The recent statements made by the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, regarding the alleged halt in Pemex's oil shipments to Cuba have sparked a wave of conflicting interpretations in various news agencies and international media.
During her morning conference on Tuesday, January 27, the president was persistently asked about a report published by Bloomberg stating that Mexico had canceled an oil shipment to Cuba scheduled for mid-month.
Although she responded, her words left more questions than certainties. Sheinbaum avoided directly confirming or denying the information.
In its place, it reiterated that this is a “sovereign decision”, both of the Mexican state and the state-owned company Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), and that such decisions are made “at the moment they are necessary.”
Its ambiguity led to varied and even opposing headlines, both in agencies and in Mexican and foreign press.
The same speech, multiple headlines
The range of media interpretations was broad:
AP reported that “The President of Mexico confirms the suspension of oil shipments to Cuba: ‘It is a sovereign decision’".
EFE headed the article with the opposite statement: "Mexico does not confirm whether it has halted oil shipments to Cuba and states that it is a 'sovereign' decision."
Reuters highlighted that “Sheinbaum does not deny the suspension of oil shipments to Cuba”, meaning an intermediate approach.
El Universal acknowledged that the halt exists, and stated that “Sheinbaum reacts to the halt of oil shipments to Cuba.”
La Jornada chose an institutional tone: "The sending of oil to Cuba is determined by Pemex."
El País, from Spain, stated that "the decision to stop sending oil to Cuba is from Pemex." declaring the operation suspended.
These approaches reflect not only different editorial styles but also an attempt to interpret what the president did not clearly articulate.
Sheinbaum's words: Between sovereignty and Pemex
Throughout her speech, Sheinbaum reiterated the same ideas several times, with different variations:
"As we have stated, it is a sovereign decision, and Pemex makes its own choices."
"The decision by Mexico to sell or donate oil to Cuba for humanitarian reasons is also related to a sovereign decision that has been in place for many years; it is not recent."
"Just as at one time it wasn't sent and then it was sent, and at another time it wasn't sent."
"The decision of when and how to send it is based on what Pemex defines in terms of the contracts, or ultimately the government, in a humanitarian decision."
There were also explicit references to the international political context:
"Cuba has been under a blockade for too many years, and this blockade has caused supply shortages on the island. Mexico has always been supportive and will continue to be supportive."
"Mexico makes sovereign decisions, and it has not been this government alone that has done so. President López Obrador did it, and before him, even if we did not agree, other governments did the same regarding Cuba."
In several responses, Sheinbaum built a narrative based on three pillars: national sovereignty, tradition of foreign policy, and autonomy of Pemex.
The dialogue with the press: Evasion without denial
The journalists present sought precision, but the responses were elusive. Here are some of the questions that were asked and the president's exact replies:
Journalist: “Is it true that the shipment of oil has been suspended or is about to be suspended?”
— Sheinbaum: “It is a sovereign decision and is made at the moment it is necessary.”
Journalist: “Can you confirm then that there were no political considerations in this suspension of oil shipments by Pemex?”
— Sheinbaum: “Pemex makes decisions in its contractual relationship with Cuba based on the decisions that are made.”
Journalist: "And why is it being sent now and not before?"
— Sheinbaum: "Just as there was a time it wasn't sent and then it was, and another time it wasn't sent and then it was."
Journalist: “Will the shipments be renewed at some point or is that already a decision?”
— Sheinbaum: “Well, in any case, we will inform you.”
Each response reinforced the narrative that there is nothing new under the sun, that shipments to Cuba have historically fluctuated, and that the current decision does not break any pattern.
However, in response to a specific report regarding the cancellation of a shipment scheduled for mid-January, the president chose not to deny it.
What lies behind the silence? The geopolitical context
The original report from Bloomberg noted that Pemex canceled an oil shipment that was scheduled to head to Cuba this month.
He attributed it to pressures from the United States, amid rising tensions over the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a U.S. military operation in Caracas.
From that moment on, shipments from Venezuela to Cuba were halted, and Mexico became one of the last stable suppliers.
According to satellite data and port monitoring, Pemex is believed to have reduced its shipments since September 2025—from an average of 20,000 barrels per day—to lower and uncertain figures.
Analysts like Jorge Piñón from the Energy Institute at the University of Texas point out that:
“The president is walking a tightrope between her political rhetoric with Cuba and the upcoming meeting with the United States regarding the Free Trade Agreement.”
That tightrope also includes internal pressure: opposing sectors in Mexico harshly criticize the energy support to Cuba, while no comment has been made from Havana.
Impact in Cuba: Between Blackouts and Patience
In the streets of Havana, the effects are tangible. The collapsed gas stations, constant blackouts, and widespread shortages heighten the public's sensitivity to any changes in external supply.
Cuba is experiencing one of the worst energy crises in decades. The loss of Venezuelan supply and a potential decrease from Mexico are worsening the situation. With Mexico now serving as the main supplier, it bears a greater diplomatic and political cost.
Conclusion: An unspoken decision that everyone is commenting on
The Mexican president did not deny the suspension, but neither did she confirm it. Instead, she built a discourse around energy autonomy, historical relations with Cuba, and national sovereignty.
For some media outlets, that was enough to consider the shipment suspended; for others, the silence was insufficient.
The fact is that the cancellation of the shipment was not denied, and that Sheinbaum's public responses were carefully measured.
The context—marked by pressures from the U.S., tensions with Venezuela, and negotiations for the T-MEC—provides reasons to believe that the Mexican government is looking to buy time without completely breaking its stance of solidarity with Cuba.
Will the shipments return? Will the silence continue? "In any case, there will be information," said the president.
For now, oil does not flow. Words don't either.
Filed under: