Follow us on social

Shutterstock_415425625-scaled

Bipartisan Senate bill would finally end US embargo on Cuba

The proposal, which would largely repeal one of America’s most controversial policies, will face an uphill battle in Congress.

Reporting | Latin America

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Monday that would remove key parts of the U.S. embargo on Cuba, which has been in place for over six decades.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who proposed a similar bill in 2021, described the proposal as a way to end the embargo “once and for all.”

“[O]ur bipartisan legislation will turn the page on the failed policy of isolation while creating a new export market and generating economic opportunities for American businesses,” she said in a statement.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), one of the bill’s two Republican co-sponsors, said it would “expand market opportunities for U.S. producers by allowing them to compete on a level playing field with other countries.”

The proposal, which failed to get a hearing when introduced in 2021, would end one of Washington’s most controversial foreign policy practices. The Cold War-era embargo has cost the Cuban economy at least $130 billion over the past six decades, according to the UN. Though a 2000 law allows some U.S.-Cuba agricultural trade, experts argue that the sanctions regime is a primary reason for Havana’s ongoing economic woes.

Late last year, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the embargo, with only the United States and Israel voting against the resolution. U.S. allies and foes alike have criticized the embargo for its comprehensive provisions, including measures that make it difficult for other countries to do business with Cuba.

William LeoGrande, a professor at American University and a leading expert on U.S.-Cuba relations, praised the bill’s contents as “essentially lifting the embargo” but said the proposal “really doesn’t have any chance” of passing.

“It’s symbolic,” LeoGrande said. “It’s staking out a position.”

In the Senate, the bill would have to make it past Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a leading Cuba hawk and the current chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And chances that a Republican-controlled House would even take up the bill are vanishingly small.

It is also unclear whether President Joe Biden would sign the bill if passed. Despite early indications that he would pursue changes in Cuba policy, Biden largely avoided the issue during his first two years in office. Most other centrist Democrats have done the same, largely due to concerns that such a move would lose voters in Florida’s sizable Cuban-American community. 

But, as Florida becomes increasingly Republican, LeoGrande argues that presidential leadership could help persuade centrists to drop their opposition, as demonstrated by former President Barack Obama’s efforts to normalize relations with Havana.

“Obama changed the conversation about Cuba by simply saying, ‘this policy doesn't make sense anymore,’” LeoGrande said.

Unfortunately, he added, Biden “shows absolutely no inclination to exercise that kind of leadership on this issue.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the bill.


(Shutterstock/ Delpixel)
Reporting | Latin America
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.