This week, a lively debate reignited over the most effective foreign policy to pressure Cuba's regime. The discussion featured Manuel Milanés, an exiled activist, and Alejandra Franganillo, an associate researcher at Pan-American Strategic Advisors, who presented contrasting perspectives on Washington's history of sanctions and concessions towards Havana.
Milanés was unequivocal in his stance on the effectiveness of sanctions: "If nothing has changed with sanctions so far, why not consider something else? It's very dangerous."
His main argument is that the tangible progress Cubans have seen in recent decades has not come through dialogue but rather through the imposition of sanctions. "At one point, sanctions allowed people to buy and sell homes. They allowed access to hotels. They enabled the circulation of the dollar," Milanés stated.
He directed his criticism at the rapprochement policy pursued by the Obama administration from 2014 to 2017. According to Milanés, this period of cultural exchange and diplomatic easing did not weaken the regime but instead strengthened it. "What has been achieved is due to sanctions. We already know that the business-friendly, cultural exchange policy of the Obama era did not work. There were more political prisoners. They received more funding. They entrenched themselves, and the opposite of what was expected happened. Repression increased."
This analysis aligns with the argument publicly maintained by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in 2026: that if the Cuban regime were to implement genuine economic reforms, "they would simply lose power," which is why they will never do so sincerely.
Rubio has spearheaded the most aggressive tightening of sanctions in decades, targeting entities like GAESA, Díaz-Canel, and Cuban intelligence between May and June of 2026. In fact, just this Thursday, the Trump Administration announced another round of sanctions targeting the Minister of Public Health, José Ángel Portal Miranda, and the entire institutional framework managing medical missions.
Franganillo, in contrast, did not dismiss sanctions but outlined a clear boundary regarding their scope. "I'm not saying I'm against sanctions. I support sanctions, but only those that are direct, like sanctions against high-ranking officials," she stated, cautioning that indiscriminate measures could affect the Cuban people more than the Communist Party elite.
Regarding the possibility of a total blockade, Franganillo was clear: "A total blockade... I wouldn't," arguing that without a means of defense for the population, such a measure could lead to severe and irresponsible humanitarian consequences.
In June 2026, the Cuban National Assembly approved 176 economic measures organized into 23 categories, interpreted by analysts as controlled liberalization to gain breathing space without relinquishing political control of the party, which some describe as "forced hybridization."
The debate concluded with a question from a spectator: "You, Cuban, what will you do the day after whatever happens?" leaving open the question of what will occur in Cuba after the end of the dictatorship and who will be in a position to rebuild the country.
On July 11th, Rubio urged Cuban leaders to commit to "real reforms, peace, and prosperity" before it is "too late," indicating that Washington's pressure shows no signs of abating.
Understanding the Impact of Sanctions on Cuba
What is the primary argument for continuing sanctions on Cuba?
Proponents argue that tangible progress for Cubans has historically come through sanctions rather than dialogue. They believe sanctions have facilitated specific freedoms and economic activities that were otherwise restricted.
How did the Obama-era policies impact the Cuban regime, according to critics?
Critics, like Manuel Milanés, claim that the Obama-era policies strengthened the regime by increasing political repression and financial support, rather than achieving the intended weakening of the regime.
Why is there opposition to a total blockade of Cuba?
Opponents, such as Alejandra Franganillo, argue that a total blockade could lead to severe humanitarian consequences for the Cuban population, lacking adequate means of defense against such economic isolation.