Negotiations between Washington and Havana have commenced, driven by President Donald Trump's naval blockade on fuel shipments to Cuba, which has severely crippled the island's economy since late 2025. This diplomatic opening, after decades of strained relations, offers a chance for Cuban Americans to address long-standing claims for seized assets, yet it also carries a deep-seated apprehension that their interests might be sidelined. Raul Valdes-Fauli, a former Coral Gables mayor, expressed his fear that the U.S. might “keep the thieves in power,” echoing concerns over past U.S. foreign policy shifts.
The fuel crisis on the island began to bite hard in late 2025. President Donald Trump's naval blockade on fuel shipments pushed Cuba's energy infrastructure to its breaking point. This pressure tactic initiated a new round of negotiations between Washington and Havana after decades of frozen diplomacy.
For many Cuban Americans, the shift represents a chance to reclaim what they lost. Raul Valdes-Fauli, an attorney and former mayor of Coral Gables, carries a personal understanding of this loss. His family's Pedroso Bank in Havana was seized in November 1960.
A Fidel Castro agent, machine gun in hand, ordered his father and uncle to leave, calling them "gusanos" — a derogatory term for those fleeing Cuba. They took everything. “They couldn’t even take family pictures off the walls of their office,” Valdes-Fauli recalled, describing a scene of abrupt dispossession that resonates with thousands of other families. This traumatic history now resurfaces with a specific urgency.
Many within the Cuban American community believe 2026 could mark a turning point for the communist-run island. That cautious optimism, however, is tempered by a significant concern: that they could be left out of any final deal. Their nightmare scenario involves a repetition of what unfolded in Venezuela.
There, Trump’s administration moved to oust Nicolás Maduro, only to later partner with some of his former allies. Demands for democracy, many exiles argue, took a back seat to oil industry dealmaking. “I hope that he doesn’t do what he did in Venezuela, which is keep the thieves in power,” Valdes-Fauli stated, his concerns amplified by his marriage to a Venezuelan national. This sentiment underscores a core fear: that Washington’s strategic interests might override the historical grievances of the exile community.
Follow the leverage, not the rhetoric. The economic drivers often dictate the diplomatic path. At the heart of these emotional and complex talks lies the issue of hundreds of thousands of legal claims.
These claims originate from Cuban Americans whose homes, businesses, and land were seized following Castro’s rise to power in 1959. Resolving these will prove challenging. For decades, pursuing compensation was a largely futile endeavor, a lonely mission relegated to the legal fringes, according to Nick Gutiérrez.
Gutiérrez serves as president of the National Association of Cuban Landowners in Exile. He has long advised families on how to seek compensation for forced collectivism. “A lot of it just fell on deaf ears,” Gutiérrez said, reflecting on past efforts. But with speculation about possible regime change growing louder, interest in the issue has exploded.
Younger Cuban American entrepreneurs, eager to help rebuild a country they barely know, now see potential where before there was only costly litigation. “Now we're talking about the existential issue of whether the Cuban dictatorship will survive until next month,” Gutiérrez observed. His parents fled the island two years before his birth, a common narrative among those now seeking redress. The scale of the task is immense.
Untangling property claims in Cuba is akin to battling a multiheaded hydra, according to Robert Muse, a Washington attorney specializing in U.S. laws relating to Cuba. In the hierarchy of property losses under U.S. law, 5,913 claims certified by the Justice Department in 1972 hold the strongest standing. These claims, originally valued at $1.9 billion, include major corporations such as ExxonMobil and Marriott International.
Their assets, ranging from oil refineries and the telephone system to hair salons and shoeshine stands, were nationalized during Castro's drive. These certified claims are worth $10 billion today, according to The Independent, and their resolution is a prerequisite for a full restoration of economic and diplomatic relations between the U.S. However, the executive branch in the U.S. holds the authority to assume control of private losses.
This allows for a lump-sum payment, folding the individual disputes into a broader settlement with Havana. In a notable departure from past positions, Cuba has signaled a willingness to discuss these claims. This willingness comes as part of a wider conversation, with Havana also demanding compensation for damages caused by the U.S. trade embargo, enacted in 1962.
