Results

The comparative different methods of Cuba policies under the Trump and Biden regimes

are found to be a major element. The Trump administration had escalated the implementation of

the sanctions regime against Cuba by adopting new provisions that targeted all means of sending

remittances and foreign businesses. It was done through the imposition of sanctions and

economic embargoes that aimed to economically separate the Cuban government from the

world’s economies. However, instead of lifting most of the sanctions, as some critics and allies

would have liked, the new administration has kept almost all of the Trump-era policy intact, with

the only exception of relaxing the rules for humanitarian support and the exchange of goods.

Regarding diplomacy, the Trump administration decided not to carry out any consensus

with Cuba anymore, ordering the withdrawal of the majority of its embassy staff from Havana.

The team of Biden struggled to rebuild many vacant responsible positions although no members

of the higher level met yet for the dialogues. Travelling to Cuba was done with difficulty, too,

because Trump applied almost all restricted categories that most authorized educational

exchanges of the people cannot occur. Biden's assertion of equally strict facemask regulations

without setting a date for weakening them has further raised public awareness of the situation.

Another divide, besides the rhetoric from both sides, is the oratory. Trump’s campaign rhetoric

was indeed aggressive. He seemed defiant with those against his moves, framing policy shifts on

Cuba as an absolute rebuttal of Obama’s opening to Cuba while at the same time being popular

with hardline Cuban American voters in Florida. Biden’s handling of economic pressure moves

is being seen as awkward because he is trying to satisfy those who want it to be lifted.

In a diplomatic, Trump shifted to a suppression tactic of isolation in order to gain

concessions from the Cuban government, the end results was a more favorable to Cuban regime.

In contrast, Biden looks stuck in the past, fighting an old battle that is hardly relevant to modern political realities. He seems so afraid of domestic political backlash that he cannot make the slightest prudent step. Trump's policies were in line with the “maximum pressure” doctrine, something that appealed to his electoral opportunities in Florida. Biden either does not want to lose face and look malicious in a bid to normalize relations, perhaps more for the benefit of the conteders in Congress and his own Cuban-American supporters.

The possibility of divergence in the policy is still high for the forthcoming 2024 election result, as well as any events occurring within Cuba and the broader geopolitical positioning in the region. For any second term for Biden, America’s conservative camp will aggressively struggle against the efforts to lift embargo and terror designations, thereby creating a huge opposition against such activities. In addition, if the Republicans were to win the presidency and the victory was by a hardliner, then there would be the renewal of the confrontational “maximum pressure” approach with tightened sanctions. It limits dialogue and definition of regime change efforts; such actions may consequently result in the exacerbation of humanitarian costs and push Cuba to rivals such as Russia and China.

Inner political turbulence in Cuba or rapid market reforms will entail respective changes in the U.S. policy calculations. It will also deepen the crisis in which a huge wave of people escape the country. Liquidation multilateral factors like the Venezuela crisis and U.S.-China competition will obstruct how reasonably Washington will treat Cuba as they have their own business. Nevertheless, resolving the problem by mitigating domestic imperatives and ideological strife will demand commitment and diplomatic expertise of joint cooperation in the trade, security, migration and culture domains.