Related videos:
The Economist published an analysis titled “Could Donald Trump Save Cuba’s Economy?” in which it presents a central paradox: the very sanctions that are destroying what remains of the Cuban economy could, in the event of the regime's downfall, pave the way for its reconstruction.
The magazine illustrates the situation with the case of Sherritt International, the Canadian nickel company that for 30 years was the only natural resources project managed by the West on the island. Its director became known in the 1990s as "Fidel Castro's favorite capitalist."
The economic pressure from the Trump administration on Cuba in 2026 is unprecedented. Since January, more than 240 sanctions have been imposed against the regime.
On May 1, Trump signed Executive Order 14404, which introduces secondary sanctions against foreign banks and financial institutions that engage with a group of Cuban entities.
A few days later, on May 6, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced that policy and announced new sanctions against three entities: Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), board member Ania Guillermina Lastres Morera, and the mining company Moa Nickel S.A. (MNSA).
On May 15, Sherritt announced its definitive exit from Cuba. Days later, on May 20, it agreed non-bindingly to sell 55% of the company to Gillon Capital LLC, a firm linked to a former Trump advisor, with preliminary approval from the U.S. Departments of State and the Treasury.
Beyond the business operation, the move caught the attention of analysts because it involves one of the few foreign companies with decades of experience operating in Cuba.
The involvement of individuals closely connected to Trump's political circle fueled speculation about possible plans to reposition strategic assets in a potential transition stage.
This fact is significant because it suggests that Washington is already planning for the day after the regime.
The military conglomerate GAESA has been identified as a central target, with a deadline of June 5 for foreign companies to sever ties with it. Spanish companies that were operating with GAESA in the tourism sector have already begun to withdraw from the island.
The impact of these policies on the population has been devastating. The decline in energy imports results in blackouts of more than 20 hours daily in over 55% of the territory, with a projected GDP contraction by CEPAL of -6.5% for 2026.
It is precisely at this point that the paradox developed by The Economist emerges. According to the magazine, the measures that are currently accelerating the economic decline of the country could also be creating the conditions for a future restructuring if a profound political change were to occur on the island.
However, recovery would not be automatic or straightforward. "Even if the island were not burdened by embargoes and communism, it would still represent a poor investment outlook," the magazine notes in the subtitle of its analysis.
Nonetheless, the publication notes that "the infrastructure to handle a business boom, should the regime fall, already exists" and that "Cuban small businesses could thrive," although it acknowledges that "some sectors would take longer to recover."
In that scenario, the Cuban-American capital would play a decisive role. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared on May 14 that Cuba would have a "huge community of Cuban-American expatriates who would return to invest" if there were a genuine opening, but he insisted that "the economy cannot be fixed without changing the system of government."
Businesspeople from the exile community gathered in Miami on April 1 confirmed that capital is available, but it is contingent upon democracy, legal security, and economic freedoms. It is estimated that around 35 billion dollars are waiting to be invested in Cuba during a transition.
These investment expectations are part of a broader debate about the political future of Cuba and the scenarios that could trigger a transformation of the system. The discussion is no longer confined to economic matters but also encompasses geopolitical and strategic issues.
The article from The Economist was published in the same issue as another analysis that asks whether a U.S. military action against Cuba would be effective, reflecting the maximum pressure from Washington on Havana and the increasing international attention towards the possible end of the Cuban dictatorship.
Filed under: