Rubio's five lies about Cuba

Rubio on May 5, 2026 -- public domain image

By Daniela López Ferreiro, translated from the Spanish

Secretary of State Marco Rubio doesn't speak to the Cuban people: he speaks about the Cuban people. His message on May 20, presented as an offer of help and an explanation of the Cuban crisis, is in reality a carefully constructed piece of political manipulation. The Florida hawk takes real issues, strips them of context, exaggerates certain facts, hides others, and boils Cuba’s complexity down to a slogan that serves Washington’s agenda: everything bad comes from Havana, and all good things would come from the United States.

The pattern is familiar: first, deny the impact of the blockade, then pin the crisis entirely on an internal scapegoat. Then he throws out some shocking, though unverified, numbers to stir up outrage. Later, he transforms what could have been a mild critique of economic opacity into a full-blown condemnation. Finally, it presents as "aid to the people" what is in reality a political operation to bypass the Cuban State and open channels of intervention.

That is the sequence of lies of the Secretary of State:

1. The biggest lie: "the crisis is not due to the U.S. oil blockade"

Rubio claims that the reason Cubans experience blackouts isn’t due to an “oil blockade” by the United States. That statement is the political centerpiece of his speech and also its biggest lie.

Anyone who takes a close look at the Cuban reality knows the electricity crisis can’t be blamed solely on Washington. The National Electric System is facing a range of issues, including aging thermoelectric plants, frequent breakdowns, insufficient maintenance, lack of investment, outdated technology, and a heavy reliance on imported fuel. Recognizing these internal factors doesn’t justify ignoring the impact of sanctions, financial pressure, and energy restrictions imposed by the United States.

Therein lies Rubio's manipulation. He allows for only one interpretation; denying the impact of a specific policy. For years, the United States has put pressure on Cuba’s energy supply by sanctioning companies, ships, and operators involved in fuel transport, restricting financial operations, and making it more costly for the island to access oil, credit, insurance, spare parts, and technology.

The Cuban energy crisis has multiple contributing factors. But for this very reason, it’s wrong to act as if Washington bears no responsibility. Rubio needs to separate the blackouts from the blockade to make U.S. policy seem free of blame. The daily suffering of the Cuban people is made to appear solely as the result of internal management, rather than also being the outcome of a deliberate strategy aimed at worsening the island’s material hardships.

The lie isn’t about denying that Cuba has its own internal problems. It’s about using those problems as a distraction to hide the responsibility of the United States.

2. The lie of the sole culprit: "the real reason is that they have looted billions"

The second piece of Rubio's speech consists of presenting the lack of electricity, fuel and food as a direct result of an elite that has plundered the country. It’s a politically effective approach because it touches on a sensitive issue: the presence of economic structures like GAESA in key sectors and the legitimate demand for more transparency in Cuba’s economy.

But Rubio is not looking for transparency. He is looking for an alibi. Their approach is to twist a partial truth into a false conclusion: that all the hardships of the Cuban people stem solely from internal corruption, ignoring the impact of the economic blockade, financial sanctions, decline in foreign income, trade restrictions, energy crisis, reduced production, and international pressure from Washington.

It’s a framing lie. He doesn’t have to make everything up; just arranging the facts in a misleading way is enough. Internal factors are the only cause. The external disappears. Sanctions evaporate. Bank persecution does not exist. The effects of the blockade on foreign trade, investment, international payments, maritime transport, or imports aren’t part of this story.

However, the blockade is not a propaganda excuse for Havana. It is a real policy, supported by successive US administrations and overwhelmingly rejected by the international community for decades at the United Nations. Even actors who have political differences with the Cuban government have recognized the harmful impact of the U.S. measures on the economy and the standard of living of the population.

Rubio can't acknowledge that because it undermines his entire argument.. If it recognizes that the blockade aggravates the crisis, then the United States ceases to be the supposed external benefactor and appears as what it is: an active part of the problem.

