The administration of Donald Trump ordered the temporary suspension of all programs of grants and loans funded by federal agencies for foreign aid, a measure that has significantly impacted independent media and NGOs promoting democratization in Cuba. Many of these organizations are still trying to grasp the implications of the decision, which leaves their operations and sources of funding in uncertainty.

The interim head of the Office of Management and Budget, Matthew Vaeth, justified the measure by stating that the new administration needs to review the amounts and determine if these subsidies align with its political priorities.

In a memo, the administration ordered federal agencies to identify and reevaluate all financial assistance programs to ensure they are consistent with the president's policies. Vaeth emphasized that allocating public funds to initiatives that are not favored by the Government represents "a waste of taxpayer money that does not improve the everyday lives of those we serve."

The measure, which the White House has revoked by compromising government housing and health programs for vulnerable Americans, also seriously jeopardizes the viability of certain projects affecting Cuba.

The temporary freeze of the order raises more questions than answers because it is not clear that it only affects policies aimed at combating poverty and humanitarian aid, and does not impact the other beneficiaries of the well-known 'grants' from U.S. agencies. In short, it is unclear who is affected and for how long the freeze will last.

Blow to independent journalism

The "sudden" cancellation of the subsidies caused anticipation, astonishment, and confusion among media outlets not aligned with the Castro dictatorship and activists both inside and outside the Island. However, what has most distinguished the response of those affected has been silence. Behind this restraint lies the certainty that Díaz-Canel's regime will use the blow to independent journalism as an argument to 'sell' the idea that they have no opposition without funding from the United States.

In that context, Javier Larrondo from the NGO Prisoners Defenders chose not to comment on a decision he believes only affects the United States. "We only try to speak about human rights in the 10 countries where we operate, and this is an internal political issue for the United States, a country where we do not operate," he stated in remarks to CiberCuba.

The most discreet are, without a doubt, the weakest links in the chain: the workers who fear for their jobs. Under the condition of anonymity, consulted journalists confess their fear of the closure of their platforms, which, as a collateral damage, would leave Cubans on the Island without access to diverse and plural channels of information.

Among those affected by a measure of this magnitude is Diario de Cuba. Its director, Pablo Díaz, did not dodge the question, although on Tuesday, January 28, he was unable to assess its impact. "Yes, it affects us. Although it is still too early to determine to what extent and what situation it leaves us in," he told CiberCuba.

The issue is serious for some because, in principle, they should now be compensated for work and investments already made. In practice, subsidies are received for a specific purpose and are paid out in installments, as the initiatives are carried out and following the submission of a report detailing where the money has gone. However, those payments owed for work that has already been completed have not been disbursed.

Many believe that, as announced by the White House Office of Management and Budget, we are facing a temporary measure; however, for others, it is not a pause but the end. The memorandum (M 25-13) particularly jeopardizes projects related to issues that Trump has openly renounced, with the majority support of voters: diversity and inclusion programs, gender ideology (woke), and those related to the Green Deal.

The announcement has made an impact, even on those who do not receive grants. This is the case for Wilfredo Cancio, director of Café Fuerte, a platform that has not received any funding in its 15 years of operation. Still, he believes we are facing bad news. "Since its announcement, the issuance of the memorandum, and the clarifying update of the memorandum, the last-minute ruling by a judge in Washington DC blocking the suspension and the potential cancellation of the order by the White House, all this commotion could end in the restoration of funds. However, it warns that the traditional mechanism of these financial benefits is damaged and that it will be transformed, not exactly for the better."

Cancio admits that for years he has criticized the procedures for granting funds to organizations and media dedicated to the 'Cuba cause,' as well as the lack of "thorough oversight of their budgets." However, beyond the serious objections that may exist, and which he indeed holds, he asserts that he cannot deny "that these are fundamental contributions to sustain very commendable initiatives aimed at promoting ideas, changes, and future solutions for our country."

In tune with Cancio is Luis Flores, CEO of CiberCuba, an independent media outlet that will continue to operate because it has never received any funding from governments, institutions, or private entities. "We are 100% funded by advertising," he says, while acknowledging that this measure strikes a heavy blow to the sector since it came as a surprise. In countries like Spain, where several platforms are based, closing a company can leave you buried in debt.

