For more than six decades, the economic and commercial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba has been a defining feature of international relations in the Western Hemisphere. The policy, which began in the early 1960s, has not only shaped the trajectory of the Cuban economy and society but has also become a recurring flashpoint in global diplomatic arenas—especially at the United Nations General Assembly, where, year after year, the overwhelming majority of countries have called for its end.
The roots of the blockade stretch back to the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, when Fidel Castro and his allies overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. According to the Mises Institute, prior to the revolution, American companies exercised near-total control over key sectors of Cuba’s economy: 40% of sugar lands, 80% of public utilities, and 90% of mines and cattle ranches. The American mafia also ran casinos and brothels in Havana, turning the island into a playground for foreign visitors. When Castro’s government nationalized these assets and instituted sweeping land reforms, the U.S. responded with a series of punitive measures, culminating in the total embargo announced by President John F. Kennedy on February 3, 1962.
Since then, the blockade has endured, morphing and intensifying under different administrations. The stated rationale has shifted—from countering communism during the Cold War, to responding to alleged human rights abuses, to more recent claims of Cuban support for terrorism and international instability. But the basic effect has remained constant: Cuba has faced significant barriers to trade, access to financial markets, and even humanitarian imports.
The economic toll has been staggering. By some estimates, the embargo has cost Cuba upwards of $150 billion, a figure cited in multiple analyses and echoed in recent UN debates. The impact is not just theoretical. In recent years, Cubans have endured acute shortages of food, medical supplies, and fuel. Fuel shortages, in particular, have led to regular power outages that disrupt daily life, production, and the transport of goods across the island, as reported by the Mises Institute. While other factors—such as the slow recovery of tourism after COVID-19 and the elimination of Cuba’s dual currency system—play a role, the blockade remains the single largest obstacle to the island’s economic development.
Over the decades, the U.S. embargo has been reinforced through various pieces of legislation. The Reagan administration, for example, placed Cuba on the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) list in 1982, cutting off access to international credit and loans. The Cuba Democracy Act of 1992, signed by President George H.W. Bush, further restricted trade and credit relations, even authorizing sanctions against countries that assisted Cuba. The Helms-Burton Act of 1996, enacted under President Bill Clinton, extended the embargo’s reach, allowing lawsuits against foreign companies doing business on confiscated Cuban properties—though this provision was suspended by successive presidents for over two decades.
Efforts to soften the embargo have been rare and short-lived. During the Obama administration, there was a brief thaw: diplomatic relations were restored, travel and remittance restrictions were eased, and Cuba was removed from the SST list. However, this rapprochement was quickly reversed under President Donald Trump, who reinstated Cuba on the terrorism list, imposed over 240 new sanctions, and severely limited remittances and travel. According to the Mises Institute, these measures had immediate and severe effects, such as the closure of 407 Western Union offices across Cuba, cutting off a vital lifeline for many families.
The blockade’s reach extends beyond U.S. borders. Foreign subsidiaries of American companies are barred from trading with Cuba, and international banks risk fines and sanctions if they facilitate Cuban transactions. Even travel agencies outside the United States have faced penalties for offering Cuban holidays to American citizens. As a result, Cuba often has to import goods from distant countries in Europe, Latin America, or Asia—driving up costs and exacerbating shortages.
Despite the hardships, the blockade has not succeeded in toppling Cuba’s socialist system. Instead, it has become a rallying point for both the Cuban government and many in the international community. The United Nations General Assembly has condemned the embargo with near-unanimous votes for over three decades. In the most recent vote, 187 countries supported a resolution calling for its end, with only the United States and Israel voting against and Ukraine abstaining.
This year, as the UN once again prepared to debate the blockade, tensions rose further. On October 26, 2025, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez accused the United States of mounting a campaign to pressure countries—especially in Latin America and Europe—to change their votes. Rodríguez claimed that U.S. diplomats were engaging in "intimidating and deceptive activities," including sending threatening letters that linked votes on the embargo to unrelated issues. According to Rodríguez, Washington had also issued reports labeling Cuba a "threat to peace" and accusing it of supporting Russian military actions in Ukraine—allegations Havana categorically denies.
"They have sent threatening letters to several countries, even linking those countries’ votes on this resolution [of the UN General Assembly] to issues that have nothing to do with the matter at hand … This anxiety on the part of the US government shows that it understands that the international community overwhelmingly believes in and supports the need to end the blockade. I am convinced that the vast majority of countries will vote with the truth and for the truth; with justice and for justice," Rodríguez stated, as reported by multiple sources.
In Latin America, the U.S. has found new allies in leaders such as Javier Milei of Argentina and Daniel Noboa of Ecuador, both of whom have publicly aligned their foreign policies with Washington. Still, Cuba continues to call for respect for national sovereignty and the right to self-determination, arguing that the blockade is an affront to the principles enshrined in international law.
Meanwhile, activists within the United States have criticized their government’s efforts to "gaslight" the world about the impact of the blockade. The People’s Forum, a New York-based movement incubator, released a statement ahead of the UN vote, arguing, "There is a central, glaring contradiction in the entire argument of the US government: if the blockade is a ‘lie,’ as they claim, then why not lift it? If it is as inconsequential as the US suggests, then removing it would be a cost-free gesture of goodwill. The fact that successive administrations have obsessively clung to the blockade exposes the truth: its punitive purpose is entirely intentional. The US creates the hardship and then blames the victim."
Notably, the blockade has persisted regardless of which American political party holds power. Both Democrats and Republicans have maintained the policy, with neither side seriously pursuing free trade or humanitarian engagement with Cuba. As the Mises Institute points out, this bipartisan consensus is rooted less in the interests of ordinary Cubans or Americans than in a long-standing desire to reassert U.S. influence over the island—a legacy that dates back to the era of American dominance before 1959.
The debate over the U.S. embargo on Cuba is far from settled. For now, the world watches as the familiar drama unfolds at the United Nations, with the stakes as high as ever for the Cuban people and for the principle of national sovereignty in the face of great power politics.
