There is something especially cruel about the way this Administration talks about work.

It wraps itself in the language of entrepreneurship, grit, self-reliance, and “American job creators,” while targeting the very people who have spent years building businesses, hiring workers, and keeping local economies from hollowing out. This week, the U.S. Small Business Administration made that contradiction impossible to ignore.

According to a March 9 news release from the SBA, the agency has now expanded its restrictions on access to SBA-backed loans, banning foreign nationals and non-citizens from all SBA-guaranteed small business loan programs. That includes the agency’s Surety Bond and Microloan Programs, and it builds on an earlier policy change that had already made any small business owned in whole or in part by a foreign national ineligible for the SBA’s flagship 504 and 7(a) loan programs. Under the new rule, small business owners applying for any SBA loan program “must be U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals with their principal residence in the United States.”

“The Trump SBA is committed to driving economic growth and job creation for American citizens,” SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said in the agency’s release. “Last month, we made it clear that SBA would not allow foreign nationals to access our core small business loan programs, and today, we are expanding that policy to include all SBA-guaranteed loans. With our lending authority capped annually by Congress and amid record demand for access to capital, our responsibility is clear: the limited resource of SBA financing must prioritize American citizens who are building businesses and creating jobs here at home.”

On paper, the White House and the SBA want this to read as a simple America First correction. In practice, it reads as an attempt to choke off access to capital for immigrant communities, including a large swath of Latino entrepreneurs, at the precise moment they have become one of the country’s clearest engines of business growth.

What the SBA actually changed

According to Politico, the Small Business Administration issued policy guidance in early February requiring that all owners of a small business applying for the agency’s primary 7(a) loan program be U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals with principal residences in the United States. The outlet reported that the move rescinded a December policy that had allowed a 7(a) loan borrower to hold up to 5% of a business’s ownership by a foreign national, a green card holder, or a U.S. national or citizen living outside the country.

That shift was severe enough on its own. Green card holders who had permanent U.S. residency could no longer own any part of a business applying for the federal government’s most popular small business loan program. Then the Administration went further.

According to Reuters, the SBA notice stated that “Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) will not be eligible to own any percentage interest in an Applicant/Borrower.”

Then came the March 9 expansion. According to the SBA’s own release, the rule now covers all SBA-guaranteed loans, including the Surety Bond Guarantee and Microloan programs. The agency said the change would take effect 30 days after publication.

The SBA said that in fiscal year 2025, it approved 3,358 loans for small businesses owned in part by lawful permanent residents, representing 4% of the agency’s total loan approvals of 85,000. Because Congress caps the agency’s lending authority each year, the SBA argued that “the limited resource of SBA financing must prioritize American citizens.”

But that framing leaves out the basic reality that lawful permanent residents are legal residents of the United States. They live here. They work here. They pay taxes here. They hire here. They build here. The Administration is asking the public to treat them as outsiders while depending on the economic life they help sustain.

Latino business owners already carry more of the economy than Washington admits

According to Brookings analysis of the Annual Business Survey, American Community Survey, and Bureau of Economic Analysis data from 2017 to 2022, Latino or Hispanic individuals owned 7.9% of all employer businesses in 2022, totaling 465,202 firms. Those businesses employed 3,550,230 people and generated more than $653 billion in total revenue. From 2021 to 2022 alone, Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses increased employment by 14.1% and total revenue by 18.9%.

That growth did not come out of nowhere. According to the same report, Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses grew at an average annual rate of 7.7% between 2017 and 2022, far outpacing the 0.46% growth rate for all employer businesses. Between 2017 and 2022, Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses grew in 204 of 227 U.S. metro areas studied. Between 2021 and 2022, they represented 58% of the increase in total employers nationwide.

This means that without Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses, the U.S. would have had 619,655 fewer jobs between 2019 and 2022, alongside a loss of $34 billion in workers’ wages and $190 billion in total revenue.

