Listen to the article
Donald Trump suggested Wednesday that the United States could potentially execute a “friendly takeover” of Cuba, reviving rhetoric reminiscent of America’s past interventionist policies toward the island nation just 90 miles from Florida’s shore.
The former president and Republican nominee made the remarks during a town hall event in Oaks, Pennsylvania, while discussing what he described as Cuba’s influence in Venezuela. Trump claimed Cuba is “totally controlling” Venezuela due to its close alliance with President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
“We should do a friendly takeover of Cuba,” Trump told the audience. “You know, we’ve done friendly takeovers. The concept of a friendly takeover is interesting.”
The provocative statement comes amid heightened tensions between Washington and Havana, which have persisted since the 1959 revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. While the Obama administration had worked to normalize relations with Cuba in 2015, Trump largely reversed these policies during his presidency, reinstating travel restrictions and economic sanctions.
Cuba experts expressed alarm at Trump’s comments, noting they echo a troubling history of U.S. intervention in the Caribbean nation. The United States maintained significant control over Cuba’s affairs following the Spanish-American War until Castro’s revolution, and later sponsored the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961.
“This kind of rhetoric is extremely dangerous and counterproductive,” said William LeoGrande, professor of government at American University and a specialist in U.S.-Cuba relations. “It reinforces the Cuban government’s narrative that the United States still harbors imperial ambitions toward the island and justifies their security state.”
The Cuban government has not officially responded to Trump’s remarks, but state media outlets have previously characterized the former president’s policies as hostile and aimed at destabilizing the country’s socialist system.
Trump’s comments also highlight his continued focus on Latin America as a campaign issue. He has frequently criticized the Biden administration’s approach to Venezuela, where Maduro remains in power despite international pressure and U.S. sanctions. The Trump administration had pursued an aggressive “maximum pressure” campaign against Maduro’s government, recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate president.
Venezuela holds vast oil reserves and was once one of the world’s largest petroleum exporters before its economy collapsed amid political turmoil and mismanagement. Cuba, meanwhile, has provided Venezuela with doctors, military advisers, and intelligence assistance in exchange for subsidized oil shipments crucial to the island’s economy.
Political analysts suggest Trump’s comments may be aimed at Florida’s influential Cuban American and Venezuelan American communities, which have traditionally supported Republican candidates who take hard-line positions against socialist governments in Latin America.
“Trump is clearly trying to energize his base in South Florida,” said Eduardo Gamarra, professor of political science at Florida International University. “These communities respond positively to tough rhetoric against leftist regimes in their home countries, but actual policy implementation is much more complex than campaign promises.”
The Biden campaign quickly condemned Trump’s remarks, calling them “reckless” and “reminiscent of failed Cold War policies.” A spokesperson added that such statements “undermine America’s standing in Latin America and play into the hands of authoritarian regimes by reinforcing anti-American sentiment.”
Foreign policy experts note that any attempt to forcibly change Cuba’s government would violate international law and likely face widespread condemnation, including from U.S. allies. Additionally, such action could destabilize the Caribbean region and potentially trigger a humanitarian crisis.
The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, a principle that would apply to Trump’s suggestion regardless of whether he characterized it as “friendly.”
As the presidential campaign intensifies, Trump’s comments on Cuba add to a growing list of controversial foreign policy positions that have raised concerns among diplomatic circles about the potential direction of U.S. international relations should he return to office.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


12 Comments
A ‘friendly takeover’ of Cuba? That’s an alarming and potentially destabilizing suggestion, given the complex history. Any policy shifts regarding Cuba should proceed cautiously, prioritizing diplomacy, regional cooperation, and respect for Cuban sovereignty.
Reviving talk of US intervention in Cuba is concerning. Given the history, any such moves would likely be met with strong resistance and condemnation, both domestically and internationally. A more nuanced, multilateral approach may yield better long-term results.
The concept of a ‘friendly takeover’ of Cuba is extremely troubling and seems to disregard the sovereignty and self-determination of the Cuban people. Any policy shifts regarding Cuba should proceed cautiously, with a focus on diplomacy and regional cooperation, not unilateral intervention.
The notion of a ‘friendly takeover’ of Cuba is highly problematic and raises serious questions about respect for national sovereignty and the right of the Cuban people to self-determination. Any policy changes regarding Cuba should prioritize diplomacy, conflict resolution, and regional cooperation.
While addressing Cuban influence is understandable, the idea of a ‘friendly takeover’ is highly problematic and raises major red flags. Such an approach would likely be met with fierce resistance and condemnation, both domestically and internationally. Diplomatic solutions should be the priority.
The idea of a ‘friendly takeover’ of Cuba raises alarm bells. While addressing Cuban influence is a valid concern, unilateral US action along those lines would be extremely risky and counterproductive. Pursuing diplomatic solutions with regional partners may be a wiser path forward.
A ‘friendly takeover’ of Cuba? That’s a concerning suggestion, given the complex history of US-Cuba relations. Any potential policy changes should be approached with great care and diplomacy, prioritizing the wellbeing of the Cuban people.
Agreed. The concept of a ‘friendly takeover’ raises many questions and risks. Cuba’s sovereignty and the right of its people to self-determination must be respected.
Hmm, a ‘friendly takeover’ of Cuba? That’s a concerning proposition that seems to echo past US interventionist policies that have had disastrous consequences. A more nuanced, multilateral approach focused on diplomacy and conflict resolution would be far preferable.
Reviving talk of a ‘friendly takeover’ of Cuba is deeply concerning and seems to ignore the complex history of US-Cuba relations. Pursuing constructive diplomatic solutions, in coordination with regional partners, would be a far wiser path forward than unilateral interventionist policies.
While I understand the desire to address Cuba’s influence in Venezuela, a ‘friendly takeover’ seems like an overly aggressive and risky approach. There may be more constructive diplomatic solutions that could achieve the desired outcomes.
You raise a fair point. Diplomacy and de-escalation should be the priority, not unilateral interventionist policies that could backfire and worsen regional tensions.