US announces visa restrictions for central American government officials
WASHINGTON, June 3 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday announced visa restrictions for several unnamed Central American government officials he said were connected to Cuban medical mission programs that include elements of forced labor and the exploitation of Cuban workers.
Rubio did not name the officials nor the countries they are from. "These steps promote accountability for those who support and perpetuate these exploitative practices," he said in a statement.
"The Cuban labor export program abuses the participants, enriches the corrupt Cuban regime, and deprives everyday Cubans of essential medical care that they desperately need in their homeland."
Cuba's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Havana has for decades rejected such accusations.
Rubio in February expanded a visa restriction policy to target Cuban officials believed to be tied to a labor program that sends Cuban workers overseas, particularly healthcare workers.
Cuba's health service generates major export earnings by sending doctors and health workers around the world.
Since its 1959 leftist revolution, Cuba has dispatched an "army of white coats" to disaster sites and disease outbreaks around the world in the name of solidarity. In the last decade, they have fought cholera in Haiti and Ebola in West Africa.
But Cuba has also exported doctors on more routine missions in exchange for cash or goods in recent decades, an increasingly critical source of hard currency in a nation suffering a deep economic crisis.
The United States and Cuba have had a strained relationship since Fidel Castro took over in the 1959 revolution, and a U.S. trade embargo has been in place for decades.
Rubio, a former U.S. senator and the son of immigrants who came to Florida from Cuba in the 1950s, has long opposed more normal relations with Havana, dating back to the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama.
He has signaled a tougher stance on the communist-run island, reversing a last-minute effort by the Biden administration to loosen sanctions on long-time foe Cuba and complicating money transfers to the island.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
I don't want to leave ECHR, said peer reviewing Tory support for convention
Britain should remain in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the peer leading the Tories' review has previously said. Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, told the Lords in 2023 that he supported the UK 'being in the convention' even though he disagreed with some decisions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Speaking in a debate on Tory plans to enact their Rwanda deportation plans, he also warned that Parliament should not legislate in breach of its international law obligations unless there were 'absolutely compelling reasons' to do so. His past comments have emerged as Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, appointed him to head a review into whether the UK should leave the ECHR and how to prevent lawyers 'subverting' government policy. Mrs Badenoch is setting up a commission to investigate how a Tory government could prevent lawyers using human rights and other legislation to block government policy, not only on immigration but also in environmental and equality legislation. Lord Wolfson, a former justice minister, made his comments in a debate on Rishi Sunak's illegal migration bill which included new powers for ministers to ignore ECtHR injunctions, one of which blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda. His past comments on ECHR membership have raised eyebrows among Tories. One commented: 'He is a brilliant lawyer but you wonder if Kemi should have chosen someone who was a bit more open-minded.' In the Lords debate, Lord Wolfson said: 'I support our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not always agree with the decisions of the court – I do not always agree with the decisions of our domestic courts either – but that is a separate matter. I support us being in the convention.' He also said that the UK ought to abide by international law obligations. 'I would expect Parliament not to legislate contrary to a treaty obligation unless there were absolutely compelling reasons to do so and, in those circumstances, to make that very clear. Otherwise, we should always be legislating consistently with our international law obligations,' he told the Lords. 'The debate has moved on' It is understood Lord Wolfson believes the debate has moved on since 2023. The Telegraph understands that irrespective of his views, his role as head of the review is to provide dispassionate advice on the impact of the ECHR on government policy, the legal consequences of leaving and how it could be done. It will be for the leadership to then decide whether to leave or not. A Tory source said: 'He is conducting a review of the legal impact of membership of the ECHR on government policy and providing to the leader and shadow cabinet a legal analysis of what being a member of the ECHR means and what would be the effect of leaving the ECHR in a legal sense. 'The political question of whether we should stay or leave is not for him or the commission. That's a question for the leader and shadow cabinet. They are the clients in this context, and he is their lawyer. They have asked him a series of questions that he is going to answer with his legal hat on. They can decide what they then do.' Interviewed earlier this week about what the Tories' position was on the ECHR, Lord Wolfson told Joshua Rozenberg's podcast A Lawyer Talks: 'I can only say watch this space. But it's no secret to say that within the Conservative Party, there will be people who take different views on this issue. 'Within the Labour Party, there are people who take very different positions on this issue.' However, he indicated that ministers should not comply with treaty obligations if that would mean ignoring laws made by Parliament. He said ministers would always seek to comply with international law if they were able to do so. But he added: 'A minister has to abide by an act of Parliament and it would be constitutionally improper, I would suggest, for the minister to say, 'I'm going to ignore what an act of Parliament says in order to comply with a treaty obligation'.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, told The Telegraph: 'The man leading this review into Britain's membership of the ECHR does not actually want to leave it. 'This tells us everything we need to know about how serious the Conservatives are about deporting illegal migrants and stopping the boats. 'They haven't changed one bit since their time in office.