So when this Administration narrows access to capital in the name of protecting “American job creators,” it is attacking a sector of the business community that has already been doing the work of creating jobs, wages, and revenue at a pace the broader economy has struggled to match.

However, another point buried in the Brookings data deserves more attention. Latino or Hispanic business owners remain underrepresented relative to their share of the U.S. population. In 2022, Latino or Hispanic-identifying individuals made up 19.1% of the population but owned only 7.9% of employer businesses. According to Brookings, if the share of Latino or Hispanic-owned employer businesses matched the share of Americans who identify as Latino or Hispanic, there would be 812,440 more businesses generating a combined $1.1 trillion in revenue and $250 billion in payroll.

In other words, the country is already benefiting from Latino entrepreneurship while still starving it of the full room it deserves to grow.

And who gets shut out when Latino business owners lose access to capital?

The SBA does not need to name Latinos explicitly for Latino communities to feel the blow.

According to The Guardian, this is the first time in the agency’s history that legal residents, including green card holders, have been cut off from loans backed by the Small Business Administration. The paper reported that many of those loans support “main street” enterprises such as retail shops, restaurants, cafes, franchises, and business-to-business services in sectors ranging from manufacturing to transportation.

That description should sound familiar to anyone who knows how Latino entrepreneurship actually looks on the ground. It is the restaurant owner trying to expand, the contractor trying to bid on a larger project. The family business struggling to buy equipment. The franchisee who wants to open a first location.

According to The Guardian, Keegan McBride, co-founder of SBA Source, said many franchisees are immigrants, including both green card holders and naturalized U.S. citizens, and that under the new rule, even married couples trying to launch a business together could be blocked from an SBA loan if both people are not U.S. citizens. He explained why these loans matter by saying, “SBA loans are really only meant to be issued in situations where folks wouldn’t be able to get access to credit on similar terms without the government guarantee. It’s challenging because SBA is kind of designed to fill that gap.”

That gap is the story. Conventional lenders already reward people who have home equity, inherited wealth, investment portfolios, or the kind of financial cushion that makes risk feel manageable. SBA-backed loans were created to reach people who do not move through the economy with those protections.

Many Latino families know that terrain intimately. They build businesses while carrying less generational wealth, thinner margins, and fewer institutional connections. Cutting off access to government-backed financing does not level the playing field. It tilts it even harder toward the people who already own most of it.

The Administration says this protects Americans. The record says something else.

The Administration has not been subtle about the worldview behind this policy.

According to Politico, the change is consistent with Trump’s January 2025 executive order on “protecting the American people against invasion,” which directs federal agencies to “employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States.” According to Lexology’s review of the policy changes, the SBA’s tightening rules have been gradual, beginning in 2025 and becoming more restrictive over time, culminating in a February 2026 policy that excludes legal permanent residents from owning even 1% of a business applying for SBA-backed financing.

This was not a one-off administrative correction. It was a deliberate campaign to tether access to capital to the Administration’s broader immigration enforcement agenda.

In an op-ed posted to the SBA’s website in February, Loeffler said, “Trump has restored confidence and opportunity to Main Street with a commonsense economic agenda designed to put hardworking families and small businesses, not Washington bureaucrats, illegal aliens or coastal elites, in the driver’s seat,” according to The Guardian.

But the policy does not stop at undocumented immigrants. It reaches legal permanent residents. It reaches people whom the government itself has authorized to live and work permanently in the United States. It reaches people who have built businesses, paid taxes, created jobs, and committed themselves to this country for years.

According to Politico, Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Nydia Velázquez said in a joint statement: “The Trump administration is stoking the flames of hatred, spreading fear and confusion among immigrants and small business owners. Rather than support hardworking legal immigrants to start or expand a business, the Trump SBA is choosing hatred by barring green card holders from receiving an SBA loan. The Administration’s message to immigrants is clear: you are not welcome to pursue the American Dream.”

