The U.S. is using force to block energy from going to Cuba
In the long arc of American power and its relationship with the Caribbean, the Senate this week declined to draw a legal boundary around the executive's capacity for war. Democrats sought to invoke the War Powers Act to constrain President Trump from unilaterally striking Cuba — a nation he has publicly named as his next military objective following operations in Venezuela and Iran — but Republicans blocked the effort, arguing no imminent threat exists. The question of who holds the authority to commit a nation to conflict is as old as the republic itself, and once again it has been left unanswered.
- Trump has named Cuba his next military target, and his Secretary of State has openly called for regime change — the drumbeat of intervention grows louder with each passing week.
- Democrats argue the war has already quietly begun: an oil blockade strangling Cuban civilians of energy is, by any honest measure, an act of force — a slow hostility that doesn't announce itself with bombs.
- Republicans blocked the war powers vote, insisting no imminent threat exists and that the president's constitutional authority to act in national security cannot be legislatively leashed.
- This is the seventh or eighth time this script has played out — Democrats seek limits on Trump's military reach, Republicans hold the line, and the restrictions fail.
- A U.S. diplomatic delegation landed in Cuba for the first time since Obama's 2016 visit, but the administration's language makes clear the military option remains on the table if talks falter.
- Cuba has declared readiness to defend itself, and two nations are now conducting diplomacy in the shadow of a potential war that Congress has chosen not to formally prevent.
President Trump has been unambiguous: after military operations that captured Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro and launched strikes against Iran, Cuba is next. "Cuba's going to be next," he said. When asked recently whether military action remained possible, he left the door open.
On Tuesday, Senate Democrats tried to force a vote on a war powers resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia — a measure designed to require congressional approval before any strike on Cuba. Republicans blocked it. Senator Rick Scott of Florida dismissed the effort as moot, arguing the United States faces no imminent threat from the island and that no hostilities exist requiring such constraints.
Kaine challenged that framing directly. Standing on the Senate floor, he pointed to the Trump administration's oil blockade on Cuba — a measure that has devastated Cuban civilians by cutting off energy supplies — and argued the U.S. is already engaged in hostilities. "The U.S. is using force to block energy from going to Cuba," he said, asking whether Americans would consider a foreign blockade on their own shores anything other than an act of war.
The vote followed a now-familiar pattern. More than half a dozen similar efforts to constrain Trump's military authority in Venezuela and Iran have failed along the same lines: Democrats seek limits, Republicans defend broad executive war powers, and the restrictions die.
The administration's posture on Cuba is layered. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated plainly that the U.S. would "love to see the regime there change." Yet the administration also sent a diplomatic delegation to Havana earlier this month — the first U.S. government plane to land there since Obama's 2016 visit — and says it prefers a diplomatic resolution. Still, officials have made clear Trump will "not let the island collapse into a major national security threat" if Cuban leaders fail to act, language that keeps the military option alive.
Cuba has declared readiness to defend against any aggression. Talks continue. But with the Senate having declined to impose legal limits on the president's authority, the path forward rests entirely on whether diplomacy holds — or whether Trump follows through.
President Trump has made clear that Cuba sits in his crosshairs. After ordering military operations against Venezuela—where U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro in January—and launching strikes against Iran, Trump has repeatedly signaled that the island nation is his next target. "Cuba's going to be next," he said in recent weeks. "We may stop by Cuba after we're finished with this," he added, referring to the Iran campaign. Earlier this month, when asked if military action against Cuba remained possible, he left the door open.
On Tuesday, Senate Democrats attempted to force a vote on a war powers resolution that would have constrained Trump's ability to attack Cuba without congressional approval. The measure, introduced in March by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, was designed to prevent the kind of unilateral military action the president has already taken elsewhere. But Republicans blocked the procedural motion from advancing. "The issue is moot," said Senator Rick Scott of Florida, arguing that the United States faces no imminent security threat from Cuba and therefore no hostilities exist that would trigger the need for such restrictions.
Kaine, who has led the Democratic effort to rein in Trump's military authority across multiple theaters, pushed back hard. He stood on the Senate floor and challenged the Republican premise. The U.S. is already engaged in hostilities with Cuba, he argued, pointing to the Trump administration's oil blockade on the island. That blockade has inflicted severe damage on Cuban civilians, depriving the country of energy supplies. "The U.S. is using force to block energy from going to Cuba," Kaine said. He posed a hypothetical: if another nation imposed such a blockade on America, the U.S. would consider it an act of war. Why should the standard be different here?
This is the latest in a pattern. More than half a dozen votes related to military action in Venezuela and Iran have followed the same script: Democrats seek restrictions, Republicans defend the president's broad authority to wage war, and the restrictions fail. The Republican position rests on the argument that Trump possesses inherent constitutional power to use military force in defense of national security, and that Congress should not second-guess his judgment.
The Trump administration's position on Cuba is layered. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been explicit about one goal: regime change. In testimony to Congress in January, he said the administration would "love to see the regime there change" and that doing so would be of "great benefit" to the United States. At the same time, the administration has stated it prefers to resolve its concerns through diplomacy. A State Department delegation visited Cuba earlier this month—the first time a U.S. government plane has landed there since President Barack Obama's 2016 visit. A State Department official told CBS News that Trump remains open to diplomatic solutions but will "not let the island collapse into a major national security threat if Cuba's leaders are unwilling or unable to act." That language preserves the military option.
Cuban leadership has responded by declaring readiness to defend against any U.S. aggression. The two countries are engaged in diplomatic talks even as military tensions simmer. The question now is whether those talks will produce a resolution or whether Trump will follow through on his stated intention to make Cuba his next military objective. For now, the Senate has declined to impose legal constraints on his ability to do so.
Citas Notables
Cuba's going to be next.— President Trump
I've never heard the suggestion that Cuba poses an imminent security threat to the United States.— Senator Tim Kaine
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Republicans block this vote if they're confident there's no threat?
Because blocking it is itself a statement. It preserves Trump's freedom of action. If they voted it down on the merits, they'd be on record. This way, they avoid the vote entirely.
But Kaine made a factual argument—the blockade is already a form of force.
He did. And it's a serious argument. But Republicans are operating from a different legal theory: that the president has inherent war powers that Congress can't restrict without explicit constitutional language. They see Kaine's resolution as an infringement on executive authority.
So the blockade doesn't count as hostility?
Not in their view. They're drawing a distinction between economic coercion and military action. Kaine is saying that distinction is artificial—force is force. But that's a debate about what words mean, and Republicans control the Senate.
What about the diplomatic talks? Are those real?
They appear to be. A State Department plane landed in Cuba for the first time in a decade. But the administration's language is careful. They say they prefer diplomacy but won't allow Cuba to become a security threat. That's a loophole large enough to drive a military operation through.
So Trump could still attack?
Nothing in this vote stops him. And his own statements suggest he's seriously considering it. The question is whether diplomacy will move fast enough to make military action unnecessary.