By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 30, 2026 — Morning Edition
For more than six decades, sanctions have occupied the center of American policy toward Cuba.
The debate has become almost ritualistic.
One side demands more sanctions.
The other demands their elimination.
One side says economic pressure is necessary to confront the Cuban government.
The other argues that sanctions have failed and primarily hurt ordinary people.
Perhaps Washington has been asking the wrong question.
Instead of simply asking whether America should sanction Cuba, we should ask:
Who exactly are we trying to sanction?
A government?
A military-controlled enterprise?
An official responsible for abuses?
Or a Cuban family trying to put food on the table?
Those are not the same thing.
And American policy should be sophisticated enough to distinguish between them.
Sanctions Must Have an Objective
A sanction should not exist simply because another sanction existed before it.
Every restriction should have a defined policy objective.
What behavior are we trying to change?
Who possesses the authority to change it?
What incentive does the targeted person or institution have to respond?
How will success be measured?
And what happens if the sanction produces no meaningful change after years or decades?
These are ordinary policy questions.
Yet Cuba policy is often treated differently.
Longevity itself sometimes becomes evidence that a policy must continue.
It should be the opposite.
The longer a policy exists, the more important it becomes to evaluate whether it is accomplishing its purpose.
The Cuban Government Has Responsibilities
There should be no confusion about this point.
Cuba’s economic problems cannot all be blamed on the United States.
The Cuban government controls domestic economic policy.
It controls regulations affecting businesses.
It determines many rules governing agriculture.
It manages major state enterprises.
It makes decisions affecting investment, currency, employment and political institutions.
When those policies fail, Havana must accept responsibility.
American sanctions cannot become a universal explanation for every empty shelf, every inefficient institution or every economic mistake.
Cuba needs internal reform regardless of what Washington does.
But acknowledging Havana’s responsibility does not eliminate Washington’s responsibility to evaluate the consequences of American policy.
Both can be true.
A Sanction Against an Official Is Different From a Shortage Affecting a Family
If an individual is credibly implicated in serious human-rights abuses, corruption or activities threatening American national security, targeted measures may be appropriate under applicable law.
If a particular entity directly supports activities the United States has legitimately decided to restrict, government action may also be justified.
But broad economic restrictions require another level of scrutiny.
Because economies are interconnected.
A restriction affecting banking can affect payments.
A restriction affecting shipping can affect transportation costs.
A restriction affecting investment can affect employment.
A restriction affecting energy transactions can eventually affect electricity, transportation and production.
The politician imposing a sanction may intend to pressure a government.
The Cuban family experiences the policy somewhere much further down the economic chain.
That difference matters.
Ask the Cuban Mother
Washington debates Cuba through statutes, regulations, executive actions and political speeches.
The Cuban mother experiences policy differently.
Can she find medicine?
How much does food cost?
Will electricity remain on tonight?
Can her son find work?
Will her daughter leave the country?
Can the family afford transportation?
Does a relative abroad need to send money again this month?
Not every one of those problems is caused by American policy.
Many are not.
But if an American policy materially contributes to hardship, Washington should be willing to acknowledge and evaluate that consequence.
Foreign policy should not require pretending that ordinary people do not exist.
Sanctions Should Move Upward, Not Downward
The principle should be simple:
Pressure should be concentrated as closely as possible on the people and institutions responsible for the conduct Washington seeks to change.
The farther a sanction travels down the economic ladder, the more likely it is to affect someone with absolutely no authority over government policy.
A senior official can influence government decisions.
A military-controlled enterprise may influence state resources.
A dishwasher in Havana cannot.
A pensioner cannot.
A mother searching for medicine cannot.
A farmer trying to obtain equipment cannot.
A small entrepreneur trying to keep a business open cannot.
If those people bear significant costs while decision-makers remain protected, policymakers should ask whether the sanction is properly designed.
Private Cuban Enterprise Deserves a Different Approach
One of the most important developments inside Cuba has been the growth of non-state economic activity.
That creates an opportunity for American policy.
Washington should examine ways, consistent with American law and national-security interests, to facilitate legitimate commerce that directly strengthens independent Cuban entrepreneurs rather than institutions connected to the state security apparatus.
That could include carefully structured access to lawful payments, technology, professional services, supplies and commercial relationships where authorized.
The objective should be helping Cubans become economically less dependent on the state.
If Washington says it wants a stronger Cuban civil society, economically independent citizens should logically be part of that strategy.
Measure the Policy
Congress should demand periodic evaluation of major Cuba sanctions.
Not political theater.
Actual evaluation.
What was the original objective?
Has the targeted behavior changed?
Who bears the economic cost?
Has the measure strengthened or weakened independent economic activity?
Has it affected migration?
Has it created unintended advantages for America’s strategic competitors?
Does the restriction still serve a current American national interest?
And could a narrower measure achieve the same objective with fewer consequences for ordinary people?
Policies should survive because evidence supports them.
Not because questioning them is politically dangerous.
Listen Before Deciding
There is another element missing from much of the American Cuba debate.
The people living under the consequences rarely participate meaningfully in designing the policy.
Over the coming months, Horizonte Cubano News intends to listen directly to ordinary Cubans.
Workers.
Pensioners.
Entrepreneurs.
Families.
Young people.
People who support the Cuban government.
People who oppose it.
And people who are simply exhausted by politics and trying to survive.
We should ask them a straightforward question:
Which policies actually affect your daily life?
Their answers may confirm assumptions made in Washington.
They may also challenge them.
That is precisely why listening matters.
We should not be afraid of information simply because it complicates our politics.
Cuba Policy Should Be About Results
For too long, politicians have been rewarded for demonstrating that they are sufficiently tough on Cuba.
Perhaps the better standard is whether their policies work.
Did the policy improve American national security?
Did it change the behavior it targeted?
Did it strengthen ordinary Cubans?
Did it encourage economic independence?
Did it reduce migration pressures?
Did it improve conditions for peaceful change?
If the answer is yes, preserve it.
If the answer is no, change it.
That is not weakness.
That is governing.
The United States does not need to choose between doing nothing and punishing an entire society.
There is another approach.
Target responsibility.
Protect American interests.
Support legitimate private economic opportunity.
Demand accountability from Havana.
And continuously examine whether American measures are reaching the people they were intended to reach.
After more than sixty years, Cuba policy should no longer be judged by how angry it makes one government or how loudly politicians applaud it in another country.
It should be judged by results.
Punish those responsible for abuses when the law permits it.
Pressure institutions responsible for objectionable conduct.
But do not make the Cuban family the easiest target simply because it has the least political power to respond.
The Cuban people have paid enough for a confrontation they did not create.
American policy should make certain they are not the ones asked to keep paying forever.
Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.