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Elon Musk's Tesla faces $3bn hit from Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Tesla is facing a $3bn (£2.2bn) hit from Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, highlighting a potential reason why Elon Musk has vowed to 'kill' the legislation. Buried in the US president's 1,000-page bill are plans to eliminate a $7,500 tax incentive for electric vehicle (EV) buyers and ban a similar scheme in California. Wall Street analysts said axing the tax break for drivers would cost Tesla about $1.2bn, while the Californian ban threatens a further $2bn profit hit. The president's 'big, beautiful bill' has prompted a furious reaction from Mr Musk, who left his role as a White House cost-cutting tsar last week. The world's richest man has since called the tax and spending legislation a 'disgusting abomination' and called on US politicians to 'kill the bill'. Ryan Brinkman, a JP Morgan analyst, wrote in a research note that 'Tesla appears to have the most to lose from the shifting regulatory backdrop, perhaps to the tune of $3.2bn'. He expects the measures to cut Tesla's profits in half this year. Mr Musk has been personally lobbying US senators to block the passage of the bill, which is expected to add $2.4 trillion to the US deficit. According to NBC, he called Mike Johnson, the Republican US House speaker, in an effort to save the green tax credit, while he has also amplified the views of US senators who oppose the legislation on X. The billionaire has so far presented his opposition to the bill as a matter of principle, arguing that it undermines the work he did at the department for government efficiency (Doge) to slash government spending in an effort to lower taxes and borrowing. In a post on X, Mr Musk said the bill 'defeats all the cost savings achieved by the Doge team at great personal cost and risk'. In another, he labelled the planned law the 'Debt Slavery Bill'. However, the JP Morgan research highlights the potential personal cost to Mr Musk from the legislation. Much of his wealth is derived from Tesla, which has already suffered as a result of his association with Mr Trump. Sales have slumped in Europe amid a political boycott of the electric vehicles. Mr Musk's net worth has fallen by $64bn so far this year, according to Bloomberg, though he still commands an estimated $368bn fortune. The entrepreneur has sought to rally Republican voters to lobby against the bill and threatened to 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' in November's mid-term elections. Mr Musk was the largest political donor in the US last year, giving $290m to encourage voters to elect Mr Trump and other Republicans. Mr Musk had previously defended Mr Trump's vision of cutting electric vehicle subsidies, insisting the changes would 'only help Tesla' by hurting its rivals. 'I think we should get rid of all credits,' he said last year. However, since quitting the White House, Tesla and Mr Musk have taken aim at many of the proposals in Mr Trump's planned bill. Last week, Tesla Energy, its solar and battery storage business, said: 'Ending energy tax credits would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid.' The rift has angered Mr Trump, Axios reported. The website said Mr Johnson told colleagues Mr Trump was 'pissed off' with the Tesla boss and told reporters he was 'not delighted that Elon did a 180'. The changes to EV credits are expected to hit sales of battery-powered cars across the US. Dan Ives, a technology analyst with Wedbush Securities, said the changes would 'hurt EV demand by 10pc across the industry'. A survey from Insurify, meanwhile, found 45pc of EV buyers said they would not have bought a new car without the $7,500 incentive. It found 36pc of Tesla buyers would have not made a purchase without the benefit. Mr Trump's tax and spending bill passed the House of Representatives by a narrow margin and is now before the Senate.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Takeaways from AP examination showing benefits, costs of rules Trump EPA wants to change
The Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump has served notice it wants to back away from at least 30 major rules that seek to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The agency's administrator, Lee Zeldin, says doing so would mean a new 'golden age' for America. It's not certain the rules will go away. They can't be changed without going through a demanding federal rulemaking process. But an examination by The Associated Press found that gutting the rules would come with high costs in both money and lives. Here are some takeaways from AP's work: Hundreds of billions of dollars in costs, thousands of deaths The AP examination found that the targeted rules are estimated to save at least $275 billion a year and more than 30,000 lives annually. Those figures were built in part on regulatory impact reports prepared by the EPA itself to factor in things such as reduced illnesses and deaths, as well as how much it would cost companies to comply with the rules. AP also worked with research by the Environmental Protection Network of former agency employees. AP found about 10,000 American lives were expected to be saved as the rules cut traditional pollutants such as soot, smog and heavy metals like mercury and lead. AP also calculated that doing away with the rules entirely would mean rising greenhouse gas emissions that would in turn drive deadly heat that would account for 25,000 more deaths each year around the world. That calculation also relied on a think-tank report and scientific studies that calculate deaths per ton of emissions. What some of the rules look like Some of the rules have been in place for years, while others were written under President Joe Biden and have not yet taken effect because of court challenges or because they are designed to kick in during later years. One example is a proposed update to existing EPA emissions standards for vehicles that's aimed at jump-starting electric cars. It's supposed to take effect for 2027 model years. The EPA's own analysis estimated net annual benefits of more than $100 billion a year. Another rule sets the level of traditional pollutants allowable in air that's deemed clean. The Clean Air Act requires that it be updated every few years. Public health and experts say one type of traditional pollution, particulate matter — better known as soot — is the most deadly in America, with severe consequences when reaching a person's lungs. In 2024, the Biden administration cut by 25% the amount of particulate matter that states are allowed to emit into the air. The EPA calculated a net benefit from that rule of as much as $46 billion a year, and the prevention of 4,500 premature deaths and 800,000 asthma incidents annually. Fact sheets that cite all the costs and (almost) none of the benefits Under Trump, the EPA has created fact sheets that emphasize the costs but not the benefits of the rules. Nine of 10 fact sheets make no mention of benefits at all. But eight of the fact sheets cite costs. For example, a fact sheet for one rule that would require newer coal-powered plants to cut or capture carbon emissions by as much as 90% noted that it would cost nearly $1 billion. But that sheet made no mention that the rule was estimated to save more than $24 billion a year. In 17 of the 20 rules with explicit cost-benefit analyses that AP examined, the estimated benefits are larger than the costs — and sometimes far larger. Changing the rules requires following a process The Trump administration has not said how far the targeted rules would be rolled back. And Zeldin has vowed to follow federal law. Experts say the targeted rules were the product of rigorous impact analyses that got close scrutiny from the EPA and other federal agencies. Such rules cannot be undone without presenting scientific justification through a federal rulemaking process that can take years to complete and includes requirements for public comment. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