According to The Guardian, Aissatou Barry-Fall, CEO of the Lower East Side People’s Federal Credit Union, said the new policy makes “no sense whatsoever” and added, “I think it’s discrimination. That’s all it is.”

Latino business owners grew across the country. The punishment is national too.

One of the laziest myths in American politics is that Latino economic power is confined to a few predictable places. The data says otherwise.

According to Brookings, Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses grew in nearly 90% of the metro areas examined between 2017 and 2022. The biggest numerical gains came in places with large Latino communities, including Miami, Los Angeles, and New York. Miami alone added 13,693 Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses during that period. Los Angeles added 10,999. New York added 8,727.

And yet the pattern was national. Growth was observed across the Midwest and parts of the Southern Appalachians. Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses also contributed heavily to overall business growth in major metro areas. According to Brookings, they accounted for over 93% of total growth in Miami, 47% in Los Angeles, and 65% in Orlando.

These businesses are concentrated in sectors that shape everyday life. In 2022, according to Brookings, Latino or Hispanic-owned employer businesses were clustered in construction, accommodation and food services, and professional, scientific, and technical services. From 2017 to 2022, Latino- or Hispanic-owned construction businesses increased by over 37,500, a 75% jump. Transportation and warehousing grew by 74%. Arts, entertainment, and recreation grew by 86%. Real estate and rental leasing grew by 66%.

So why target Latino business owners now?

Because capital is power.

A community that starts businesses builds more than income. It builds autonomy. It builds leverage. It builds local hiring power, local political influence, neighborhood stability, and the ability to survive institutions that were never designed to make life easy. Small business formation changes the social map of who gets to own, employ, and endure.

That helps explain why this Administration keeps returning to the same pressure points: Immigration status. Access to credit. Federal legitimacy. The right to belong economically.

According to the SBA’s March 9 release, the agency also pointed to earlier efforts, including citizenship verification requirements across its loan programs, to “cut off access to loans for illegal aliens” and plans to move SBA field offices out of sanctuary cities that it says do not comply with ICE. In other words, this is a political worldview being translated into administrative barriers.

And it arrives at a brutal time. According to Politico, small business advocates warned that restrictions on green card holders come as small businesses are already struggling with tariffs, health care costs, inflation, and long-standing difficulties accessing capital. Small Business Majority founder and CEO John Arensmeyer said the decision “will limit the growth of small businesses and jobs throughout the United States” and that “the timing of SBA’s tighter lending eligibility criteria could not be worse.” He called on the agency to “prioritize broadening eligibility rather than narrowing it.”

According to The Guardian, restaurateur Aneesa Waheed, who was named the SBA’s New York state small business person of the year in 2024, put the emotional reality of the shift into plain language. “I’m really shocked,” she said. “I’ve been in the SBA world for a long time. You think of the SBA as a source of support and strength for small businesses.”

For decades, the SBA was one of the few places where the federal government acknowledged that access to capital should not be limited exclusively to the already secure. Now the agency is being used to narrow who counts as fully investable in America.

What they are really cutting off

There is a temptation to describe this as an immigration story and leave it there. That would let the Administration off too easily.

This is also a labor story. A wealth story. A race story. A story about who gets to convert work into ownership.

According to Reuters, the new rule does not stop non-citizens from owning businesses in the United States or from accessing conventional bank loans. That is true. It is also incomplete. Conventional credit is often harder to obtain, especially for founders without the collateral, asset base, or financial history that banks prefer. That is exactly why SBA-backed loans exist.

According to The Guardian, McBride said that without the SBA guarantee, many borrowers will have to rely on home equity, investment portfolios, or other forms of collateral to secure financing. Those are resources that many working and immigrant families do not have in abundance.

This is where the broader economic picture comes back into view. Brookings found that Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses likely buffered the U.S. economy against a more severe downturn during and after the pandemic. They helped drive post-pandemic business creation. They generated jobs, wages, and revenue in places that badly needed all three.

