WASHINGTON — Pursuing an economic deal. Regime change. Military operations. Nothing at all.
After imposing an oil embargo on Cuba that has pushed the island to the brink of a humanitarian crisis, the Trump administration seemed poised to impose its will on Cuba. But as President Donald Trump begins to look beyond Iran, his options on what to do with Cuba appear varied and thorny — and all of them fraught with political landmines.
Launch a military strike and the U.S. could be saddled with an unpopular nation-building mission. Cut a deal with Havana and risk a revolt from Cuban American lawmakers in Trump’s party — who bristle at the thought of negotiating with the regime that forced their families into exile.
In many ways, it’s a lose-lose-lose situation, said Michael Bustamante of the Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami.
“It’s a domestic political issue that seems to have very little upside for anyone involved,” he said, adding: “None of these options seem particularly palpable or feasible.”
Trump at a rally in Phoenix on April 17 said, after talking about the U.S. military and the capture of deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, that “very soon this great strength” would bring about a “new dawn for Cuba, we’re going to help them out with Cuba.”
Invoking the Cuban-American exile community in the Miami area and the “brutality” their families faced on the island, Trump declared: “Now, watch what happens.”
But which path he chooses could leave lasting reverberations in Cuba — and the U.S.
Here are some of the options on Cuba that have been hinted at by the Trump administration:
In late February, the president said he’d dispatched Secretary of State Marco Rubio to negotiate with Cuban officials at a very high level. It was then that he said the U.S. could have a “friendly takeover of Cuba.”
Sources with knowledge of the administration’s plans told USA TODAY in early March that Trump was eyeing an economic-focused agreement with Cuba. Discussions included the Castro family remaining on the island and deals on ports, energy and tourism. The U.S. government also floated dropping some sanctions.
Given Trump’s transactional tendencies, making a deal with Cuba seemed to make the most sense, said John Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, a trade group that has been dealing with Cuba since 1994. In February, Trump seemed to take an early step toward that goal by allowing U.S. companies to sell diesel products directly to Cuban businesses.
“I don’t think anyone should be surprised if we eventually see Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Havana negotiating with the Cuban government,” Kavulich said, referring to the Trump advisors who often negotiate on behalf of the president.
But negotiating with power brokers in Havana, especially those descendent from Fidel and Raul Castro, the brothers who launched the 1959 revolution, may be a red line for Cuban Americans.
The longstanding U.S. economic embargo on Cuba says neither Fidel, who died a decade ago, or Raul, who’s 94, could be leading the country if sanctions are lifted. It does not exclude their relatives.
Cuban-born Congressman Carlos Giménez, a Florida Republican whose district includes the Miami suburbs, told USA TODAY during an April 16 interview that it would be unacceptable for anyone related to the Castros to lead the country.
Instead, he said U.S. officials need to insist on constitutional and other changes that fulfill the requirements of the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Those should precede any economic agreement, he said.
“All they want is time, time to survive,” Giménez said of the Cuban government. “And they’re very good at it.”
Rubio in comments to reporters has stressed that any economic deal with Cuba would need to come with a wholesale change to the island’s political and economic scaffolding.
Cuban officials, from President Miguel Díaz-Canel to deputy foreign minister Josefina Vidal, have said in recent interviews that they’re open to dialogue with the U.S. and even to economic deals — so long as they’re left to govern as they please.
How to force Cuba into the long-lasting structural change desired by Trump officials — and most Cuban-Americans — without sending in U.S. troops remains one of the trickier issues facing the administration.
At an April 16 House hearing, Michael Kozak, a senior official in the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, fielded withering questions from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, underscoring the complexity of the issue.
At one point, he began describing how the State Department might be open to hearing suggestions from Cuban officials on how to reform their government.
The subcommittee’s chairwoman, Cuban-American Congressman Maria Salazar, a Republican who represents Miami, cut him off. “We’re not going to do any business with the Castros,” she said. “They need to go and then we need to start all over again.”
