U.S. Funding to Cuban Media and NGOs at Risk After Trump's Executive Order

The Trump administration has enacted a temporary freeze on all grant and loan programs funded by federal agencies for foreign aid. This decision has had an immediate impact on independent media and NGOs advocating for democratization in Cuba. Many of these organizations are grappling with the repercussions, as the suspension casts doubt on their operations and financial resources.

Acting head of the Office of Management and Budget, Matthew Vaeth, explained that the new administration needs to evaluate these subsidies to ensure they align with its political priorities. A memo has instructed federal agencies to identify and reassess all financial assistance programs to verify their consistency with the president's policies. Vaeth emphasized that allocating public funds to initiatives not favored by the government constitutes "a waste of taxpayer money that does not enhance the daily lives of those we serve."

While the White House has reversed the decision affecting domestic housing and healthcare programs for vulnerable Americans, the order significantly threatens certain projects impacting Cuba. The temporary freeze raises more questions than answers, as it's unclear whether it exclusively affects anti-poverty and humanitarian aid efforts or extends to other beneficiaries of the well-known U.S. agency grants.

Impact on Independent Journalism

The abrupt suspension of funding has sparked surprise and confusion among media outlets opposed to the Castro regime and activists both on and off the island. However, the affected parties have largely responded with silence, aware that the Díaz-Canel regime might exploit the blow to independent journalism to claim that their opposition lacks U.S. financial support.

Javier Larrondo of the NGO Prisoners Defenders refrained from commenting on a decision he views as solely affecting the United States. "We focus solely on human rights in the 10 countries where we operate, and this is an internal U.S. political issue, a country where we do not operate," he told CiberCuba. The most discreet are undoubtedly the weakest links: the workers who fear for their jobs. Journalists, who spoke anonymously, expressed their concerns about the potential closure of platforms, which would deprive Cubans on the island of diverse and plural information channels.

Among those affected by such a drastic measure is Diario de Cuba. Its director, Pablo Díaz, did not avoid the issue, even though it was too soon to assess the full impact. "Yes, it affects us. Although it's too early to determine to what extent and in what situation it leaves us," he noted to CiberCuba.

Broader Implications and Reactions

The problem is severe for some, as they are now expected to be paid for work and investments already completed. In practice, grants are received for a purpose and paid in installments as initiatives are executed and reports on fund allocation are submitted. However, those payments for work already done have not been made.

Many believe this is a temporary measure, as announced by the White House Budget Office, but for others, it's not a hiatus but an end. Memorandum (M 25-13) particularly jeopardizes projects related to diversity and inclusion programs, gender ideology (woke), and the Green New Deal—topics Trump has openly rejected with majority voter support.

The announcement has even impacted those who do not receive grants. Wilfredo Cancio, director of Café Fuerte, a platform that has not received funding in its 15 years of operation, considers it bad news. "Since its announcement, issuance of the memo, and clarifying update, a last-minute ruling by a Washington D.C. judge blocking the suspension and the potential cancellation of the order by the White House, all this chaos could end with fund restoration. However, it warns that the traditional mechanism of these financial benefits is damaged and will be transformed, not necessarily for the better."

Cancio admits that for years, he has criticized the procedures for awarding grants to organizations and media dedicated to the 'Cuban cause' and the lack of "thorough oversight of their budgets." But regardless of the serious objections that may exist, which he indeed has, he cannot deny "that these are crucial contributions to support commendable initiatives aimed at promoting ideas, changes, and future solutions for our country."

Luis Flores, CEO of CiberCuba, echoes Cancio's sentiment. CiberCuba, an independent outlet, will continue operating as it has never received any subsidies from states, institutions, or private entities. "We are 100% funded by advertising," he states, acknowledging that the measure deals a significant blow to the sector, as it was unexpected. In countries like Spain, where several platforms are based, closing a company buries you in debt.

For Hilda Landrove, an essayist, researcher, and journalist for outlets like Rialta, if the measure to suspend funding for independent media is enforced, it will be a severe blow, not just personally. It will affect independent journalism and civil society.

In her view, the regime will likely create a narrative that this is proof that Cuban independent journalism was never independent because they see that dependency not only as economic but also ideological. They cannot interpret it otherwise. Another conclusion relates to internal differences within the media. Some might argue it's acceptable because there are 'soft' left-leaning media that shouldn't receive U.S. funding. This will lead to a debate about who has the right to exist, aligning with a part of the exile community's radicalization. They may welcome the review that will condition the discourse.

U.S. Policy and the Cuban Regime

On the flip side, Cuban writer Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo, a contributor to Hypermedia Magazine, defends the U.S.'s right to decide how to use its taxpayers' money. "The U.S. was criticized yesterday for aspiring to be the world's police and exporting its political influences. Now, it's criticized for reconsidering whether these capital exports are effective for beneficiaries and American taxpayers. Or if it's better to redistribute them within the U.S., where there is significant inequality," he noted.

Elena Larrinaga of the Observatorio Cubano de Derechos Humanos, an NGO that has had to adjust its programming following the announcement of grant suspensions, expressed surprise at the suddenness. "We understand that the administration made this decision temporarily, and we are sure it has valid reasons. We only want to emphasize and thank the American administration for the window it has kept open, bringing light and hope to an oppressed people. We have no doubt that the new administration is firmly committed to human rights and freedoms, and we are confident of their support."

Laritza Diversent of Cubalex highlighted the European Union's responsibility for Cuban NGOs' exclusive dependency on the U.S. because it requires them to be based on the island to access its aid. Even when located in Havana, Cubalex couldn't receive European funds through a French intermediary due to this requirement, benefiting organizations like the Federation of Cuban Women or the Association of Small Farmers. Ultimately, European taxpayers' money funds Cuban communist satellite organizations.

"This affects us as an organization. Suspending aid suspends activities, projects, and operations. We won't stop working but will reduce advisory services. We must cut our staff, which undermines years of building and retaining a team. We cannot pay people for their work when they have gained experience and skills in the Cuban context. We will continue working, but with fewer personnel and results. This is not just a Cuba-specific measure; it has a global impact. We will persevere, but with highly reduced capacity."

Like the OCDH, Diversent regrets that the measure wasn't planned, which would have allowed preventive decisions. "This worsens the situation, leaving organizations critically vulnerable. Regarding Cuba, not all countries provide funding. One problem we've denounced is that in the EU's case, if you're not registered on the island, you cannot access their funds. This is discriminatory and now highlights the dangers of relying on funds from a single country," she added.

Amidst the controversy, Cuban activist and former political prisoner Ariel Ruiz Urquiola, exiled in Switzerland, sees the issue of grant oversight as the fundamental problem. However, he argues that the situation doesn't provide the Cuban regime with solid arguments to link the opposition to U.S. funding. "Every civil society striving for freedom has received funds from sympathizers, especially when citizens' lives are at stake more than their rights."

In any case, he laments that with all the funds allocated for Cuba's democratization, there isn't a single case of crimes against humanity reported to any international criminal court or federal court in any country. He also regrets that some individuals receive funds in the name of political prisoners without ever having been in Cuba. Nonetheless, he believes that aid "should be maintained and finance projects that are neither partisan nor sectarian nor benefit any political figure."

Ultimately, most recognize that a potential suspension of grants aimed at independent media and NGOs fighting for Cuba's democratization would deal a mortal blow to many platforms and organizations. Others will continue working but not with the same results or visibility. There is consensus that the oversight of those funds must be up to standard. The criteria for granting them should be as well. However, the diaspora generally doesn't view the disappearance of U.S. financial support favorably, not just for Cubans but for people worldwide.