The Trump administration has shown no interest in pursuing a policy of peaceful engagement with Cuba based on respect for national sovereignty and the principle of self-determination, during either his first term in office or his current presidency. In fact, on both occasions, the US government has implemented coercive economic measures designed to increase pressure on the Cuban government, with the broader objective of weakening the existing political system and encouraging political change without direct military intervention.
More recently, however, there has been a noticeable shift in attitude, as President Trump suggested that there could be “a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly takeover.” Other provocative and undiplomatic statements included: “whether I free it, take it, I think I can do anything I want with it”; and, “You want to know the truth? They’re a very weakened nation now.” President Trump even went so far as to state that he believed he would have the “honor of taking Cuba.” These comments imply that the administration has not ruled out the possibility of even more coercive measures, including the use of military force.
Speaking to reporters after a G7 meeting in France on March 27, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that Cuba was a disaster due to the failure of its economic system and asserted that improving the future of the country would require replacing its leadership, transforming the political regime, and restructuring its economic model. Accordingly, the Trump administration is seeking the removal of Cuban President Miguel Mario Díaz-Canel Bermúdez and the transfer of power away from the Communist Party to a more compliant leadership that would be willing to pursue the economic restructuring long advocated by foreign investors and Cuban exiles in South Florida.
On May 18, President Miguel Díaz-Canel responded by stating that,
. . .the threats of military aggression against Cuba by the world’s most powerful nation are well known. The threat itself constitutes a violation of international law. If carried out, such aggression would result in a bloodbath with incalculable consequences and would have a profoundly destabilizing impact on regional peace and security.
In fact, he has consistently argued that a US invasion of Cuba would entail significant costs and have far-reaching implications for the security of Cuba, the United States, and the wider region. According to Díaz-Canel, such an intervention would be met with guerrilla resistance, as Cubans are prepared to defend their sovereignty even at the cost of national sacrifice. Libertarians should be fully supportive of Cuba in the event of such an altercation, as Rothbard stated that:
. . .revolutionary guerrilla war can be far more consistent with libertarian principles than any inter-State war. By the very nature of their activities, guerrillas defend the civilian population against the depredations of a State; hence, guerrillas, inhabiting as they do the same country as the enemy State, cannot use nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Further: since guerrillas rely for victory on the support and aid of the civilian population, they must, as a basic part of their strategy, spare civilians from harm and pinpoint their activities solely against the State apparatus and its armed forces. Hence, guerrilla war returns us to the ancient and honorable virtue of pinpointing the enemy and sparing innocent civilians. And guerrillas, as part of their quest for enthusiastic civilian support, often refrain from conscription and taxation and rely on voluntary support for men and materiel. (emphasis in original)
President Díaz-Canel has also maintained that the United States would be unable to achieve regime change through economic pressure, including the ongoing embargo or other forms of coercion. He reaffirmed that he would not resign under external pressure and has reiterated his commitment to defending Cuban sovereignty and self-determination. At the same time, he has called for mutually respectful dialogue with the United States and opposed efforts to bring about regime change in Cuba, similar to those pursued in Venezuela and Iran.
The belief that an economic siege can bring about the collapse of socialist Cuba and facilitate the establishment of a free-market system rests on a particular assumption: that economic and social transformation can be deliberately engineered through external pressure. Such a view suggests that a market order does not need to emerge organically from domestic institutions, individual choices, and voluntary exchange, but can instead be imposed through coercive measures directed by a foreign state.
This presents a fundamental tension with the principles of classical liberal and libertarian thought. If free markets are understood as outcomes of spontaneous processes, as opposed to conscious design, then the notion that a foreign government can create a capitalist order through economic sanctions and political pressure is difficult to reconcile with the invisible-hand thesis and the principle of laissez-faire. Ultimately, a system based on voluntary cooperation and decentralized decision-making cannot be easily brought into existence through policies aimed at restriction, economic control, and collective punishment.
The case of Cuba illustrates this contradiction. For decades, the economic embargo imposed by Washington has been justified as a means of weakening the socialist government and encouraging a transition towards a market-oriented economy. Yet, the political and economic system of Cuba has demonstrated resilience in the face of this sustained external pressure, which raises important questions about the effectiveness of economic coercion as a tool for social transformation. Instead of producing the political outcomes sought by Washington, these measures have imposed significant costs on the Cuban population, while demonstrating the limitations of attempting to engineer institutional change from outside.
From a libertarian perspective, the broader lesson extends beyond the specific case of Cuba. The pursuit of freedom and market exchange cannot be advanced through policies that rely on coercion and external control. If liberty depends on voluntary action and decentralized decision-making, then attempts to impose a particular social order through state power—whether domestic or foreign—risk contradicting the very principles they claim to promote. Rothbard argued that, within the libertarian tradition, the goal in foreign affairs is “to keep government from interfering in the affairs of other governments or other countries.” That is to say, it aims to “shackle government from acting abroad just as we try to shackle government at home.” Rothbard specifically stated that:
For the libertarian is interested in reducing as much as possible the area of State aggression against all private individuals. The only way to do this, in international affairs, is for the people of each country to pressure their own State to confine its activities to the area it monopolizes and not to attack other States or aggress against their subjects. In short, the objective of the libertarian is to confine any existing State to as small a degree of invasion of person and property as possible. And this means the total avoidance of war. The people under each State should pressure “their” respective States not to attack one another, or, if a conflict should break out, to withdraw from it as quickly as physically possible.
Rothbard insisted that “libertarians in the United States must center their critical attention on the imperial and warlike activities of their own government.” Moreover, Rothbard also reminded libertarians that, in “the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialist government has been the United States.” In doing so, he recognized that “such a statement is bound to shock Americans, subject as we have been for decades to intense propaganda by the Establishment on the invariable saintliness, peaceful intentions, and devotion to justice of the American government in foreign affairs.”