And still, they remain underrepresented. Still, there is room for growth. Still, the ceiling has not remotely been reached.

So when this Administration closes off a critical financing pathway, it’s telling a fast-growing entrepreneurial community that its labor, taxes, hiring, and revenue are welcome, but its claim to institutional support remains conditional.

On Wednesday morning, federal authorities came through Los Angeles like a warning siren with a battering ram.

They raided the home and office of Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Alberto Carvalho. Officially, this falls under an investigation tied to a company that developed an AI chatbot for the country's second-largest school system. That is the paper story. Reality is different.

The three raids were painted as three points of pressure: Carvalho’s home in San Pedro, LAUSD headquarters downtown, and a residence associated with Debra Kerr, a saleswoman whose clients included a Florida-based artificial intelligence company called AllHere.

The AllHere chatbot, the collapse, and the official rationale

AllHere was a failed artificial intelligence company whose founder was charged with fraud in 2024. Joanna Smith-Griffin, founder and former CEO, was arrested that year and charged with securities fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. By the time those charges landed, the LAUSD chatbot had already been taken out of service.

The tool had a name: “Ed.”

Carvalho introduced “Ed” in August 2024 as revolutionary for student education and as a new channel between LAUSD and the families it serves. The tool never fully launched. It never became the future. It became a problem, and then it disappeared.

The indictment and the collapse of AllHere embarrassed Carvalho and the school system, but it did not appear to be a catastrophe on the balance sheet. LAUSD spent about $3 million with the company for work done under a contract originally worth up to $6 million over five years. LAUSD’s budget this year is $18.8 billion. In dollar terms, this was not the kind of figure that usually triggers a federal spectacle.

A former AllHere executive has accused the now-bankrupt company of inadequate security measures. Even if that accusation holds, there is no evidence of a security breach affecting student or employee data.

AllHere also held a contract for somewhat different services with Miami-Dade County Public Schools, which Carvalho ran before joining LAUSD. He has said he had nothing to do with that contract. He has also denied personal involvement in selecting AllHere for the Los Angeles project.

When the accusations surfaced, Carvalho said he would appoint a task force to examine what went wrong with the LAUSD project and chart a way forward. There is no evidence that he has done so.

Debra Kerr, the commission dispute, and the relationships around the deal

Debra Kerr rapidly becomes the connective tissue.

She is a successful consultant to companies seeking to work with school districts, and she has a long relationship with Carvalho dating back to his time as superintendent in Miami. She worked as a consultant for AllHere. In court documents, she has claimed the company owes her $630,000.

Her claim: AllHere never paid her the commission she says she was owed for closing the Los Angeles AllHere deal.

Carvalho’s standing in LA, and the earlier scrutiny in Miami

Carvalho has not floated through his career unnoticed. LAUSD hired him in February 2022. The school board renewed him in September. In September 2025, the Los Angeles Board of Education voted unanimously to keep him on for another four years, at an annual salary of $440,000. Board President Scott Schmerelson said at the time that the superintendent “has demonstrated consistent leadership in difficult times.”

Before Los Angeles, Carvalho spent 14 years leading Miami-Dade County Public Schools. His biography on the district’s website lists an array of honors, including National Superintendent of the Year in 2014 and National Urban Superintendent of the Year in 2018.

But there is history here, too. In 2020, Carvalho came under scrutiny from the Miami-Dade school system’s inspector general. He had helped solicit a $1.57 million donation from an online education company for a foundation he oversees while the company had a pending contract with the district. Once hired, the company delivered an online platform riddled with problems and quickly scrapped it, according to the Miami Herald.

In June 2021, the inspector general concluded the donation, intended to benefit teachers, did not violate state or district ethics policies but created “an appearance of impropriety,” and that the foundation Carvalho created should return the funds. Instead, the foundation distributed the money in $100 gift certificates to teachers.

