Expert John Kavulich sees signs that the U.S. could settle for a regime similar to what exists in Vietnam or China

14ymedio, Madrid, February 19, 2026 – The risk that the Trump administration could promote an economic opening without political changes in Cuba is gaining traction in some circles. Two economists, one American and one Cuban, agree in that assessment, arguing that there are clear signs pointing in that direction.
“A key question is whether the U.S. has tacitly accepted as a tolerable outcome an ‘authoritarian modernization’ in Cuba rather than ‘regime change,’” says Cuban economist Pedro Monreal who lives in Madrid. In a thread published Thursday on his X account, the expert considers it a credible theory that Washington could shelve a transition process, as it did in Venezuela. The theory follows a series of proposals he laid out Wednesday focused purely on what the parties might negotiate economically.
“There are at least two facts that justify this hypothesis: the first is that the U.S. position includes rhetoric about ‘collapse’ and a ‘failed regime’ in Cuba while at the same time offering a ‘deal’ (‘make a deal now’). There is pressure to force concessions and an open door to negotiations,” Monreal notes, adding another argument. “The second fact related to the hypothesis is the ‘transactional pragmatism’ used by the current U.S. Administration’s diplomacy. One implication of that pragmatism is that it allows maintaining rhetoric about ‘regime change’ tempered by concrete deals.’”
Experience has shown, Monreal argues, that the Trump Administration seeks to force situations in order to impose conditions, but the U.S. must gain something in return. “Priority to the economic side in diplomatic negotiations (money, tariffs, trade, investments, resources) and disregard for the abstract (values, international rules). What matters are tangible benefits for the U.S.,” he says. What Cuba could offer in this context is harder to answer continue reading
Experience has shown, Monreal argues, that the Trump Administration seeks to force situations in order to impose conditions
The economist believes that compensation for expropriated properties through agreements in tourism, agriculture, or energy could be a starting point. There could also be other opportunities for U.S. companies in any sector, including agricultural imports, medicines and other essential goods, as well as tourism and remittance services, which are already authorized but restricted.
This approach would clash with the intentions of part of the exile community, which has welcomed initiatives by Miami-Dade’s new tax collector. Dariel Fernández has spent nearly a year highlighting alleged cases of fraud in the use of federal licenses to trade with Cuba. In his view, and that of other Florida politicians, those cases would justify eliminating such authorizations altogether, a point he reiterated Monday at a press conference at the Port of Miami.
Florida Republican congressman Carlos Giménez insisted that those permits, intended to benefit private enterprise, could end up being used fraudulently and are therefore better eradicated.
But the Trump Administration, Monreal argues, could move in the opposite direction and “ease current economic restrictions, including a reinterpretation of cash in advance that would facilitate exports from the U.S.” Although he stresses this is a hypothesis, he says it “seems likely.”
This view is shared by John S. Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, who published a column Wednesday in Café Fuerte entitled “The Trump Administration Is Opening the Diplomatic Door to Cuba.” In it, the economist outlines what he sees as three steps within the U.S. government: “First step in the negotiation, change the Cuban economy. Second, invite U.S. companies. Third, for now, the type of government does not matter; it just needs to function like China and Vietnam.”
Kavulich argues that Washington will not demand political changes from the regime, but rather economic, commercial, and financial management
Kavulich argues that Washington will not demand political changes from the regime, but rather economic, commercial, and financial management. As evidence, he points out that China and Vietnam are led by Communist parties but still provide opportunities for U.S. companies. “Regardless of whether a country has an authoritarian, democratic, dictatorial, military, monarchical, oligarchic, parliamentary, participatory, presidential, theocratic, totalitarian, or any other system of government, President Trump focuses on the opportunities that exist for U.S. companies: exporting, importing, and providing services,” he says.
If there were any doubt that Trump would not intervene in Asia, outside his sphere of influence under the renewed “Donroe” doctrine, something similar has already occurred in Venezuela, where Nicolás Maduro’s authority was replaced by elevating his vice president in exchange for concessions benefiting U.S. companies. Kavulich believes that Miguel Díaz-Canel is a subordinate figure who lacks even the symbolic capital Maduro possesses.
“For some members of the Trump-Vance Administration, the Díaz-Canel Government is not the key problem,” the economist emphasizes. He points instead to economic regulations, arguing that reform would be an opportunity for the regime, as it would gain not only Washington’s acceptance but also that of China, Russia, and the European Union, whose investors have been deterred by Havana’s administrative rigidity.
“In May 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration authorized direct investment and financing for a private company located in Cuba, owned by a Cuban citizen. Almost four years later, the Cuban Government has not issued the necessary guidelines and regulations,” he notes as an example. “The company, based in Havana, must submit a page to its financial institution, operated by the Government of Cuba, similar to a ‘Know Your Customer’ form, officially authorizing direct investment and financing.”
The economist, knowledgeable about business between the two countries and supportive of expanding it, adds that the Trump organization, headquartered in New York, “had interest in tourism-related opportunities in Cuba,” and believes this could be the key to renewed collaboration between the two countries.
It is unclear whether a shift limited solely to economic matters would be easily accepted in Florida, but the precedent of Venezuela suggests that anything is possible. Marco Rubio hinted as much to Bloomberg last Saturday: “Forget, set aside for a moment the fact that there is no freedom of speech, no democracy, no respect for human rights. The fundamental problem in Cuba is that it has no economy, and the people in charge of that country, who control that country, do not know how to improve the daily lives of their people.”
Translated by Regina Anavy
______________________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.


















