MIAMI (AP) — The Cuban Communist Party has shown an astonishing resilience over six decades in power.

Whether it’s the United States trade embargo to counter Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution, or the widespread starvation of the “special period” that followed the breakup of its Cold War patron, the Soviet Union, both U.S. hostilities and calamities of its own making have proven no match for the country’s leadership.

But perhaps none of those crises pose as grave a threat as the one triggered by an all-but-declared naval siege by the Trump administration as it seeks to force regime change in the wake of its successful ousting of Cuba’s longtime ally Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Even as he fights a war with Iran, President Donald Trump this week said he believes he’ll have “the honor of taking Cuba” soon. While it wasn’t clear exactly what he meant, the U.S. is looking for President Miguel Díaz-Canel to leave power as part of ongoing talks with Havana that could avert some kind of U.S. military intervention.

Without declaring a formal blockade, Trump and his administration have already crippled trade with the island.

In March, supplies of oil, food and other goods to the island collapsed, with no foreign-originating tankers arriving to Cuba, according to shipping data analyzed by Windward, a maritime intelligence firm. The volume of port calls, which includes tankers moving from one Cuban port to another, averaged around 50 per month in 2025 but fell to just 11 in March – all of them arriving from domestic ports. It was the lowest since 2017. Moreover, little relief is in sight: with no tankers and only three container ships — originating in China, India and the Netherlands — listing Cuba as their intended harbor. On Thursday, The Associated Press reported that two vessels, one of them sanctioned by the U.S., could arrive in the coming days carrying Russian fuel.

The stranglehold is disrupting the lives of Cuba’s 11 million residents, who are enduring massive blackouts and a breakdown in medical care due to a lack of fuel to power ambulances and hospital generators. The country, one of the most heavily reliant in the world on oil to generate electricity, produces barely 40% of the oil needed to cover its energy needs.

Ian Ralby, head of I.R. Consilium, a U.S.-based consultancy focused on maritime security, said the United States’ aggressiveness will not endear Trump to Cubans long eager for change.

“Every Cuban resident is suffering the acute inaccessibility to fuel and all the knock-on consequences in terms of access to food, hospitals and free movement,” he said.

The sudden halt in trade has taken place without the White House reapplying restrictions on exports to Cuba that were last loosened during the Biden administration. Indeed, shipments of U.S.-produced poultry, pork and other foodstuffs to Cuba — which account for the vast majority of U.S. exports to the country — last year soared to $490 million, the most since 2009. Non-agricultural exports and humanitarian donations, much of it to Cuba’s emerging private sector, more than doubled.

But emboldened by the U.S. capture of Maduro, Trump has gradually escalated his rhetoric on Cuba, first suggesting he would pursue “a friendly takeover” of the country and more recently telling conservative allies from Latin America that he would “take care” of Cuba once the war with Iran winds down.

While neither he nor the administration has articulated what exactly the pledge meansthe continued presence in the Caribbean of U.S. warships used in the strike against Maduro has led companies and countries that do business with Cuba to self-police.

“Nobody wants to be on the radar of Trump’s Truth Social account,” said John Kavulich, president of the New York-based U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council.

In the run-up to the U.S. military’s ousting of Maduro during a nighttime raid on Jan. 3, Trump declared that the U.S. would block all Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba and even seized a few tankers to enforce what it called a “quarantine,” borrowing a term used by President John F. Kennedy during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Later in the month, Trump signed an executive order threatening tariffs on any country that supplies oil to Cuba. The warning alarmed officials in Mexico, who have long opposed U.S. policy toward Cuba and where state-run oil company Pemex emerged as a valuable lifeline last year as Venezuelan oil exports declined.

Cuba has upped its rhetoric against what it calls a “fuel blockade” by the U.S. But the Trump administration has disputed that characterization, no doubt aware that according to international law any naval operation seen as punishing civilians is considered an illegal act of aggression outside wartime.

