The measure, introduced by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia under the War Powers Act of 1973, would have required Trump to end U.S. actions enforcing restrictions on Cuba unless Congress explicitly authorized them.

Democrats argued that Washington’s use of Coast Guard and other federal assets to disrupt oil shipments and tighten sanctions amounted to hostilities that should fall under congressional oversight.Republicans moved to dismiss the resolution, arguing it was procedurally out of order because the United States was not engaged in direct military hostilities with Cuba.

Their motion succeeded in a 51-47 vote.Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans in dismissing the resolution, while Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Democrats in supporting it.The vote marked the first Senate test specifically focused on Cuba as Democrats continue to challenge Trump’s military and strategic actions in several theaters, including Iran and Venezuela.

Previous efforts to constrain the administration’s authority under the War Powers Act have failed.Kaine said U.S. enforcement measures had triggered severe humanitarian consequences on the island, including worsening water shortages, electricity outages and disruptions to medical care.

“My argument is that under the terms of the resolution we are already engaged in hostilities with Cuba because we are using American force, primarily the Coast Guard, but other assets as well, to engage in a very devastating economic blockade of the nation,” Kaine said during Senate debate.

Cuba has been grappling with prolonged shortages of fuel, food and medicine, while U.S. sanctions and interruptions to Venezuelan oil shipments have added pressure to the island’s struggling economy.The Trump administration has said its policy aims to pressure Cuba’s leadership to end political repression, release political prisoners and implement economic liberalization.

Trump, speaking after the recent conflict with Iran, said Cuba would be a next foreign policy priority and pledged “a new dawn for Cuba” during remarks last week at a Turning Points USA event.Democratic Senator Peter Welch of Vermont said the resolution was intended not only to challenge the blockade but also to prevent the possibility of direct military escalation.

“The United States and Cuba need to find a way to peacefully coexist,” Welch said.Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida defended Trump’s approach and accused Democrats of overlooking rights abuses by Cuba’s government.“President Trump is doing everything he can to bring back freedom and democracy all across Latin America, and we should do everything we can to support him,” Scott said.

The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 following the Vietnam War, was designed to reassert congressional authority over decisions involving U.S. military engagement abroad, requiring presidents to notify Congress and limiting unauthorized hostilities.

At the Church of the Holy Spirit in Old Havana, nearly 50 elderly residents gather three times a week for a free lunch of rice, beans, ground meat and coffee, a modest but essential supplement for pensioners whose monthly incomes often amount to less than $10 at informal exchange rates.

Among them is 84-year-old retired chemical engineer Carmen Casado, who receives a monthly pension of 2,000 Cuban pesos, worth roughly $4 on the informal market. Living alone, without children or remittances from relatives abroad, she relies on church meals in addition to the limited bread, rice and beans available through Cuba’s state-run ration stores.“This is a lifeline for us retirees with small pensions,” Casado said.

“What we get from the bodegas alone is not enough.”Older Cubans, many of them former state employees such as teachers, doctors, nurses and technicians, have been among the hardest hit by the worsening downturn, which intensified this year following an oil embargo imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

The crisis has brought further cuts to subsidized goods that for decades formed the backbone of Cuba’s social safety net, while rising shortages and inflation have eroded the value of fixed pensions.At the same time, the migration of younger Cubans has left many elderly residents isolated, without family members to provide financial support or day-to-day care.

Cuba was already one of Latin America’s oldest societies before the latest wave of emigration. By the end of 2024, nearly 26% of the population was aged 60 or older, according to Cuba’s National Bureau of Statistics, compared with a regional average of 14.2% reported by the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).Over the last five years, Cuba’s population has declined by nearly 1.5 million, largely because of outward migration.

The number of residents on the island has fallen from 11.1 million to 9.7 million.The demographic shift is increasingly visible in Havana, where elderly residents stand in long lines for rationed food, sell small items such as cigarettes on the streets or search for assistance from churches and state institutions.

The pressure has prompted the government to authorize private entrepreneurs to operate elder-care services and residential facilities, a notable shift in a country where social services have traditionally remained under state control.Casado says she still considers herself fortunate. At 84, she remains physically independent, climbs the stairs to her aging apartment without a cane and needs only blood pressure medication, which she says is still available through state pharmacies.

Born in 1942, she has lived through the Cuban Revolution, the 1962 missile crisis, the Soviet-backed economic boom of the 1970s and 1980s, and the severe shortages of the post-Soviet “Special Period.”Despite today’s hardships, she continues to place responsibility for Cuba’s economic difficulties largely on the United States.

“We’re doing everything we can here to move the country forward,” she said. “But the thing is, we have a very powerful enemy, and he’s right there, right on our doorstep.”

The candidates former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi of Argentina, UN trade and development head Rebeca Grynspan of Costa Rica, and former Senegalese president Macky Sall are set to participate in hours-long hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday in a process aimed at increasing transparency in the selection of the UN’s top official.

The public dialogues, introduced in 2016, allow member states and non-governmental organizations to question candidates directly. However, the final decision will rest with the 15-member UN Security Council, where the five permanent members the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France hold veto power.