The federal lawsuit, the Justice Department’s intervention, and what changed the temperature

If this were only a chatbot story, it would be just that. But last week, the Trump administration joined a lawsuit filed by the 1776 Project Foundation, a conservative group based in Billings, Montana, alleging that LAUSD “discriminates against white students” under its decades-old desegregation policy.

Filed last month in federal court in Los Angeles, the lawsuit alleges LAUSD’s allegedly racially discriminatory policies “systematically disadvantage certain students based on the racial composition of their schools.”

The suit argues LAUSD used race-based classifications to label schools as “PHBAO,” or “predominantly Hispanic, Black, Asian, and other non-Anglo,” and allocated benefits accordingly.

Fewer than 100 schools in the district lack the PHBAO designation. The lawsuit alleges that students in those schools, including white and Middle Eastern students, are denied equal access to educational resources and opportunities.

Then the Justice Department walked in. In its motion to intervene, it contends that LAUSD provides additional funding to PHBAO schools to reduce the student-to-teacher ratio by 5.5 students and increase parent-teacher conferences. It also alleges that LAUSD gives students who wish to transfer to a magnet program admission preference equal to that of an overcrowded school, and that LAUSD treats attendance at a non-white school as a disadvantage equivalent to that of an overcrowded school.

The case is framed as a civil rights case. It is also, plainly, a political weapon aimed at the spine of desegregation policy.

The April school incident, immigration enforcement, and why this is not isolated

And then there is the part that makes the timeline feel like retaliation with paperwork.

In April of last year, Carvalho denied federal immigration agents entry to two elementary schools. On Monday, April 11, several federal agents visited Lillian Street Elementary School and Russell Elementary School within two hours of each other.

“They wanted access to the students, to determine their well-being based on, according to the agents, the fact that when they entered this country, they entered as unaccompanied minors,” Carvalho said. “It is well-known that these students are under the care of relatives.”

Now, under the pretext of investigating the AI chatbot, the government wants to try to silence Carvalho, who is not only an idol in the education system but has also been an outspoken critic of the administration.

Down the Rabbit Hole: Who is behind the 1776 Project Foundation?

The 1776 Project PAC, which is behind the lawsuit, is a conservative organization focused on electing school board members, founded by Ryan James Girdusky in 2021. The group aims to counter critical race theory and promote “patriotic education” in public schools. Conservative donors, including billionaire Richard Uihlein, heavily fund it.

According to a 2025 PR release, the organization behind the 1776 Foundation called it “the NRA of conservative education.” Girdusky is the founder of the 1776 Project PAC, which supports conservatives running for school board elections. The PAC has supported more than 350 races and won more than 200 school board seats across the country.

Girdusky is not a fringe amateur. He is a political consultant who has advised campaigns for Senator JD Vance and Representative Thomas Massie, among others. He is also the author of They’re Not Listening: How the Elites Created the Nationalist Populist Revolution.

In his “letter from our chairman” on the organization’s website, he writes:

“I first became involved in education as an issue after an incident at my godson’s school. His teacher read the books Race Cars and Something Happened In Our Town: A Child’s Story About Racial Injustice to his fourth-grade class, followed by a lecture about how police were racist.”

He then accuses: “Progressive activists within our public education system were using their positions to indoctrinate children. Even conservative communities in red states were not immune to this growing epidemic.”

“The truth is that public education in its current state is failing millions of American children. Even if there wasn’t a single culture war issue in our public schools, millions of children are behind in reading and math proficiency, parents and teachers fear for their safety inside schools, and school districts across the country have begun moving away from ideas like colorblindness and merit and instead embracing soft segregation and telling children their identity matters more than their ability.”

Get the idea?

The money behind it: Richard Uihlein

Just as every movement has its language, every movement has its donors. The organization's biggest donor is Richard Uihlein.

Uihlein has been a Republican donor for decades and increased his political giving after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. He is a longtime donor to Republicans who share his ultra-conservative views. He is a staunch social and economic conservative with views that are anti-union, anti-tax, and pro-deregulation.

