The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has suggested that Washington is prepared to be “very realistic …. and patient” about how “a serious process” might be designed that enables Cubans to achieve a better life.
In comments which suggest the seemingly stalled negotiating process with Cuba may be more open-ended than thought, he told journalists that the US will keep talking to Cuba about the kind of changes that could be made. Answering questions from the media, he said that no end of 2026 deadline exists for resolution of the issues as some in the Trump Administration have previously suggested.
“We want it to have a better future, and we’re prepared to do things that help them get there. But they have to decide they want to do that. The people that are in charge there right now just don’t want to do it,” he told a 22 July press conference in Manila following his participation in an ASEAN Summit.
Responding to questions about whether Washington’s goal is still creating regime change through economic collapse, or if the military option is still on the table, Rubio suggested that his objective is to achieve gradual change through economic reform.
“I think the goal is to have a Cuba where the people of Cuba can experience prosperity, safety, security, and a better life moving forward, the way Cubans are able to do all over the world when they leave Cuba. And we’re prepared to be very realistic about how you do that, and patient about how – you got a serious process that leads to that. And we’ve engaged them from time to time in that regard, and they know where we stand on that issue, and hopefully that’s where it arrives,” he observed.
In his reply Rubio characterised the Cuban economic system as one that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. It is, he said, “completely backwards; it just doesn’t work.”
emarking that the island is no longer obtaining “free oil” from Venezuela, which he said was resold for cash, he suggested that the Cuban leadership “don’t know what they are doing.” All they’re most interested in, he said, “is holding onto power,” before alleging that they fear that economic prosperity and economic liberties will see them lose control.
In answer to a question about Washington’s timeline for economic and political change, Rubio made clear that the process could not work in this way. Rather, it would be complex and take time, he said, as the Cuban system has been in place since 1959. “It’s a failed state. But I’ve never laid out any timeline as to what change would look like or when it would happen. I wish it was tomorrow because they deserve it; the people of Cuba deserve a better future,” he said.
Then, in an apparent reference to his annoyance with constant non-attributable media briefings on timelines on Cuba by some in and around the Trump Administration, Rubio responded that he remains in charge of the negotiating process with Havana. “I work on this issue more than anybody else, and I never said that,” he told the media.
In his remarks, Rubio, who is also Acting US National Security Advisor, sought to balance and frame his comments in the context of US Domestic politics and the US President’s desire to portray the Democratic Party as ‘communists.’
Observing that Washington is concerned “with communist interference inside of our country” and about Cuba’s attempts to “undermine our foreign policy,” he maintained that the island’s leadership had been “one of the leading culprits” for many years, observing that the intellectual author “particularly in our hemisphere, [has been] the Cuban regime.”
“Obviously, we’re prepared to do what we can do to effectuate a positive change in Cuba because it directly impacts our national security. Cuba matters to us because it’s 90 miles from our shores, and it has a direct impact on our national security – be it the things they’ve been involved in in the past, the countries they’ve aligned with in the past and currently, or the threat of mass migration, which is always a risk that you run when countries are as deeply destabilised as Cuba,” Rubio observed.
3 Aug 2026
The Caribbean Council is able to provide further detail about all the stories in Cuba Briefing. If you would like a more detailed insight into any of the content of today’s issue, please get in touch.
Facts Only
* US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested Washington is prepared to be "very realistic and patient" regarding a serious process for Cubans to achieve a better life.
* The US will continue talking to Cuba about potential changes.
* No end-of-2026 deadline exists for resolution of issues.
* Rubio stated that the people in charge in Cuba currently do not want the desired changes.
* The objective is to have a Cuba where its people experience prosperity, safety, security, and a better life.
* Rubio characterized the Cuban economic system as "completely backwards; it just doesn’t work."
* The Cuban leadership is reportedly interested in holding onto power rather than economic prosperity.
* Rubio stated that the process for change would be complex and take time due to the system's history since 1959.
* Rubio stated that achieving change directly impacts US national security because Cuba is geographically close and a source of instability and migration risk.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative pivots on the tension between external willingness to facilitate change and internal resistance within Cuba. Rubio frames the engagement not as an immediate demand for regime change or economic collapse, but as a patient pursuit of gradual reform aimed at improving the material conditions of the Cuban populace. The implicit assumption is that change is possible, even if the actors in power resist it, shifting the focus from immediate revolutionary outcomes to long-term developmental goals.
The contrast between Rubio's stated desire for prosperity and his characterization of the Cuban system as fundamentally broken reveals a gap between stated diplomatic intent and the perceived reality on the ground. The discussion around timelines and the assertion that the internal leadership prioritizes power over welfare suggests a systemic inertia that external pressure must overcome. Furthermore, by explicitly linking the Cuban situation to US national security concerns—specifically migration and destabilization—the statement embeds the issue within a geopolitical framework where humanitarian outcomes are inextricable from strategic stability. The pattern suggests an attempt to manage public perception by framing complex political negotiation through the lens of tangible security concerns, attempting to solidify external support for a process that remains inherently uncertain internally.
Bridge Questions: If the stated goal is gradual change requiring internal decisions, what specific, verifiable metrics could be established for measuring the pace or success of these internal Cuban decisions? How does the framework of "economic reform" interact with the documented historical pattern of regime stability in this region? What are the long-term consequences for US foreign policy if patience becomes an explicit policy rather than a diplomatic posture?