Cuba’s foreign ministry responded on Tuesday to remarks made by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told reporters that the United States does not maintain an oil blockade against the island nation. The Cuban government, represented by Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, dismissed the comment as a falsehood, pointing to a series of executive actions taken by President Donald Trump that, according to Havana, effectively restrict the flow of petroleum products.
Rodriguez, speaking at a press conference in Havana, referenced an executive order signed by President Trump on Jan. 29, 2026, which authorises the imposition of tariffs on any country that engages in oil trade with Cuba. "In the past four months only one fuel vessel has reached our ports," he said, adding that the limited arrivals are a direct result of intimidation and threats directed at Cuba’s traditional suppliers. The minister argued that these measures breach the principles of free trade and freedom of navigation, concepts that the United States has historically invoked in its own foreign‑policy discourse.
The Cuban foreign minister also linked Rubio’s statement to a second executive order issued on Friday, May 3, 2026. That order expands the scope of secondary sanctions to encompass the Cuban energy sector, as well as mining, defense and security industries. It authorises the Treasury Department to block individuals or entities that provide material, financial or technological assistance to the Cuban government or to persons already under U.S. sanctions. The decree further includes provisions that could restrict foreign banks connected to Cuban state enterprises and imposes new migration‑related restrictions.
According to the Cuban government, the combined effect of the two orders constitutes an "oil siege" that inflicts hardship on the Cuban population. Rodriguez warned that the United States is fully aware of the damage caused by these policies, a claim that reflects the long‑standing narrative in Havana that U.S. sanctions are a tool of political coercion rather than a legitimate response to illicit activity.
U.S. officials, however, have framed the measures as a lawful exercise of sovereign authority. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has stated that the secondary sanctions are designed to prevent the circumvention of existing embargoes and to deter foreign actors from enabling the Cuban regime’s access to critical energy infrastructure. In a brief statement, a spokesperson for the State Department said the United States continues to uphold the embargo established in February 1962, which has been in place for more than 60 years, while also adapting its tools to address contemporary challenges.
The divergent narratives underscore a broader geopolitical contest. While the United States maintains that the embargo is a response to Cuba’s lack of democratic reforms and alleged support for illicit activities, Havana insists that the restrictions amount to collective punishment of its citizens. The Cuban government has repeatedly described the embargo as illegal under international law, a position echoed by several United Nations resolutions that call for the termination of the U.S. trade restrictions.
From an economic perspective, the limited arrival of fuel shipments has tangible implications for Cuba’s energy security. The island’s reliance on imported oil, primarily for transportation and electricity generation, makes it vulnerable to supply disruptions. Industry analysts note that a single fuel tanker over a four‑month period is insufficient to meet domestic demand, potentially leading to rationing and increased reliance on alternative energy sources such as biofuels and solar power. However, the Cuban state has not released detailed data on fuel inventories or consumption trends, making it difficult to quantify the precise impact.
The recent executive orders also target foreign financial institutions that facilitate transactions with Cuban entities. By threatening secondary sanctions, Washington aims to deter banks from processing payments related to the Cuban energy sector, effectively cutting off a critical conduit for financing. This approach mirrors similar tactics applied to other sanctioned jurisdictions, where the United States leverages its dominance of the global financial system to enforce compliance.
The timing of the new sanctions coincides with a broader U.S. policy shift toward a more assertive stance on legacy embargoes. In the past year, the Trump administration has expanded secondary sanctions against Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, signalling a willingness to use economic pressure as a diplomatic lever. Observers suggest that the Cuba‑related measures may be part of a coordinated effort to reinforce U.S. leverage in the Western Hemisphere, especially as China and Russia deepen their engagement with Havana.
China Daily, a state‑run outlet, reported on the Cuban government’s condemnation of the U.S. statements and highlighted the claim that the United States is violating free‑trade principles. While the report presents the Cuban perspective in detail, independent verification of the alleged intimidation of fuel suppliers remains limited. No third‑party sources have confirmed the number of shipments that have arrived since January, nor have they provided evidence of direct threats to foreign companies.
In the absence of corroborating data, analysts advise caution in accepting the Cuban government’s assertions at face value. The United States has historically employed a range of diplomatic and economic tools to enforce the embargo, but the precise mechanisms through which the recent executive orders affect oil shipments are not publicly disclosed. Moreover, the broader context of U.S. sanctions policy, which often intertwines national security concerns with geopolitical objectives, suggests that the measures may serve multiple strategic purposes.
For the international community, the dispute raises questions about the efficacy and legality of secondary sanctions in a multilateral trade environment. As the United Nations continues to debate the status of the U.S. embargo, the latest developments in Washington’s policy toward Cuba will likely remain a focal point for diplomatic negotiations and legal challenges.
In summary, Cuba’s foreign ministry has rejected Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claim that there is no oil blockade, citing two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump that, according to Havana, threaten tariffs and impose secondary sanctions on entities dealing with the Cuban energy sector. The United States maintains that these actions are lawful extensions of a longstanding embargo aimed at pressuring the Cuban government. The disagreement reflects enduring geopolitical tensions and underscores the complex interplay between sanctions, energy security and international law.