The math does not add up if only one side’s ledger is considered. A more intricate issue involves Title III of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. This law permits exiles to sue any company deemed to be “trafficking” in property confiscated by Cuba.
Historically, all past U.S. presidents suspended Title III due to objections from U.S. allies conducting business in Cuba. Many exiles themselves viewed the legislation as an empty threat, given the remote prospect of ever collecting from a bankrupt government. President Trump, however, lifted this suspension in 2019.
Since then, approximately 50 lawsuits have been filed. The potential for a flood of additional claims looms large, contingent on the outcomes of two specific cases argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this year.
One case, brought by Exxon, seeks $1 billion from Cuban state-owned entities. The other involves Havana Docks, a Delaware-based company, suing four cruise liners. Havana Docks alleges these liners paid Cuba’s government to disembark nearly 1 million tourists at a port the company once operated, after President Barack Obama reestablished diplomatic relations.
Muse describes the cumulative legal risks of doing business in Cuba as a “stalactite” that has formed over several decades, hindering both investment and political compromise. “You can't have a restitution remedy for hundreds of thousands of claimants,” Muse stated. “It’s unworkable.”
Here is what they are not telling you: while individual restitution for countless claims may be impractical, Havana has an incentive to find alternative solutions. If Cuba’s stated aim to attract foreign capital is genuine, cutting deals with Cuban Americans willing to invest in the country becomes a viable path. Gutiérrez points to the former Communist states in Eastern Europe as a model.
Those nations compensated for property seizures after the Cold War, a process that helped their economies surge forward. Trump, according to Muse, may possess the unique combination of business acumen, impatience with established conventions, and political freedom—as a second-term president—to navigate this complex situation. A signal of his approach, Muse added, was when Trump hosted oil executives at the White House following Maduro’s ouster.
He reportedly told them they would need to write off any unpaid claims from asset seizures in Venezuela. This suggests a willingness to prioritize broader deals over individual claims when expedient. Gutiérrez, despite his concerns, finds some reassurance in the President’s longstanding relationship with Cuban Americans, who represent a significant portion of his staunch supporters.
He worries that Trump’s eagerness for a “trophy” – a diplomatic breakthrough that has eluded 12 Democratic and Republican presidents – could lead to compromises. Yet, he believes Trump understands the community’s deep connection to the issue. “Trump doesn't have moral qualms of doing business with bad guys,” Gutiérrez said. “But he knows how important this is to us, and that gives us some comfort he won't sell us out.” The geopolitical chess board is complex, and the pieces move with strategic intent, not always sentiment. Why It Matters: The outcome of these U.S.-Cuba negotiations carries significant implications beyond property claims.
For Cuban Americans, it represents a potential chance for historical justice and economic opportunity, but also a risk of betrayal if a deal prioritizes corporate or strategic interests over individual restitution. For Cuba, it could mean an influx of much-needed capital and a path to reintegration into the global economy, or a deepening of its isolation if talks fail. The region watches closely, as any shift in U.S.-Cuba relations could alter power dynamics and trade flows across the Caribbean, affecting stability and investment for years to come.
Key Takeaways: - U.S. - Cuban American exiles seek compensation for properties seized post-1959, but fear being excluded from a deal. - The legal landscape for claims is complex, involving certified corporate claims and lawsuits under the Helms-Burton Act. - Cuba has expressed willingness to discuss claims, linking them to its own demands for U.S. embargo compensation. Looking ahead, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on the Exxon and Havana Docks cases will significantly shape the legal framework for future claims.
These rulings could either open the floodgates for more lawsuits or reinforce the challenges of individual restitution. Furthermore, the ongoing negotiations will test the Trump administration's resolve to balance corporate interests with the demands of its Cuban American political base. Observers will be watching for any signals from Havana regarding its willingness to offer concrete compensation mechanisms, especially as the island’s economic pressures continue to mount.
Key Takeaways
— - U.S. pressure tactics have forced new negotiations between Washington and Havana after decades.
— - Cuban American exiles seek compensation for properties seized post-1959, but fear being excluded from a deal.
— - The legal landscape for claims is complex, involving certified corporate claims and lawsuits under the Helms-Burton Act.
— - Cuba has expressed willingness to discuss claims, linking them to its own demands for U.S. embargo compensation.
Source: The Independent
