba relations once and for all: lifting the official embargoes on free travel and trade between the two countries.

For Trump, a Cuban evolution

Early on in his unlikely rise to the White House, Trump gave few signals that he’d be eager to roll back these changes.

In 2015, Trump stated that he was “fine” with the changes Obama made — a sharp contrast from the tough talk coming from a few of his prominent rivals strongly supportive of maintaining the embargo, particularly Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Even Trump’s critics sounded hopeful tones that the candidate’s business background might make him more sympathetic to the outlook of corporate America, which generally supports opening up a new market in which to do business just 90 miles from the Florida coast.

MinnPost D.C. Memo

For a one-stop source of the most informative, insightful and entertaining coverage coming out of Washington, subscribe to MinnPost’s D.C. Memo.

But as he picked up the GOP nomination and learned more about electoral realities — for example, the crucial role that Cuban-Americans can play in helping a presidential candidate win Florida — Trump changed his tune.

In the campaign’s final stretch, Trump made the pilgrimage to Miami’s Little Havana and blasted Obama’s move as a bad deal, vowing to get tougher on the Castro regime. After he took the White House, GOP politicians most vocally supportive of the toughest sanctions on Cuba — particularly Rubio and Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart — personally went to the Oval Office to lobby the president and his staff on reversing Obama’s policy.

In some measure, they succeeded, as Trump made good on those campaign promises in Miami — or at least he appeared to. In his announcement, Trump hit all the notes for a politician courting the influential South Florida Cuban community, appearing alongside Rubio, Cuban community leaders, and veterans of the failed covert Bay of Pigs operation as he signed executive orders. “We now hold the cards,” Trump proclaimed.

That a small, influential group pushed for the president’s move on Cuba was disappointing to 6th District Rep. Tom Emmer, who has been one of the loudest advocates within the GOP for a new direction on Cuba policy.

In an interview with MinnPost, Emmer said he was frustrated with how a few people have exerted enormous influence on the process. “You might be able to whittle it down to two players who are dictating a policy for the entire country, that the entire country does not agree with,” he said.

“There are a couple of people that serve in this body that have personal agendas, and they’d like us to stay with the same failed policy of the last 55 years,” he said.

What actually changed?

Despite the show in Miami, observers say that the changes Trump outlined are hardly as significant as he’s touted them to be. American University’s Brenner said it’s “surprising how little he did,” adding that his announcement “was more theater than it was substance.”

Trump’s order does two main things: It makes travel to Cuba more difficult for U.S. nationals, and it impedes the ability of U.S. businesses to operate in Cuba.

The kind of individual tourism that has flourished will fall under greater scrutiny, as Trump’s order gives government agencies authority to strictly audit trips to ensure that they meet the requirements for permitted travel. These 12 approved purposes for Cuba travel are somewhat broad, from “educational activity” to “support for the Cuban people.”

In a summary released Friday, the White House said that “travel for non-academic educational purposes will be limited to group travel.… The self-directed, individual travel permitted by the Obama administration will be prohibited.”

While still permitted, these group trips, which often are billed as “people-to-people” exchanges, will face additional restrictions, too.

Trump’s order does not roll back changes that allow U.S. airlines and cruise ships to operate between the U.S. and Cuba. Several airlines have already begun service, while Mendota Heights-based Sun Country plans to begin service from Minneapolis-St. Paul to two Cuban destinations, Santa Clara and Matanzas, by the end of the year. (Sun Country declined to comment on its Cuba plans for this article.)

However, experts foresee that the change will discourage travel to Cuba going forward, and harm air carriers and ship operators by depriving them of passengers.

“I’d say that airlines will suffer a 25 percent loss,” Brenner said. “They’ll probably have fewer flights. … Instead of every day, they’ll go three times a week. I don’t think they’re going to stop going; there will be travel, but fewer Americans.”

Beyond travel, Trump’s new order blocks U.S. business entities from working with the regime’s military-linked corporation, Grupo de Administración Empresarial, or GAESA, which controls much of Cuba’s tourism sector.

GAESA runs the island’s retail sector, and has a majority stake in the nearly 60 hotels in Cuba, most of which are foreign-run. Starwood, the American hotel conglomerate, worked with GAESA to develop its hotel plans on the island.

Emmer said he doubted that the president would leave companies who had invested in Cuba high and dry. “I doubt he’s going to tell Starwood, now you’re going to lose your investment.” (As the Washington Post pointed out, however, Trump’s hotel chain once had designs on expanding into Cuba — and this decision blocks Starwood, a competitor, from gaining an edge.)

Debating the consequences for Cuba

The White House argued that a major obstacle to Cuban prosperity is the military’s influence in the economy: In a memo, it said that Trump will “encourage American commerce with free Cuban businesses and pressure the Cuban government to allow the Cuban people to expand the private sector.”

