Follow us on social

google cta
As Pelosi Taiwan visit looms, Menendez bill would 'gut' One China policy

Top economists say Sen. Menendez spreading fake news on sanctions

A new letter with more than 50 signatories implores the lawmaker to stop using his power to maintain a cruel US policy in Venezuela.

Analysis | Reporting | Latin America
google cta
google cta

A new letter from dozens of economists and sanctions experts is calling on Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) to “stop spreading the false narrative that there is no association between economic sanctions and the economic and humanitarian crises in countries targeted by those sanctions.”

The impetus for the letter is a recent back-and-forth between Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a group of Democratic lawmakers — mostly a collection of border state representatives and progressives from elsewhere in the country — over the effectiveness of maintaining Trump-era sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba.

In May, Democratic House members sent a letter to President Biden, urging him to reverse the sanctions in an effort to alleviate ongoing economic crises and consequently curb the high level of migrants currently seeking to enter the United States. The next day, Menendez issued a response “blasting” the letter, and placing the responsibility for the influx of people leaving Cuba and Venezuela entirely on their respective leaders and not U.S. sanctions.

This new letter, which has more than 50 signatories, including historian Greg Grandin, former Argentine minister of finance Martin Guzman, and economist Ha-Joon Chang, disputes Menendez’s claims.

“Unlike Rep. Escobar’s letter, your letter fails to cite any research or evidence supporting your central claim that US economic sanctions have not been a significant driver of migration from Cuba and Venezuela. This is hardly surprising, as there is in fact no serious research supporting this claim. In contrast, as a recent report on the human consequences of sanctions has highlighted, dozens of peer-reviewed academic studies document the substantive negative– and often lethal– effects of economic sanctions on people’s living conditions in target countries.”

Rep. Escobar’s letter was just one of a series of recent arguments against broad-based sanctions policy, both in Latin America, and also elsewhere in the world. Another group of prominent House Democrats, including the ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen asking them to consider adopting measures that would ease the ongoing economic and political crises in Venezuela, including the lifting of certain sanctions.

The letter elaborates on how two recent studies show that the sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry contributed to a major drop in oil production, which is responsible for a huge proportion of Venezuela's export revenue. This decrease in production has subsequently “led to massive cuts in imports of food and inputs for agricultural production, which in turn has been the major factor behind widespread hunger and malnutrition in Venezuela.”

Francisco Rodriguez, a professor at the University of Denver and one of the letter’s signers, wrote a report for the Center for Economic and Policy Research in May on how sanctions impact the lives of ordinary citizens, which found that “economic sanctions are associated with declines in living standards and severely impact the most vulnerable groups in target countries. It is hard to think of other cases of policy interventions that continue to be pursued despite the accumulation of a similar array of evidence of their adverse effects on vulnerable populations.”

The missive lists a number of other recent op-eds, reports, studies, and comments from world leaders that analyzed the harmful humanitarian effects of sanctions policies. The global unpopularity of the American embargo on Cuba is underscored by the fact that last year, 185 countries voted for a resolution calling for its repeal and only two (the U.S. and Israel) voted against it.

“If you truly believe in protecting the human rights of ordinary Cubans and Venezuelans,” the letter concludes, “you should stop leveraging your considerable power in the Senate to maintain the cruel measures that cause profound human suffering, fuel humanitarian emergencies, and push many more people to migrate to the US."


Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Jan. 2019 (Photo: lev radin via shutterstock.com)
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Latin America
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.