Cuba is in crisis — the US has a chance to act
In the midst of likely the most severe economic crisis to affect the island, on May 1, the Cuban government pressured its citizens to attend the annual gathering. It's been reported that some 600,000 were present in Havana, with millions attending similar ceremonies across Cuba. But participation in such rallies is hardly voluntary — it is the price one pays for access to state benefits, including employment, housing, education, food rations and other necessities.
Despite drastic shortages of water, food, medicine and fuel that have crippled Cuba in recent years, on this day, all assets of the government were used to facilitate attendance at the Revolutionary Square event. And that's because this gathering, like others, was intended to serve as an act of political will, meant to convey a public message of support for the ailing Cuban government.
Although Cuba's leadership changed in name in 2019 to Miguel Diaz-Canel, Raúl Castro is still believed to be in charge behind the scenes. Despite turning 94 last month, he appears to remain the center of power, wielding significant influence over political, economic and military matters.
Under his guidance, social control measures remain all-encompassing, beginning at the community level with the neighborhood Committees in Defense of the Revolution, the Brigades of Rapid Response, the National Revolutionary Police, the Revolutionary Armed Forces, and the Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A., which facilitates the Cuban military's control over the economy. All of these government structures, reminiscent in some cases of George Orwell's writings, have ensured the continuation of Cuba's one-party system for the last 66 years.
Today, the greatest concerns of the Cuban government are the incessant electricity outages. Once largely restricted to Cuba's outlying provinces, the blackouts are now also frequent in the capital. They are the direct result of government incompetence that has led to fuel shortages and aging infrastructure; without a doubt, they make daily life extremely challenging.
In March 2025, following a major failure at a substation, much of the country was without power, leading to vast work and school closures. This was the fourth such national outage in six months. For a country already suffering from abysmally low monthly incomes, no functioning economy, and decaying living standards, it's no surprise that the population has grown increasingly discouraged.
Although the Cuban government continues to blame the nation's challenges on the U.S. economic embargo, the aftereffects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and changes to U.S. travel policy, each day it appears fewer and fewer Cubans accept these excuses. In the last several years, an estimated 1 million Cubans have emigrated, representing a loss of roughly 10 percent of Cuba's population.
And protests, once extremely rare, have become a relatively more common occurrence.
In early June, students at the University of Havana began protesting a sharp hike in internet and cell phone service fees set by the government-run telecommunications company. This entity, largely owned by Cuba's military, is said to be well financed by Cuban exiles who purchase cellphone packages for their families on the island and represents an important revenue source for the Cuban government.
For Cuba's leadership, these price hikes are also likely intended to curtail internet usage — an important strategy for a government that aims to control all access to information.
Another government concern is the lack of access to foreign and hard currency reserves to facilitate trade, specifically for the import of much needed food and medicine. Once the recipient of financial support from the former Soviet Union during the Cold War, followed by Venezuela under President Hugo Chávez, today Cuba is without an economic benefactor.
Although Cuba still benefits from political support from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and others, these allies cannot (or will not) effectively assist Cuba economically. Add to that Cuba's foreign debt, which is said to be extremely high, leaving the country severely constrained when it comes to trade.
Against this background, the new Trump administration has made changes to U.S.-Cuba policy. As part of his sweeping cuts to USAID, President Trump cancelled Radio and TV Martí, two longtime stalwarts in the U.S. soft assault against Cuban communism.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has also moved to redesignate Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, and approved the re-creation of the Cuba Restricted List, which prohibits transactions with companies associated with the Cuban government. In late January, the administration also announced that it had opened the door via Title III of the LIBERTAD Act, to 'bring private rights of action involving trafficked property confiscated by the Cuban regime.'
More recently, following record-setting outward migration from Cuba, the Trump administration moved to end the 'humanitarian parole' program that had allowed a designated number of Cubans to enter the U.S. under temporary legal status. On June 4, the U.S. announced a partial travel ban on Cubans wishing to enter without an existing visa. And Trump's 'big beautiful bill' includes a tax on remittances, affecting Cuba's largest source of foreign revenue.