“Cuba is a free, independent and sovereign state — nobody dictates what we do,” Díaz-Canel said in a social media post in January. “Cuba does not attack; we are the victims of U.S. attacks for 66 years and we will prepare ourselves to defend the homeland with our last drop of blood.”

Amid mounting criticism that U.S. actions are starving Cuba, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has started to walk back some of the administration’s threats. In January, the State Department sent $3 million in food kits, water purification tablets and other humanitarian assistance items to the island. Then last month, the White House said it would allow U.S. companies to send fuel — including Venezuelan oil — to private businesses in Cuba.

The goal, said Rubio, is to encourage the development of the nation’s small private sector.

“The reason why those industries have not flourished in Cuba is because the regime has not allowed them to flourish,” Rubio said when announcing the private sales.

But it’s unclear if any companies have started fuel shipments and critics say the strategy is unrealistic as most Cuban companies lack capital and the Cuban government has a monopoly on gasoline distribution.

John Felder, owner of Premier Automotive Export, a Maryland-based business that has been selling electric cars and scooters to Cuba since 2012, said most Cubans, even in their current anguish, are fearful of what lies ahead.

“U.S. policies have created the most resilient people in the world and yet all they want to do is buy things in Miami like you and me,” said Felder, who just returned from a four-day business trip to Havana and says he’s never seen conditions worse. “They want change but they don’t want to be controlled by the United States.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government’s top intelligence official told lawmakers Wednesday that Iran’s government “appears to be intact but largely degraded” yet repeatedly dodged questions about whether President Donald Trump had been warned about the fallout from the weeks-old war, including Iran’s attacks on Gulf nations and its effective closure of the vital Strait of Hormuz.

Tulsi Gabbardthe director of national intelligence, also stated in prepared remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee that U.S. attacks on Iran last year had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program and that there had been no effort since then to rebuild that capability.

The statement was notable given Trump’s repeated assertions that a war with Iran was necessary to head off what he said was an imminent threat from the Islamic Republic. Gabbard pointedly said that conclusion was the president’s alone to draw as she declined to directly answer whether the intelligence community had likewise assessed that Iran’s nuclear system presented an imminent risk to the United States.

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she said at one point.

Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia shot back: “It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States.”

The testimony came at the first of two congressional hearings held each year to offer the public a glimpse into the largely secret operations of the government’s intelligence agencies and the threats they confront.

The hearings this week take place at a time of scrutiny over the war with Iran and heightened concerns about terrorism at home after recent attacks at a Michigan synagogue and a Virginia university. Wednesday’s hearing also came a day after the resignation of Joe Kent as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Kent said he could not “in good conscience” back the war and did not agree that Iran posed an imminent threat.

But the hours-long hearing offered few revelations from Gabbard, who repeatedly declined to discuss conversations with Trump, or other senior intelligence officials who testified.

“I am very disappointed,” said an exasperated Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “It’s the only one time of year the public gets to hear from you guys in this kind of setting.”

Gabbard deflected questions about intelligence given to Trump

A frequent line of questioning for Democrats: What intelligence, if any, had been given to Trump about the war’s potential consequences? Trump, for instance, has said he was surprised that Iran responded to strikes from the United States by attacking Arab nations and has been contending with the economic impact of the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a body of water connecting the Persian Gulf to the world’s oceans and a vital passageway for oil and gas.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X that Trump was “fully briefed” on the possibility of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and that the Pentagon has been planning for the possibility of Iran closing it “for DECADES.”

But Trump’s plan to secure the waterway is unclear, especially after he said this week that NATO and most other allies had rejected his calls to help secure it. Iran has said the strait is open except to the U.S. and its allies.

Democrats got few direct answers when they pressed administration officials on what Trump understood about that possibility, with Gabbard saying she would not divulge her conversations with him and CIA Director John Ratcliffe observing that he had been in countless briefings with the president.

“We’re trying to figure out if the president knew what the downside was of the Strait of Hormuz being closed,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat. “Did he know this was going to happen or did he just disregard it?”

Gabbard appeared to try to thread a needle between emphasizing the intelligence community’s views of Iran’s risks — she said, for instance, that internal tensions would continue to increase even if the regime’s leadership remained intact — and not completely echoing the president’s arguments of an imminent threat.

At one point, Warner noted that Gabbard, in her prepared written statement submitted to the committee, said Iran’s nuclear enrichment program had been obliterated in strikes last year, but her opening remarks on Wednesday did not use that language.

He asked whether she had omitted that reference to conform to Trump’s claims of an imminent threat. Gabbard insisted that she had skipped some of her written statement in the interest of time.

Trump has sought to distance himself from Kent. Ratcliffe tried to do the same Wednesday when he was asked whether intelligence supported Kent’s assessment that Iran was not an imminent threat. “The intelligence reflects the contrary,” Ratcliffe said.

Questions about other attacks and Gabbard’s presence at an FBI search

Gabbard and Ratcliffe fielded the majority of questions, but other witnesses included the heads of the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, as well as FBI Director Kash Patel, who was pressed about the terrorism threat amid a spate of attacks this month. Those include a man with a past terrorism conviction who opened fire inside an Old Dominion University classroom in Virginia and a Lebanese-born man in Michigan who drove his car into a synagogue.

One subject that did not receive attention: a deadly missile strike on an elementary school in Iran, which people familiar with the matter have said the U.S. likely carried out as a result of outdated intelligence.

Apart from Iran, Gabbard was pressed on her presence at an FBI search in January of the main election hub in Fulton County, Georgia, where agents seized voter data related to the 2020 presidential election. Her appearance at a domestic law enforcement operation raised eyebrows given that Gabbard’s office is meant to focus squarely on foreign threats.

Warner described her appearance there as part of an “organized effort to misuse her national security powers to interfere in domestic politics and potentially provide a pretext for the president’s unconstitutional efforts to seize control of the upcoming elections.”

Gabbard responded that she was present for the search at the request of the president but did not participate, though she later said she helped to oversee it.

The House Intelligence Committee will hold its own threats hearing on Thursday.

_____

Associated Press writers Mike Catalini, Ben Finley and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jay Allen is a fan of President Donald Trumpand voted for him on the belief that the Republican would cut taxes and trim regulations, helping his manufacturing business in northeast Arkansas.

But the tariffs at the core of Trump’s economic agenda have wreaked havoc on his company, Allen Engineering Corp., which makes industrial equipment used to install, finish and pave concrete. The import taxes have raised the costs of engines, steel, gearboxes and clutches made abroad that Allen needs to build power trowels that can sell for up to $100,000 each.

Allen’s experience embodies a growing body of evidence that the tariffs that Trump said would help American factories are, in fact, squashing many of them. The problem could get worse as the administration scrambles to craft new tariffs to replace the emergency import taxes that the Supreme Court ruled illegal in February.

Allen said he ran his company at a loss in 2025 because of tariffs. His payroll has fallen to 140 workers from a peak of 205. To get by this year, he has hiked prices by 8% to 10%, even though that might mean fewer sales.

“What’s really sad is the unintended consequences of his tariffs are hurting manufacturing in our country,” said Allen. “Unfortunately, the working-class people are getting squeezed.”

Manufacturing jobs have declined during Trump’s first year back

Trump’s core rationale for tariffs has been that they would force more factories to open in the U.S. and would generate enough revenue to close federal budget deficits. But that hasn’t materialized.

Factories continue to shed workers, with 98,000 manufacturing jobs lost during Trump’s first full 12 months back in the White House. American companies that foot the bill for tariffs are now suing the Trump administration for more than $130 billion in tariff refunds. Meanwhile, the federal deficit is projected to climb over the next decade.

The White House maintains that construction spending is high, more workers are being hired to build factories, new investments are being made and labor productivity in manufacturing is increasing — which could eventually fuel a factory revival.

“It takes time to get production online, and therefore it will be some more time before we fully materialize the benefits of the president’s policies,” Pierre Yared, the acting chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in an email.