For Hilda Landrove, an essayist, researcher, and also a journalist for outlets like Rialta, if the measure to suspend funding for independent media is finally implemented, "it will be a harsh blow not only personally. It will affect independent journalism and civil society."

In his view, the first thing that will happen is that "the regime will create a narrative that this is proof that independent Cuban journalism was never independent because they believe that dependency is not only economic but also ideological. They cannot interpret it any other way. There is another conclusion related to internal differences within the media. Some will say it’s fine because there are some softer, left-leaning media outlets that shouldn’t receive money from the United States. This will lead to a discussion concerning the radicalization of a segment of the exile community about who has the right to exist or not, and they will find it acceptable that this review imposes conditions on the discourse."

On the other side of the debate is the Cuban writer Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo, a contributor to Hypermedia Magazine, who argues for the legitimacy of the United States in determining how to use the money of its taxpayers. "Just yesterday, the U.S. was criticized for aspiring to be the world's police and exporting its political influences. Now, it's being criticized for reconsidering whether these capital exports are effective for those who receive them and for the American taxpayer. Or whether it would be better to redistribute them within the U.S., for example, where so much inequality exists," he noted.

Elena Larrinaga from the Women’s Network of Cuba expressed a more measured opinion, as her NGO has had to make adjustments to its programming following the announcement of the halt in grants. "We were surprised by the urgency. It came without prior notice, which means leaving scheduled activities unfinished. We understand that the administration has made this decision temporarily and we are confident that there are significant reasons behind it. We just want to emphasize our gratitude to the American administration for keeping a window open through which light and hope have entered for an oppressed people. We have no doubt that the new administration has a strong commitment to human rights and freedoms, and we are confident in counting on their support."

Laritza Diversent from Cubalex is more explicit, stating to CiberCuba that institutions like the European Union are responsible for Cuban NGOs relying solely on the United States, as they require organizations to be based on the island to access the aid they provide. Even while in Havana, Cubalex was unable to receive European funds through a French intermediary because the requirement to be based in the country only benefits organizations like the Federation of Cuban Women or the Association of Small Farmers. Ultimately, European taxpayers' money ends up financing the satellite organizations of the Cuban communists.

"It affects us as an organization. When the funding is suspended, so are the activities, projects, and operations. We are not going to stop our work, but we will reduce our advisory services. We have to downsize our staff. This undermines years of effort to train and retain a team. We cannot compensate them for the work done by individuals who have gained experience and skills in the Cuban context. We will continue to work but with fewer personnel and less output. I understand that this is not just a measure for Cuba; it has a strong global impact. We will stay active, but with very limited capacity."

Diversent expresses regret that the measure was not implemented in a planned manner, which would have allowed for a margin to make preventive decisions. "This worsens the situation. It leaves organizations in a very critical state. Regarding Cuba, not all countries provide funding. One of the issues we have highlighted is that in the case of the EU, if you do not have a registered presence on the Island, you cannot access the funds they offer. This is discriminatory and has become significant because it exposes the dangers of relying on funds from a single country," he added.

At the heart of the whole controversy, activist and former political prisoner Ariel Ruiz Urquiola believes lies the issue of grant oversight. However, he asserts that what happened does not provide solid arguments for the Cuban regime to link the opposition to funding from the United States. "Every civil society that has aspired to freedom has received funds from supporters, especially when the lives of citizens are at stake, more than their rights."

In any case, he regrets that with all the money that has been allocated to the democratization of Cuba, there is not a single case of a crime against humanity reported to any international criminal court or federal court in any country. He also expresses concern that there are people receiving funds in the name of political prisoners who have never even been to Cuba. He believes that aid "should be maintained and finance those projects that are neither partisan nor sectarian and do not benefit any political figure."

In short, most agree that a potential suspension of the grants intended for independent press and NGOs fighting for the democratization of Cuba would deal a fatal blow to many platforms and organizations. Others will continue to operate, but they won't achieve the same results or visibility as they do now. There is a consensus that the oversight of these funds needs to be up to standard, as do the awarding criteria. Overall, the diaspora views the disappearance of the financial support coming from the U.S. administration—not only for Cubans but for everyone—with concern.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Suspension of U.S. Grants to Cuban Media