By directing dollars to businesses that are not linked to the military, the administration argued the policy change will allow smaller entrepreneurs to thrive.

But Brenner says the rollback will hurt those entrepreneurs more than anyone, many of whom have benefited from the opportunity to open their homes up to visitors through Airbnb. “Airbnb might not notice a loss in revenue,” he said, “but individual entrepreneurs will.”

Some Minnesotan members of Congress in both parties could not disagree more with those points from White House: They argued that these changes reaffirm a half-century of failed policy toward Cuba, and will not isolate the ruling regime, but rather the Cuban people.

Emmer blasted Trump’s move in a strong statement on Friday; he said he was “extremely disappointed. … With today’s directive, the Administration is limiting our opportunities to improve the human rights and religious liberties of the Cuban people, not expanding them.”

In a statement, Sen. Amy Klobuchar — who has introduced the legislation to lift the trade embargo on Cuba multiple times — called the developments not a rollback, but a setback. “These changes will disadvantage our businesses and undermine American tourism,” she said, adding that a Minnesotan delegation traveling to Cuba this week, led by Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, will send the message that Minnesotans continue to want to do business with Cubans.

Minnesota advocates of increased engagement with Cuba often argue that the island could be a rich market for the state’s agricultural products, as well as its medical technology.

Democratic Rep. Tim Walz, whose 1st District thrives on agriculture, said in a statement that Trump is “hurting our national interests and the interests of Minnesota’s farmers and ranchers.”

Whatever you want to call it — a rollback, a reset — there’s broad concern that Trump’s move will discourage Cubans from doing business with Americans going forward. According to Brenner, “the process of opening up to Cuba has been halted for the time being. Cuba, as it’s figuring out what it’s trying to do, is going to look elsewhere than the U.S.”

Advocates for a Cuba detente are optimistic that the avenues for change aren’t blocked off yet.

“If this is what he’s going to do, I don’t know if he’s going all that far,” Emmer said. “If there’s a promise he’s honoring, he’s doing it in the lightest of fashions. We get to work about what the details are.”

Advocates of the Cuba re-opening in Congress vowed to continue pressing for legislation lifting the trade and travel embargoes on Cuba, even if the specter of a Trump veto now hangs over their efforts.

Emmer said certain changes — such as targeted measures on agricultural trade, for example — could move as provisions attached to larger bills, like spending legislation.

“Many of us will be advocating very strongly to continue moving forward,” the congressman said. “The president, I think he’s going to be listening.”

Comments (12)

  1. Submitted by Kenneth Kjer on 06/19/2017 - 12:27 pm.

    Relations with Cuba

    This whole Cuba thing has been pure politics from the start and should have ended years ago, in fact it should have never started. The Cuban revolution was successful because US politicians at the time enjoyed the perks they got from the then Cuban Government and the mafia which pretty much used Cuba and Batista as money laundering bank. They didn’t believe at the time that this Castro guy could take over the government and stood behind Batista, his crony’s and the perks they got. Then of course Kennedy screwed up on the Bay of Pigs and after that congress was never willing to admit they made a big screw up and none of the president’s after that wanted to go down the route of catering to Castro under the guise of he is communist. So what did the US do? They penalized the whole country over the revolution and set it up so Russia could stick there nose into it. That set up the blockade of Cuba over the what the US called the missile crisis, which in reality was never a crisis at all because Russia would never have used the missiles, if in fact they were even operable. What a 50 plus year screw up by the government. Our congress, both Republicans and Democrats need to apologize for this screw up not only to the American people, but the Cuban people as well.

  2. Submitted by Tom Christensen on 06/19/2017 - 01:04 pm.

    So now it is President Obama’s Cuba policy

    Trump continues along his anti-Obama mission as part of his extreme behavior. So now President Obama’s Cuba policy is his target. If you remember, President Obama made fun of Trump at the Washington Correspondents’ Dinners. Trump was quoted in the past essentially saying that if someone wrongs him, he needs to hit back 5, 10, or 15 times harder. As far as Trump is concerned, it is payback time whether it hurts him or not. His actions don’t even need to make sense.
    Spitefulness, vindictiveness, and narcissism pretty much define Trump and his immature behavior. These three traits come before anything else, which makes Trump his own worst enemy. He is the king of self-inflicted wounds. It has gotten to the point where people are refusing to work in the Trump administration because of Trump’s volatile temperament. Trump’s action against Cuba, that many disagree with, will be touted as a significant accomplishment. He needs to have something, right or wrong, to add to his very small list of accomplishments.

