The United States has intensified its economic pressure on Cuba with a fresh round of sanctions targeting the island’s construction sector, state-owned companies and officials linked to a Cuban organisation accused by Washington of advancing anti-American activities.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the measures on Thursday, adding Cuba’s Ministry of Construction and eight state-owned entities to the list of sanctioned organisations. The latest action represents another escalation in the Trump administration’s broader campaign to restrict Cuba’s access to international commerce and place additional pressure on its government.
- Advertisement -
The newly targeted entities span several strategically important areas of the Cuban economy, including construction, mining, metals, transportation and foreign trade. Among them is the Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara Nickel Company, located in HolguÃn, as well as companies involved in metallurgical and mining activities.
Three officials associated with the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP) were also sanctioned. Rubio has accused the organisation of using cultural and educational exchanges to promote what Washington considers anti-American influence. Cuba has rejected those allegations.
The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control said the Ministry of Construction was designated under Executive Order 14404, issued by President Donald Trump in May as part of a policy aimed at imposing additional consequences on those Washington considers responsible for repression in Cuba or threats to US national security and foreign policy.
Under the sanctions regime, property and financial interests belonging to the designated entities that fall within US jurisdiction are blocked, while US persons are generally prohibited from conducting transactions with them unless authorised by an applicable licence or exemption. The restrictions can also create complications for foreign companies and financial institutions that do business with sanctioned Cuban entities because of the potential risk of exposure to the US financial system.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno RodrÃguez condemned the latest measures, accusing Washington of deliberately worsening the country’s economic difficulties and restricting access to supplies needed by Cuban businesses and the wider population.
The sanctions come as Cuba is already facing a severe economic and energy crisis. The island has experienced prolonged power shortages, fuel scarcity, disruptions to public services and shortages of essential goods. Analysts say the tightening of US restrictions risks adding further pressure to an economy already struggling to secure fuel, foreign currency and imports.
Washington, however, maintains that its pressure campaign is directed at the Cuban government and organisations that support its policies rather than ordinary Cubans. The administration has argued that restricting access to resources controlled by the Cuban state is necessary to pressure Havana to change its political and economic practices.
The latest sanctions are part of a broader escalation in US-Cuba relations this year. Since Trump returned to the White House, his administration has introduced additional measures targeting Cuban government institutions, military-linked organisations and other sectors considered important to the state-controlled economy.
The timing is particularly significant as Cuba confronts growing shortages and an increasingly fragile power system. Recent reports have linked the country’s worsening blackouts and shortages to a combination of domestic economic problems and difficulties obtaining sufficient fuel and other imports under intensified US restrictions.
For Havana, the latest measures represent another tightening of the economic squeeze. For Washington, they are part of a strategy aimed at increasing pressure on President Miguel DÃaz-Canel’s government.
As the sanctions expand beyond traditional military and financial targets into areas such as construction, mining and international trade, their broader economic consequences are likely to remain a major point of contention between the two governments.