The administration could still take steps, short of military action, to pressure Cuba for radical change, including cutting off remittances to the island, stopping flights and punishing countries that deliver oil to the island, Bustamante said.
“But then you risk provoking a humanitarian situation,” he said. “They’re not too keen on that.”
If Cuba refuses to make significant changes, there’s another option Trump could turn to: military intervention, seen by many observers as the riskiest of all.
On April 15, sources familiar with the planning effort confirmed to USA TODAY that Pentagon planning for a possible military operation in Cuba had quietly ramped up, in case Trump chose to go that route.
Two days later, an MQ-4C Triton, a U.S. Navy surveillance drone, was tracked on radar making a six-hour loop along Cuba’s south coast, including a two-hour holding pattern near Santiago de Cuba and another two-hour holding pattern near Havana.
The U.S. military wouldn’t comment on the flight’s objective. But similar drones have been used by the Pentagon for surveillance missions in combat zones like the Black Sea near the Russia-Ukraine war zone, the Persian Gulf and off the coast of Venezuela in the runup to the dramatic Jan. 3 U.S. seizure of Maduro, according to Flightradar24, an online global flight tracking service.
Asked about the report on Air Force One, and whether the Pentagon is preparing for military action in Cuba, Trump told reporters on April 17: “Well, it depends on what your definition of military action is.”
A military incursion would be an easy victory for the U.S., given Cuba’s deteriorated military equipment and questionable allegiance of its ranks, said Brian Fonseca, director of the Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy at Florida International University, who has studied Cuba’s military.
Flying a spy plane close to Cuba’s coast helps remind Havana of Trump’s military card, he said.
“It keeps the prospect of military options credible,” Fonseca said.
On Capitol Hill, senators who lead the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees were circumspect about Pentagon planning, as they prepared to return to their districts.
Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker said he had not talked to the Pentagon about military planning for Cuba or to Trump about his vision for the island nation. “I have not been part of those discussions,” he said. “It seems to me that we’ve got two wars to focus on right now,” he added.
The fact that there haven’t been any U.S. indictments for Diaz-Canel or other Cuban leaders, as the U.S. previously floated and there were for Maduro in the weeks before he was captured, is a sign that the military option may not be at the top of the list, Bustamante said.
And the aftermath of a military operation would be a huge challenge for the Trump administration, he said. Cuba’s infrastructure and private sector is far worse off than Venezuela’s, making nation-building there a much more involved mission.
“Is that what Trump’s base really wants?” Bustamante said.
Another, less-discussed option would be for the Trump administration to do nothing at all. It could continue applying pressure through the oil embargo and wait to see if change erupts from within.
Trump’s administration currently appears in a holding pattern on Cuba while it seeks an end to the war in Iran.
The president on April 13 said in response to a question from USA TODAY at the White House, “We may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this, but Cuba is a nation that has been horribly run for many years by Castro.”
A senior White House official told USA TODAY after Trump’s remarks that Cuba is still a priority. He’s looking to resolve the conflict in Iran before deciding one way or another on Cuba, the person said.
At the end of March, the president allowed a Russian oil tanker to reach Cuba’s shores, offering the nation short-term relief from its fuel shortage. Russia responded by saying it would send a second ship. Mexico said it could send fuel, too.
Trump told reporters he had no problem if countries send Cuba oil, despite an earlier threat to tariff nations that do. But the senior official who spoke to USA TODAY said the tariff threat still stands. Mexico and other nations know what the consequences would be, the person said.
Small potatoes and a container of chicken: Catholic church sounds alarm on Cuba
Allowing more ships in would buy both the U.S. and Cuba time for additional talks.
But if it stretches on too long, the president may have to contend with a powerful Cuban American voting bloc that had pinned its hopes on a Trump-led change in the communist nation.
Giménez, the only Cuban-born member of Congress, said Trump had given the Cuban diaspora the highest level of hope they’d had in a very long time.
“I think that not following through,” he said, “is worse than not doing anything at all.”
Follow Jervis and Chambers on X: @MrRJervis and @fran_chambers.