The siege of infamy: From Eisenhower to Trump

On February 6, 1959, just one month after the triumph of the Revolution, the National Bank of Cuba informed U.S. authorities, according to records kept by the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MINREX), that its deposits in U.S. banks totaled $424 million—money stolen by officials of the defeated dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. However, despite the official demand, not a single cent was returned.

 This unjustified and arbitrary decision by the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration thus became the precedent that marked the starting point of the history of illegal appropriations of Cuban resources by the United States.

 Step by step, the blockade began to materialize, even before it became part of the “legal” framework that sustains it today.

In 1960, the U.S. restricted fuel exports to Cuba, and President Eisenhower decreed a reduction of 700,000 tons of the Cuban sugar quota in the U.S. market.

 This crucial second year of the Revolution was marked by two measures affecting Cuba's foreign trade: the U.S. banned all exports to the island and stopped purchasing Cuban sugar for the first three months of 1961.

With John F. Kennedy's rise to power, the progressive siege laid to every source of economic support for the revolutionary government continued, and the White House announced the end of diplomatic relations with Havana and the complete suspension of the sugar quota for 1961.

It was precisely Kennedy who took a step of dramatic historical significance for Cuba and enacted Proclamation 3447 on February 7, 1962 to turn the economic embargo already in place on exports and imports into a “legal” instrument.

In July 1963, the Regulations for the Control of Cuban Assets came into effect, prohibiting all transactions with Cuba and freezing Cuban state assets within the United States. In May 1964, the Department of Commerce implemented a total ban on shipments of food and medicine to the island, although in practice these shipments were no longer being made.

The network of “legal” instruments against Havana continues to strengthen its structure when, on October 23, 1992, George H.W. Bush signed the Torricelli Act, and on March 12, 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Helms-Burton Act—with its marked extraterritorial reach.

 Successive administrations, both Republican and Democratic, even with some actions acknowledging the erratic policy of the blockade, as occurred with Obama, never used their executive authority to eliminate end it. Essentially, they kept it in place.

Donald Trump's rise to power on January 20, 2017 brought with it an unprecedented escalation of pressure with the enactment of 243 unilateral coercive measures against Cuba in an attempt to deliver “the final blow” to the foundations of the socioeconomic structure developed by the Revolution. The country was also included on the list of alleged state sponsors of terrorism.

Trump was succeeded in the White House by Democrat Joe Biden on January 20, 2021, but no significant step was taken in Cuba policy during his four years in office. The tightening of the screws implemented by his Republican predecessor remained stagnant.

 Starting in January 2025, after resuming his second term, Trump reinforced his aggressive anti-Cuban stance, tempered with lies and threats and more radical measures: on June 30 of that year, he issued a new memorandum expanding upon a similar document he had signed during his first term in the White House.

The steps taken by the new “emperor” reached their climax with the oil embargo, with which he futilely attempted to break the will of the Cuban people, whose example of will and resistance would mark a turning point.

 The aspirations to subdue Cuba have come up against the unity and firmness of the men and women of this land: We Cubans survive and work in an admirable challenge of a society that has known how to rise to the occasion with dedication and sacrifice and continues to trust in a better tomorrow.