He has supported far-right candidates and often supported efforts opposing gay and transgender rights as well as abortion rights. He has been described as someone who “shuns the spotlight.” He rarely gives interviews.

This is the kind of donor profile that funds palpable outcomes.

So what is really behind Carvalho?

The justice system must investigate any wrongdoing involving the AI company and any other wrongdoing. That is not optional, and it should not be negotiable.

But set the pieces on the table and the picture sharpens. It may be about the chatbot. It may be about procurement. It may be about a trail of emails, contracts, and signatures.

But the force behind this moment looks like something else, too: the multi-million-dollar far-right machinery moving through courts and federal agencies to attack public education and to target the people who stand in its way, especially when those structures attempt to serve students of all races.

The Trump administration is no stranger to a lawsuit. There have been more than 650 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration during his second term. Historically, there have been more lawsuits filed against the administration in its first ten months than in the past three presidencies combined. Not only is the administration being sued often, but it is also losing pretty often. Here are some of the cases that the Trump administration has lost. There are a lot of lawsuits and ongoing litigation. We will continue to update this list as we learn more.

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump - (loss)

The original lawsuit was filed on April 22, 2025, in the District Court in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court agreed to take it up on June 17, 2025, with oral arguments taking place on Nov. 5, 2025.

At the heart of the lawsuit was the sweeping tariffs that President Donald Trump enacted as part of his economic agenda. The plaintiff argued that the tariffs imposed were a tax, not a regulation. The argument against the tariffs was that they go against the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). IEEPA allows the president broad authority to “regulate” and “prohibit” certain imports. But placing a broad tariff on most imports went outside of that scope of power.

The Supreme Court sided with the family-owned toy company and ruled on Feb. 20, 2026, that the tariffs were illegal. It was a major blow to the Trump administration and a major win for American consumers. The tariffs serve as a tax that is passed down to the consumer, causing the affordability crisis to get worse.

The Supreme Court ruled that the president didn’t have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs. Additionally, the court stated that unilaterally imposing a tax without congressional approval usurped the power vested in Congress. Congress, per the Constitution, is the body responsible for imposing taxes.

“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”

United States v. California - (ongoing)

This is an ongoing case brought against California by the Department of Justice (DOJ) due to the No Vigilantes Act (SB 805). The law requires all local, state, and federal law enforcement agents to identify themselves with names and badges when conducting official business. It also prohibits bounty hunters from conducting immigration enforcement in the state. The DOJ sued California, claiming that the law is unconstitutional since California is trying to regulate federal operations. Additionally, the DOJ argues that the law puts federal agents in danger by exposing them to doxxing.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled against the Trump administration on Feb. 9. The judge stated that the law is constitutional since it did not discriminate between local, state, and federal law enforcement. A stay was put on the law until Feb. 19 to give the administration time to appeal, which it did.

The case currently sits in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which placed a temporary administrative injunction on the law while it is reviewed. Oral arguments at the appellate court are set to begin on March 3.

Barbara v. Trump - (ongoing)

Formally called Trump v Barbara, this lawsuit is sitting before the Supreme Court. Barbara v Trump is a nationwide class action lawsuit against the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship. As of February 2026, the Trump administration has lost every lower court case in this lawsuit. The first loss came on July 10, 2025, when a federal judge in New Hampshire issued an injunction on the executive order. Furthermore, the judge allowed for a class action lawsuit against the federal government for all babies born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, and might be targeted by the order.

The federal government is arguing that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted. Representatives for the government argue that the children of undocumented people or those on visas are not granted citizenship. The federal government is pushing a narrative that birthright citizenship is only passed down from parents with “immediate allegiance” to the United States.

On Dec. 5, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in a rare move to bypass the appeals process. Due to injunctions, the executive order is not enforceable, and all children born in the United States must be recognized as citizens. Oral arguments are set for April 1, 2026, with a final decision expected in June or July 2026.