Today, Cuba is facing a devastating moment. Over six decades of revolution have taken their toll. Cuba's leadership remains unwilling to enact the commonsense democratic reforms necessary to alleviate suffering and return dignity to its people. As Cuban citizens continue to find small, but meaningful ways to express their discontent, it is time for the international community to raise awareness of Cuba's desperate reality — and to demand change from its leadership.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Immigration Approval Slips: Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Six months into his second term, President Donald Trump is losing support on one of his cornerstone issues—immigration—according to a new poll published on Sunday. Why It Matters Trump's second term, now at the half-year mark, has largely been characterized by his immigration and border security agenda—issues he emphasized heavily during his campaign last year. He has vowed to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history, leverage tariffs to strength border security, and limit crossings. The initiative has seen an intensification of ICE raids across the country, with thousands of people having been swept up and arrested, including immigrants residing in the country illegally and legally, with valid documentation such as green cards and visas. The administration has detained and deported thousands of people to their countries of origin, as well as a smaller percentage to third countries with U.S. agreements, including El Salvador, Uzbekistan, South Sudan and Eswatini. What To Know A CBS News/YouGov poll published Sunday surveyed 2,343 U.S. adults on a range of topics related to Trump's agenda and actions. The poll found that Trump is losing support on his immigration platform, with 58 percent of respondents opposing the administration's use of detention facilities. Views split sharply along party lines: 93 percent of Democrats said they opposed the detention policies, while 85 percent of Republicans expressed support and just 15 percent opposed them. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Several people have died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities over the past months, including 75-year-old Cuban national Isidro Perez, who passed away in June at a hospital after suffering a heart issue while in a Miami ICE facility. Earlier this month, a 57-year-old farmworker died from injuries sustained in a 30-foot fall during an ICE raid. In recent weeks, human rights advocates have raised concerns about a new Florida detention center, dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz," which was quickly created on Everglades land and holds an estimated 1,000 beds currently. ICE is struggling with limited capacity and resources to fulfill its mission of millions of deportations. In addition to the $45 billion to expand ICE detention centers allocated in Trump's "big, beautiful" bill, the White House is trying other ways to increase capacity, including new detention center contracts issued for private companies GEO Group and CoreCivic. President Donald Trump takes part in a bill signing for cryptocurrency legislation in the East Room of the White House on July 18. President Donald Trump takes part in a bill signing for cryptocurrency legislation in the East Room of the White House on July 18. Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images More broadly, support for Trump's deportation program has declined in recent months. Sunday's poll found that 51 percent of respondents disapprove of the program, while 49 percent approve. That marks a notable drop from a similar February poll, when 59 percent approved, and from 54 percent in a June poll. Similarly, Republicans heavily backed the program, with 91 percent in support compared to 14 percent of Democrats. Forty-one percent of independents back it. Overall, the poll found that public approval of Trump's handling of immigration has declined in recent months. In the latest survey, 56 percent of respondents said they disapprove of Trump's handling of immigration, while 44 percent approve. That marks a 10-point drop in approval since a CBS News poll in March, when 54 percent approved and 46 percent disapproved. The poll finds Trump's overall approval rating at 42 percent, with disapproval rating at 58 percent. The poll was published an hour after Trump praised his ratings among Republicans on his Truth Social account. While his overall approval rating has declined, Trump remains popular among Republicans, with several polls showing he retains around 90 percent support within the party. The survey comes nearly two weeks after a Gallup poll of 1,402 showed a steep drop among Republicans wanting immigration levels into the U.S. decreased—falling from 88 percent in 2024 down to 48 percent in June. More Americans also indicated that they viewed immigration as having a positive effect on the country, hitting 79 percent in June. The Gallup poll was conducted between June 2 and June 26. What People Are Saying CNN pollster Harry Enten wrote in a July 17 X, formerly Twitter, post: "X isn't real life. Post-Epstein saga, Trump's approval with the GOP (~90%) may actually be slightly up. He's at/or near his apex w/ the GOP. How? Just 1 respondent said Epstein was the top problem facing the U.S. Cong Dems, OTOH, are at their worst standing with Dems ever." Stephen Yale-Loehr, a former immigration professor at Cornell University, previously told Newsweek: "The Gallup poll results show that President Trump's mass deportation efforts are backfiring. Americans realize that immigration is good for the country and that we need immigrants to grow our economy." David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, previously told Newsweek in a statement: "The poll shows clearly that the public is reacting negative to President Trump's immigration agenda. People wanted chaos at the border ended. They didn't want the chaos shifted into the interior, into their streets and communities." Representative Mike Levin, a California Democrat, wrote in an X post Saturday: "Latest Reuters poll shows disapproval for Trump's immigration policy has surged since February. Americans want security AND humanity, not cruelty and chaos. That's why we need bipartisan, common sense reform like our DIGNITY Act, rooted in real solutions." What Happens Next? The Trump administration has pledged to continue its immigration policies and plans to expand capacity at detention centers. The Republican backed spending legislation drastically increases funding for immigration enforcement efforts, likely leading to more detentions and deportations.