3. The lie of absolute figures: "GAESA controls 70% of the economy and has 18 billion dollars"

The third lie works through catchy, bold, and easy-to-repeat numbers. Rubio claims that GAESA controls 70% of the Cuban economy and has $18 billion in assets. From a communication standpoint, the phrase works—it’s simple, bold, and grabs attention. From a journalistic perspective, however, it’s far more problematic.

GAESA exists. Its weight in strategic sectors of the Cuban economy is also real. It’s one thing to say it’s an important economic conglomerate, but it’s another to present as fact a figure without audited public balance sheets, a transparent methodology, or sufficient independent verification.

Rubio uses the number as a political weapon. It is not presented as an estimate, hypothesis or calculation open to debate. It’s a propaganda tactic that turns vague information into absolute certainty, repeats it as proof, and uses it to steer the debate away from the blockade toward a supposed single explanation for the crisis.

In a serious analysis, a figure without verifiable methodology cannot function as definitive proof. You can ask questions. It can justify investigations. It can demand transparency. But it cannot be used as a basis to absolve Washington of its sanctions policy or to present the United States as an outside player in Cuba's economic deterioration.

Rubio does not seek to clarify GAESA's accounts. He aims to stir up targeted outrage. The figure isn't used for clarification, but to settle the debate: if “they have 18 billion,” then the blockade is no longer an issue. That's the catch.

4. The Absolute Lie: "Nothing" of What the Cuban Government Earns Reaches the People

The fourth lie stands out even more because of its absolute nature. Rubio says that nothing of the the profits reach the people. That "nothing" is not an analysis.

It is a propaganda exercise. The phrase is designed to deliver complete moral condemnation rather than to accurately depict reality.

The political goal is clear: to create the image of a caste that takes everything, while the United States presents itself as the actor seeking to help the Cuban people "directly'. Rubio needs that image because it sets the stage for the next move: justifying Washington’s bypass of the Cuban state, disregarding its institutions, and deciding from the outside who can receive, manage, or distribute resources within the country.

Totalizing exaggeration serves a strategic function. It dehumanizes the adversary, eliminates nuances, erases contradictions and turns any policy of external pressure into a supposedly moral act. This is how narrative warfare works: first a totally corrupt enemy is built; then the intervention is presented as a rescue.

5. The humanitarian lie: "The United States offers a new relationship directly with the Cuban people"

The fifth lie is the most sophisticated. Rubio says the U.S. offers a new relationship with Cuba, but "directly" with the Cuban people and not with its institutions. It also offers food and medical aid, but only if it’s distributed by actors deemed “trustworthy” by Washington, like the Catholic Church or other organizations, rather than by the Cuban state.

At first glance, it seems like a humanitarian proposal. In reality, it is a political operation. No country forms a bilateral relationship “directly with the people” of another nation while completely bypassing its institutions, unless it’s aiming to create a framework of pressure, disregard, or regime change. The formula sounds democratic, but it denies sovereignty. It sounds supportive, but it comes with sanctions. It seems humanitarian, but it requires Cuba to accept channels set by the very power that blockades it.

When humanitarian aid is offered alongside sanctions, financial pressure, energy restrictions, and delegitimization campaigns, it stops being just assistance. It becomes an instrument of political warfare.

Rubio is trying to create an artificial divide between two elements of the same strategy: on one side, economically suffocating Cuba; on the other, positioning himself as the one offering conditional relief. It is the logic of the fence and almsgiving. First, it contributes to creating or aggravating scarcity; then help is offered under onerous political conditions; Finally, the blockaded government is accused of not accepting the "generosity" of the blockader.

That is why the phrase "directly with the people" is misleading. It does not propose a respectful relationship between countries. It proposes a vertical relationship between an outside power and a society that is to be separated from its institutions. It seeks to politically manage suffering.

What Rubio offers is not a real way out. It is a narrative of surrender: accepting the sole blame, accepting imposed channels, accepting conditional aid and accepting that Cuban sovereignty be replaced by a relationship designed from Washington.

This work was translated and shared via a License CC-BY-NC