New York v. Trump - (loss)

Immediately after taking office, President Trump ordered the freeze of all federal funding that did not align with the administration’s policy priorities. New York led a coalition of states to file suit against the administration to block the order. A federal judge agreed, claiming that blocking funding likely violated the Impoundment Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The order threatened $410 billion in funding for projects in dozens of states. The funding was appropriated for things like public health grants, green energy projects, and social safety nets like child care.

The First Circuit Court refused the administration's request for an emergency stay on the injunction from the lower court in March 2025. The administration appealed to the appellate court, and as of February 2026, the case is still active on the docket as the court reviews the appeal’s merit.

Trump v. Illinois - (loss)

The Trump administration attempted to federalize the Illinois National Guard against Chicago last year in its sweeping immigration raids. Brutal immigration raids are central to the Trump administration’s image. Whenever there has been mass organization against the raids, President Trump has federalized National Guard troops to quell protests.

A lower court blocked the action immediately after it was announced. Hoping to rely on a friendly Supreme Court, the Trump administration asked for a stay on the ruling. The Supreme Court rejected the request in a Dec. 23, 2025, ruling. In response, President Trump withdrew troops from multiple cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland.

President Donald Trump is putting the squeeze on Cuba

In an effort to continue to topple foreign governments, President Donald Trump took direct aim at Cuba. The president recently signed an executive order that opens up the possibility for new tariffs on goods from countries that give Cuba oil. According to “Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba,” the president plans to punish countries that trade oil with Cuba.

The executive order claims that the increased economic pressure is in the name of national security.

“The Government of Cuba has taken extraordinary actions that harm and threaten the United States,” reads the executive order. “The regime aligns itself with — and provides support for — numerous hostile countries, transnational terrorist groups, and malign actors adverse to the United States, including the Government of the Russian Federation (Russia), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Government of Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. For example, Cuba blatantly hosts dangerous adversaries of the United States, inviting them to base sophisticated military and intelligence capabilities in Cuba that directly threaten the national security of the United States. Cuba hosts Russia’s largest overseas signals intelligence facility, which tries to steal sensitive national security information of the United States.”

President Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on Aug. 15, 2025. The summit was criticized for its insensitivity to national security by allowing a foreign adversary into the US and onto a military base. The summit took place at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.

Countries are responding to the threat of increased tariffs

Part of the US’s takeover of Venezuela included controlling the country’s oil supplies. There was an immediate stop to all oil being shipped to Cuba from Venezuela. It was a direct assault on Cuba, which is a nation reliant on allies for its energy needs.

Mexico is the island nation’s largest energy supplier. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has remained ambiguous on what Mexico was going to do in response to the threat of tariffs. According to the Associated Press, Mexico was at one point this year shipping 200,000 barrels of oil a day to Cuba. However, around Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s trip in September 2025, shipments drastically fell.

The latest news from Washington could force Mexico to further slash oil shipments to Cuba. The results could endanger the lives of Cubans already living in precarious conditions. Last year, Cuba suffered a series of power failures across the island, with a nationwide blackout also happening in September 2025.

According to Reuters, President Trump is already claiming that Mexico will not send oil. Meanwhile, Reuters independently reports that Mexico is still reviewing what actions to take in response to the executive order.

President Trump is attempting a second regime change without finishing the first

The US government removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, 2026. The Venezuelan president’s arrest shocked the international community. Despite claiming to want to topple a dictator, the Trump administration has done little to push for democracy in Venezuela.

Instead, President Trump has endorsed Delcy Rodriguez, who was vice president to President Maduro, as the interim leader. As for María Corina Machado, President Trump doesn’t think she can lead the country despite having won the last election. She did, however, give him her Nobel Peace Prize medal.

He has not been shy about claiming that the goal in Cuba is regime change. Now, how, and if, he goes about it remains a mystery.