Construction is up — but that’s due to Biden’s bill

Some of the bright spots in construction cited by the White House appear to be the result of programs launched by then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Factory construction spending began to accelerate in 2022 with the anticipation of government support from Biden’s CHIPS and Science Actwhich included big subsidies for computer chip plants. The law was a primary contributor to a historic surge in the annualized rate of construction spending on manufacturing facilities, said Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the economic policy group Employ America.

Construction spending on factories has slipped during Trump’s presidency, but the pace remains relatively high largely because of continuing work on Biden-era projects in Arizona, Texas and Idaho, Amarnath said.

Amarnath has also gone through the interviews regional Federal Reserve banks have held with businesses. Those comments show some companies might expand by taking advantage of Trump’s tax breaks on investments in equipment and new buildings.

But while the pharmaceutical drug sector might be expanding, the comments show no overall uptick in manufacturing because of Trump’s tariffs.

“You don’t get the sense that there is this new manufacturing renaissance underway,” Amarnath said.

Uncertainty in tariffs has deterred investments

Based on orders, proclamations and other statements, Trump has taken more than 50 actions on tariffs so far — and that tally doesn’t include the tariff threats he regularly makes on social media or in conversations with reporters but hasn’t formally put in place.

The flurry of announcementsreversals, exemptions and legal challenges — as well as Trump’s decision to bypass Congress to impose tariffs — has made it difficult for smaller manufacturing companies to plan.

For example, Allen Engineering imports its 75-horsepower diesel engines from Germany. Building them in the United States would require a $20 million investment — a huge risk if the status of the tariffs is unclear.

Are engine-makers “going to spend that kind of money to move production from Germany to the U.S. when they don’t know what the landscape is going to be in three years?” Allen said. “I don’t know who is going to be in the White House, and what the stance is going to be on these tariffs.”

Joseph Steinberg, an economist at the University of Toronto, said research shows that under the best-case scenario “it would take a decade for manufacturing employment to rise above where it was before tariffs were enacted.”

But Steinberg said “the current situation is nothing like the ‘best case,’” since U.S. trade policy is unsettled and that leaves companies reluctant to expand.

Equipment makers have been hit hard by rising steel costs

About 98% of U.S. manufacturing establishments have fewer than 200 workers, according to Census Bureau data, and don’t have the kind of name-brand recognition or lobbying heft to minimize the damage from tariffs that big players like Apple, General Motors and Ford possess.

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers in February reported that America’s share of global manufacturing severely lags China’s. The group has urged tax credits to offset the expense of tariffs, and specifically called for tariff relief on raw materials, parts and components that cannot be acquired domestically at scale.

Steel tariffs have been a particular concern. Trump imposed them last March and hiked them to 50% in June. They were not affected by the Supreme Court decision.

Trump has credited the tariffs with restoring profits at American steel mills. But they have hurt companies that use that steel, like Calder Brothers in South Carolina, which makes equipment to pave asphalt.

“The steel tariffs were the first thing that got my attention,” said Glen Calder, the company’s president. “My steel pricing jumped 25% two weeks before the tariffs went into effect for domestic steel. The market price just jumped. It has stayed elevated.”

Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus has grown

Part of Trump’s push to expand manufacturing was to help American companies compete against China — a country he plans to visit this spring for talks with its leader, Xi Jinping.

But the U.S. manufacturing trade imbalance rose last year under Trump instead of narrowing. Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus with the world climbed to a record $1.2 trillion.

This trend exposes one of the big problems with Trump’s tariff strategy, said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at American Economic Liberties Project. She noted that he largely bypassed Congress and failed to address gaps in the World Trade Organization’s rules for the trade frameworks that he negotiated with other countries.

Instead of working with partners to ensure there were penalties for foreign manufacturers with abusive labor practices and unfair subsidies, Trump chose against rallying partners to counter China as a unified group. American manufacturers are at a disadvantage, Wallach argued, because there is not a coalition of nations that can impose penalties for currency manipulation, subsidies and schemes to evade tariffs.

“The general revulsion of this administration to international cooperation means they’re trying to do it alone,” Wallach said.