Business & Economics
US Tariffs Threat on Cuba’s Oil Imports Forces Mexican Diplomatic Tightrope
On 30 Jan 2026, Donald Trump’s executive order threatening tariffs on any nation exporting oil to Cuba jolted Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum into restarting suspended fuel deliveries while rushing to negotiate with Washington to dodge economic blowback.
Focusing Facts
- The order, signed 30 Jan 2026, brands Cuba an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security and empowers tariffs on imports from countries that ship the island its required ~100,000 b/d of foreign fuel.
- Pemex and its affiliate exported 20,100 b/d of crude and 2,700 b/d of refined products to Cuba in 2024—about 1 % of Mexico’s output—worth roughly US$600 million.
- State utility UNE reports Cuba’s generators are producing only ~1,200 MW against 3,300 MW demand, leading to blackouts of up to 20 hours.
Context
Washington has long used energy choke-points as leverage—from the 1941 oil embargo on Japan to the 1981 sanctions on Soviet gas pipelines—and the Cuba embargo dating back to 1962 shows how such pressure can endure for generations even when leadership changes. Trump’s 2026 decree extends the logic of extraterritorial sanctions, testing Mexico’s post-NAFTA dependency on US trade and its historic policy of non-intervention (the 1930 Estrada Doctrine). Sheinbaum’s balancing act illustrates how mid-sized exporters can be pinned between great-power politics and humanitarian concerns, a pattern likely to recur as fossil-fuel flows remain strategic even in a decarbonizing world. Whether this moment becomes a footnote or a pivot hinges on if energy weaponization accelerates regime change or merely deepens Cuba’s “Special Period”-style hardship; on a 100-year horizon, it may be remembered less for Cuba’s fate than for how sanctions culture reshaped the norms of international commerce.
Perspectives
Latin American progressive media
Latin American progressive media — Portray Trump’s threatened tariffs as a looming humanitarian disaster and argue Mexico should keep aiding Cuba while pursuing diplomacy. Often sympathetic to left-leaning governments in the region, they foreground U.S. aggression and humanitarian rhetoric while glossing over Cuba’s own policy failures or Washington’s stated security rationale.
Global financial & business press
Global financial & business press — Frame the tariff threat chiefly as a trade and market risk for Mexico, suggesting the economic stakes will likely push Mexico to scale back or halt oil shipments despite humanitarian concerns. With audiences focused on markets, they privilege economic calculus and may underplay ethical or geopolitical dimensions, implicitly treating humanitarian costs as secondary to trade stability.
Energy-industry outlets & Cuba-aligned reporting
Energy-industry outlets & Cuba-aligned reporting — Describe the U.S. move as coercive “blackmail” that will worsen Cuba’s fuel shortages and blackouts, warning it could deter remaining suppliers. By amplifying Cuban officials’ language and detailed supply data, they cast the U.S. as the sole aggressor and may minimize wider regional security concerns or Cuba’s internal management problems.