  3. Submitted by John Ferman on 06/19/2017 - 01:04 pm.

    New Cuban Restrictions

    When I was an undergrad student of Metallurgy (1947 – 1951) a number of Professors of Mining Engineering spent summers in Cuba as consultants to the Cuban mining industry. At the time Cuba was the #2 source of bauxite ore for the US aluminum industry. Our #1 source was West Canada. To support Cuban ore processing I think there was a large mill in the east Tennessee area. Aluminum refining requires copious supply of electricity.

  4. Submitted by Joe Smith on 06/19/2017 - 02:06 pm.

    The Cuban Government was the sole beneficiary

    of the Obama Cuban policy. If you wanted to start a business in Cuba, you paid the Government to lease the land (no individual land ownership in a Communist country), you paid whatever price the Cuban Govt deemed the building cost to be built and they supplied the workers. Yes, the Govt decided who worked and who didn’t plus decided what they were to be paid. The business paid X for workers to the Govt and the Govt paid Y to the workers….. Great deal if you are the regime in charge… The Cuban Govt looked at what ever American business was proposed and decided if they could make enough money off of the business, if they could, the business was helped if not the business was shuttled. It was a bad deal the minute it was agreed to, thank goodness someone had the ability to get the Cuban people out of it. Much like how the America people got into the deal ( DC elites decided it was good for us), the Cuban people had the same imput we did….. none….

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/19/2017 - 02:59 pm.

      Sole Beneficiaries

      By the same token, the Cuban government, or more accurately, the Castro regime, was the sole beneficiary of the US embargo. Every dictator needs an enemy to rally his people against, and for Castro, it was the US. The embargo could plausibly be blamed for the country’s economic ills, and the need to continue the struggle justified continued repression. American cold warriors were Fidel Castro’s best friends–they sustained his hold on the country for decades.

      Your description of doing business in Cuba could, with minimal editing, be applied to the way business is done in many places, including our valued ally Saudi Arabia. You want we should embargo them?

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 06/20/2017 - 10:22 am.

      100 percent wrong

      Obama did more to end the Castro regime and free the Cuban people than every other president before him combined. It has been the US embargo that has given the Castros an excuse to impose their repressive governments. They would have been gone long ago but for bad US policy – bad policy which Trump is trying to bring back.

  5. Submitted by Alfred Sullivan on 06/19/2017 - 02:36 pm.

    I visited recently

    I was in Cuba earlier this month using my own eyes and ears. There were never any government “minders” around me at any time. Trump’s changes will hurt budding entrepreneurs while giving the government an excuse to blame problems on America. Totally counterproductive.

    • Submitted by Joe Smith on 06/19/2017 - 03:01 pm.

      Were you starting a business?

      The Cuban Govt is only marginally interested in individual’s visiting. Their interest is in American companies and fleecing them along with the Cuban workers.

      • Submitted by Alfred Sullivan on 06/19/2017 - 04:54 pm.


        I went to see Cuba for myself and to learn. Got to talk to a lot of ordinary Cubans. Things have improved in the last two years. Though it is a very long way from a perfect situation, many have started small businesses that could not exist in the past. They were dismayed to think Trump might turn back the clock.

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/20/2017 - 02:22 pm.


        Fleecing the workers? All they have to do is tell the workers that they should consider themselves lucky to be fleeced, and they will have mastered capitalism.

        • Submitted by Joe Smith on 06/21/2017 - 08:25 am.

          RB, if you don’t like your job here in the USA,

          you can change jobs, start your own business, go learn a trade or do any number of things to change your fortune… Unfortunately, complaining, blaming others for your lot in life, not making a change doesn’t work that well. We have a meritocracy here and if you are not doing well enough…. do more, do it better, do something other people can’t or won’t do…. Unfortunately, the workers in Cuba don’t have those options. They can’t start a business (Govt decides who does), can’t own land, can’t change their lot in life without Govt approval….. Other than that, you are right, they are just like Americans.

  6. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 06/19/2017 - 03:42 pm.

    As usual

    …my thanks to RB Holbrook. It’s also worth noting that “…The White House argued that a major obstacle to Cuban prosperity is the military’s influence in the economy…” could just as easily apply to the United States if we substitute “U. S.” for “Cuban.” General Eisenhower’s warning of more than half a century ago has gone largely unheeded, and we now bear the burden of the world’s largest military establishment. We could spend half of what we currently do, and still have the world’s largest military establishment by a wide margin, and with no state-based enemies in sight or on the horizon.

    Corporate governance poses a greater threat to my freedom and security (and yours) than does anything Cuba is likely to do, but, oddly enough, Mr. Trump and the Republican powers-that-be have nothing to say about the influence of corporations on American life and laws except to shout incoherently about how great corporations are, and how their taxes are too high. Even if we leave corporations out of the argument, no credible explanation of why or how Cuba poses a legitimate threat to the U.S. has been presented since the Russians and their missiles left the island.

Leave a Reply