As Trump Talks of ‘Taking Cuba,’ Real Change Requires More Than Replacing Its Leader

After three months of a U.S.-imposed oil blockade, Cuba’s energy system has collapsed, pushing the country into a full-blown national crisis. At one point this week, over 10 million people—almost the entire population—were left without electricity. Even now, roughly half the country remains in the dark.

This didn’t come out of nowhere. Cuba has long depended on imported oil to keep the country running. Before the blockade, the island consumed about 100,000 barrels of oil a day: around 40,000 produced domestically, 30,000 supplied by Venezuela at a discount, and the rest coming from countries like Mexico and Russia. After the U.S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, oil shipments from Venezuela stopped, and the system began to unravel. Washington then escalated further, threatening tariffs on any country that continued supplying fuel to the island. Mexico completely halted its deliveries. A Colombian tanker was intercepted. The island was effectively cut off.

The consequences have been immediate. Gasoline now sells for about $35 a gallon on the black market. Flights are being canceled because planes can’t refuel for return trips. Hotels sit empty. Food distribution has stalled. People are resorting to burning wood just to heat water.

The government has responded the only way it can: rationing. School hours have been reduced. Transportation services have been cut. Trash collection is halted, leaving garbage piling up in the streets. Hospital operations have scaled back. Gas sales are restricted to those with special permission. These are signs of a system under strain.

Cubans, for their part, are showing that strain more openly. What began as small nighttime protests, with people banging pots and pans from their homes, has grown into something more serious. People have taken to the streets, even ransacking a local Communist Party headquarters. 

President Miguel Díaz-Canel has responded with intensified anti-U.S. rhetoric, accusing Washington of waging a “ferocious war” and threatening the island “almost daily.” At the same time, he has acknowledged that Cuba has been holding secret meetings with U.S. officials, hoping to ease tensions before things spiral further.

If anything, the pressure is only intensifying.

After the dramatic capture of Maduro in January, Cuba has increasingly looked like the next target. And Trump has made that explicit. 

“I do believe I’ll be having the honor of taking Cuba,” Trump told reporters in the White House on Monday. “Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it—I think I could do anything I want with it, if you want to know the truth.”

For now, there is no indication of an imminent military invasion. A top U.S. general told Reuters that the military isn’t preparing for one just yet. But Washington’s demands are clear. According to reports, U.S. officials have told Cuba that any transition would require removing Díaz-Canel from power. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced the message, saying the country needs “new people in charge.”

That raises another question: Would removing Díaz-Canel change anything?

Removing Díaz-Canel might deliver a symbolic victory, a claim that the U.S. has toppled another dictator. But Cuba’s system isn’t built around a single figure. Power is concentrated in a tightly controlled political structure. That becomes even clearer when looking beyond Díaz-Canel. For example, there has been no mention of removing Raúl Castro, Fidel Castro’s brother, who remains a central figure behind the scenes, or of sidelining his family, which is gaining influence. Rubio has even reportedly bypassed official Cuban government channels to communicate with Castro’s grandson and caretaker—an indication that “the Trump administration still sees the 94-year-old as the island’s true decision-maker,” Axios reports. Nor has there been any talk of dismantling the system of repression, including the release of political prisoners. 

We’ve seen this before, most recently in Venezuela. After Maduro’s capture, many expected a democratic transition. Instead, rather than backing the opposition that won Venezuela’s 2024 election, the U.S. has supported Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president, as interim leader. A self-identified communist, Rodríguez has been accused of corruption and human rights violations and is deeply embedded in the same system that drove Venezuela’s collapse. Once in power, she consolidated control among regime loyalists and called for crackdowns against anyone who supported the “armed attack by the United States.” People were detained simply for shouting “freedom,” Reason‘s Autumn Billings wrote.

In other words, it’s less of a transition than the same regime under new management.

Swapping out the face at the top doesn’t dismantle the communist regime underneath. Real change would mean restoring liberties, allowing genuine democratic elections, releasing political prisoners, and reforming the broader apparatus of power. So far, there is little indication that any of that is part of the plan.