A USA Today report saying the Pentagon is quietly preparing options to attack Cuba if ordered by President Donald Trump has set off alarm among peace advocates and raised questions about Washington’s intentions toward the island.
The story, citing anonymous “sources familiar” with the matter and written by Kim Hjelmgaard, Rick Jervis and Francesca Chambers, follows public remarks by Trump in which he suggested Cuba could be targeted. On Monday he told reporters, referring to operations against Iran, “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this.” He has also said he believes he will “be having the honor of taking Cuba,” and declared of the island’s 11 million residents, “Whether I free it, take it – I think I can do anything I want.”
Those comments revived long-standing fears among critics that Trump is reviving a tradition of U.S. intervention in Cuba that stretches back to the 19th century, when Washington seized influence in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. Opponents view his rhetoric and reported planning as a dangerous escalation that could lead to an unlawful use of force.
Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler warned on X that this is “not a drill,” accusing Trump of preparing “to take the US into another illegal war against Cuba to appease the Miami mafia.” The report and subsequent reactions prompted demands that elected officials move to block any unauthorized military action.
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, asked on NBC News’ Meet the Press about a possible U.S. attack, vowed resistance: “If that happens, there will be fighting, and there will be a struggle, and we will defend ourselves, and if we need to die, we’ll die,” invoking a line from Cuba’s national anthem about dying for the homeland.
Many Cubans have appeared to take Trump’s threats with grim stoicism. The island has endured decades of economic pressure from U.S. sanctions and the consequences of a centrally planned economy; observers note that Cuba’s revolutionary-era government has outlasted numerous American presidents.
Trump’s hostility toward Cuba predates his current term. In his first administration he rolled back the Obama-era normalization of relations and activated provisions of the Helms-Burton Act to allow litigation over properties nationalized after the Cuban Revolution. On his final day in office in 2020 he re-designated Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism — a move widely criticized as unfounded, given the country’s lack of recent terrorist attacks.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has intensified economic and diplomatic pressure on Havana, imposing tighter restrictions on fuel imports that contributed to an energy crisis marked by blackouts and worsening hardship for vulnerable populations, including patients and children.
In Congress, a bipartisan group of senators — Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) — introduced a war powers resolution last month intended to prevent the president from ordering an attack on Cuba without specific congressional authorization. Previous war powers measures related to Iran, Venezuela and other Trump actions have failed to pass, leaving questions about how effectively Congress can constrain any presidential use of force.
The USA Today report—and the administration’s public comments—have reignited debate over U.S. policy toward Cuba and the checks on presidential war-making authority. Advocates for peace and Cuban sovereignty are calling for immediate congressional oversight, while Havana warns it would resist any aggression.
This report was first covered by Common Dreams. Brett Wilkins, a San Francisco–based journalist who contributes to Common Dreams and CounterPunch, reported on these developments.