Los Angeles Times
11 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexico City bids adiós to monument to Castro and ‘Che' Guevara
MEXICO CITY — Goodbye, Fidel. Hasta la vista, Che. Denunciations and accolades greeted the abrupt removal this month of a controversial monument in the Mexican capital commemorating the two revolutionaries, Fidel Castro and Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. The monument, a pair of bronze, life-sized sculptures of Castro and Guevara chilling on a bench, recalls a consequential moment in both Mexican and Cuban history — the pair's first meeting, which took place in an apartment in Mexico City in June or July 1955, according to historians. At the time, both were twentysomething militants in the formative stages of their transformation into leftist icons who would inspire a global generation of revolutionaries and activists. A leftist Mexico City government installed the monument in 2017 in a small park in the capital's Colonia Tabacalera neighborhood, not far from where the storied duo first met in a Cold War encounter that has taken on near-mythical dimensions among many on the left. In the two sculptures, both men stare straight ahead and are decked out in light combat garb — Guevara in his trademark beret (a look immortalized on T-shirts across the globe) and Castro sporting a fighter's cap. His legs crossed, Castro grasps a cigar in his left hand, and a book on his right. Guevara's right hand secures a pipe. The sculpture has long sparked polemics: While adherents of the left generally applauded it, and some visitors would leave flowers, critics assailed the artwork as a tasteless shrine to a bloody communist dictatorship. Spearheading its removal Wednesday was Alessandra Rojo de la Vega, conservative borough president of the capital's central Cuauhtémoc district, where the bench (known as Encuentro or Encounter) was situated. Her decision, Rojo de la Vega initially explained on social media, was based on legality — not politics. She said there wasn't 'one single paper' authorizing the monument's installation. Its removal, she added, would allow park denizens to stroll in 'liberty and security.' She posted images of city workers prying out the two figures from the bench and the bronzed Castro and Guevara being ignominiously hauled away in a bulldozer. But the borough president later pivoted to a more ideological rationale. 'This city cannot ... promote or provide refuge for figures who injured human dignity, be it in Mexico or the rest of the world' Rojo de la Vega told Radio Formula. As to the fate of the dual bronzes, she said that officials may consider a sale, using the proceeds — likely from lefty purchasers enthralled with the Cuban uprising — for park upkeep. 'If we auction them off, it will mark a first — the communists will use their money, not someone else's,' Rojo de la Vega said. 'If they love them so much, they can put them in their garden, or their patio.' Not pleased was Mexico's leftist president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who said she would speak to the Mexico City mayor — a political ally — about placing the monument elsewhere. The question isn't whether one embraces or rejects the views of the two protagonists, Sheinbaum argued to reporters on Thursday. The Castro-Che encounter, the president said, recalled 'a historic moment' that unfolded in Mexico and merited a display of memory. The contretemps here echoes spats in the United States about monuments glorifying Confederate generals: Critics decry the displays as exalting traitors and white supremacists, while others argue that the statues just reflect history. In the case of the Castro and Guevara likenesses, Sheinbaum suggested that their removal was partisan payback for her own signature monument-canceling moment — the banishment of one of Mexico's most illustrious landmarks, a virtual symbol of the city. In her former post, as mayor of Mexico City, Sheinbaum ordered the removal of a soaring bronze of Christopher Columbus, which, for more than a century, graced a pedestal in the capital's elegant Paseo de la Reforma. The stylized tableau depicted Columbus as a noble conqueror: one hand raised to the horizon, the other lifting a veil from a globe. For years, Indigenous activists and others staged protests at the statue, labeling Columbus and other conquistadores as perpetrators of genocide. In 2020, Sheinbaum finally ordered that the Columbus monument be taken down for renovations; it was never returned to its lofty perch. Its ejection enraged both Columbus' admirers and others who viewed the monument as an integral marker of the Mexican capital. They accuse Sheinbaum of bowing to political correctness. The traffic circle where Columbus long lent his presence has now been renamed the Women Who Fight roundabout, a rallying point for Indigenous, feminist and other protesters hoisting handwritten placards. The grandiose Columbus figure, meantime, remains out of public sight in museum storage. The Castro-Guevara bench, situated in an easy-to-miss park, didn't compare in size or significance to the towering Columbus of the stylish Paseo de la Reforma. But its removal lit up social media, rekindling historic enmities. 'An intent to erase the symbols of battle, of resistance, of Mexican-Cuban humanity,' César Huerta, a left-wing journalist, wrote on X, blasting the action as 'ideological censorship.' A radio commentator, José Luis Trueba Lara, bid good riddance, calling Guevara 'an assassin with good press' and Castro a 'bloodcurdling dictator.' Carlos Bravo Regidor, a columnist, berated the left for being more concerned 'about the retirement of some miserable statues of Fidel and el Che than for the misery suffered by those who live beneath the yoke of the Cuban dictatorship.' At the time of his 1955 encounter with Guevara, Castro, then 28, was not long out of a Cuban prison for an insurgent attack against the U.S.-backed Cuban dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Guevara, one year younger, was a physician from a middle-class Buenos Aires' upbringing brimming with revolutionary fervor — and a vision of a pan-Latin American socialist union, free of U.S. 'imperialism.' The two young men immediately hit if off, historians say, embarking on a lifelong friendship and collaboration in the revolutionary project. Both would be among 82 fighters aboard the yacht Granma that, in November 1956, set sail for Cuba from Mexico's Gulf coast. Their voyage, and subsequent guerrilla campaign, would culminate in 1959 in a historic overthrow of Batista and the imposition of a communist government in Havana. Fidel and el Che are long gone, and the book on the Cold War officially closed more than a quarter-century ago. But, as the fiery debate here about an unassuming bench statue illustrates, the ideological fault lines of the Cold War are far from completely obscured, at least not in Latin America. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
The ugly truth about the student loan caps in Trump's ‘big beautiful' law
New federal student loan caps pose an urgent and overlooked threat to the health of all Americans. These changes will severely undermine the graduate education pipeline for the clinician workforce — including both nurses and physicians— jeopardizing access to care, straining the workforce and, ultimately, harming patients. The bill, now signed into law, will cap graduate unsubsidized student loans at $20,500, with a $100,000 total cap on top of undergrad loans, and phase out Grad PLUS loans. These changes are especially detrimental for those pursuing clinician roles, such as nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners play a crucial role, filling gaps in primary care — especially in rural and underserved communities. Their presence expands access, relieves pressure on healthcare systems and allows physicians to focus on the most complex cases. Graduate education is not optional for becoming a nurse practitioner. Nor is it optional for becoming faculty to teach the next generation of physicians and nurses. Weakening the pipeline of advanced practice nurses doesn't just hurt nursing, it threatens the entire care delivery system. For nursing, this is a moment where education is already strained. Nurses have left the profession en masse since the COVID-19 pandemic and older nurses are retiring. We urgently need more nurses and nurse educators in the pipeline. Yet in 2023, enrollment in bachelor's-level nursing programs grew by just 0.3 percent. Meanwhile, enrollment in master's and Ph.D. nursing programs declined by 0.9 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively. That same year, U.S. nursing schools turned away more than 65,000 qualified applications due to a lack of faculty, clinical placements and funding — not because of a lack of interest. Faculty shortages are especially dire. Nearly 2,000 full-time faculty vacancies remain unfilled nationwide, according to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing. These positions require a master's or doctoral degree — precisely the kind of education now placed at risk by this legislation. Without nurse educators, we cannot train the next generation of nurses at any level. This law also directly contradicts the Make America Healthy Again initiative, which calls on healthcare systems to take on chronic disease through prevention. Nurses make up the largest segment of the healthcare workforce. Their education emphasizes prevention and whole-person care for people and communities. Nurses are central to the shift from reactive 'sick care' to proactive prevention, so restricting their ability to enter the profession is not just shortsighted, it's self-defeating. A diminished nursing workforce will trigger a familiar cycle: reduced access, longer wait times, more chronic disease and an even more overwhelmed workforce. And these consequences won't be limited to nurses — they will affect physicians, hospitals, insurers and, most of all, everyday Americans. This is a national health issue. While the bill has passed, it is not too late to mitigate its harm. Policymakers must find alternative solutions, from scholarship expansion to loan forgiveness, to ensure access to graduate nursing education remains within reach. We cannot solve a workforce shortage and a chronic disease crisis by cutting off the professionals trained to fix it.