The selection comes at a time when the United Nations faces significant operational strain, including what officials describe as a severe budget shortfall linked to delayed or withheld contributions, particularly from the United States. Washington’s envoy to the UN has indicated that the next secretary-general must align with U.S. priorities, underscoring the geopolitical stakes involved in the appointment.

Bachelet, 74, brings decades of political and diplomatic experience, having served as Chile’s first female president and later as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Her tenure at the rights body drew criticism from some member states, including China, following reports addressing alleged abuses against Uyghur populations.

Grossi, 65, has led the IAEA since 2019 and has played a central role in navigating nuclear-related tensions involving Iran and the conflict in Ukraine, including concerns surrounding the Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility. His candidacy places him under scrutiny from both Western powers and Russia, reflecting the sensitivity of his portfolio.

Grynspan, 70, currently heads the UN Conference on Trade and Development and has been credited with facilitating the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which enabled grain exports amid the Ukraine conflict.

She has emphasized multilateral cooperation and her personal background as the daughter of Holocaust survivors in articulating her commitment to the UN Charter.Sall, 64, stands as the only candidate outside Latin America, a region many member states argue should produce the next secretary-general under informal rotation practices.

His candidacy has faced resistance within Africa, including from segments of the African Union, and criticism related to his handling of political unrest during his presidency.All four candidates have pledged to restore confidence in the United Nations and address divisions among member states, as conflicts and economic pressures test the institution’s capacity to respond effectively.

The hearings are expected to shape diplomatic negotiations in the coming months as Security Council members weigh competing priorities before recommending a candidate to the General Assembly.

The move, reflected in an update by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, effectively removes restrictions that had limited Rodríguez’s ability to engage with U.S. companies and investors, and underscores Washington’s recognition of her as a legitimate governing authority.

Rodríguez said the decision could open a path toward improved bilateral relations. In a statement posted on her Telegram channel, she described the move as a step toward “normalizing and strengthening relations” and expressed hope that broader sanctions on Venezuela would eventually be lifted to enable deeper cooperation.

The policy change follows the Jan. 3 capture of Maduro and his wife in Caracas by U.S. forces. Both were transferred to New York to face drug trafficking charges and have pleaded not guilty.

Their detention prompted a political transition in which Venezuela’s ruling-party-aligned Supreme Court declared Maduro’s absence temporary and installed Rodríguez as acting president.

Rodríguez, who had previously been sanctioned by Washington during Donald Trump’s first administration, was among senior Venezuelan officials targeted in 2018 for their alleged role in undermining democratic processes after a widely disputed election. Her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, and other members of Maduro’s inner circle were also designated at the time.

Despite those earlier measures, the current administration has opted to engage directly with Rodríguez following Maduro’s removal. U.S. officials have backed her role in implementing a phased plan to stabilize the country’s political and economic system, including outreach to foreign investors and commitments to increased transparency and international arbitration.

The administration has also taken broader steps to ease restrictions on Venezuela’s economy. In March, the Treasury authorized state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. to resume direct sales to U.S. buyers and access global markets, reversing years of tight sanctions on the country’s energy sector.

In parallel, U.S. authorities have formally recognized Rodríguez as the sole head of state in an ongoing civil case in federal court, further consolidating her standing in Washington’s policy framework.Maduro, however, remains Venezuela’s legal president under the country’s institutional structure.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allows Rodríguez to govern for an initial 90-day period, which is set to expire Friday, with a possible extension to six months subject to approval by the National Assembly, which is controlled by the ruling party and led by her brother.

The developments highlight an evolving U.S. approach toward Venezuela, balancing legal proceedings against Maduro with pragmatic engagement aimed at restoring economic activity and political stability in the oil-rich nation.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called ‘Monroe Doctrine 2.0.

In 1823, President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, a crucial U.S. policy to stop European nations from taking over or interfering with countries in the Americas. Monroe stated that new European colonies were not allowed in the Western Hemisphere and that any attempt by European powers to control or harm independent nations in this area would be a threat to the U.S. The United States promised not to get involved in European issues or their existing colonies but wanted to protect newly independent Latin American countries. At that time, Spain wanted to reclaim its old colonies, and Russia aimed to expand along North America’s Pacific coast. The U.S. couldn’t enforce the policy alone due to a weak military, but Britain supported the doctrine because it aligned with their trade interests in Latin America. Over time, the Monroe Doctrine evolved, with President Theodore Roosevelt adding the Roosevelt Corollary, which allowed U.S. intervention in Latin America to keep Europeans out. By the mid-20th century, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the focus shifted to cooperation and non-interference with the Good Neighbour Policy. The Monroe Doctrine remains a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and symbolizes America’s role in the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump didn’t talk about the Monroe Doctrine during his 2016 campaign, but it became key to his “America First” foreign policy as president. In 2018, he brought up the doctrine in a United Nations speech, saying it was important to keep outside interference out of the Western Hemisphere. By his 2024 campaign, the Monroe Doctrine had become very important, especially to push back against China’s influence in Latin America. Many historians and experts believed that if Trump were elected again, he would focus more on the Monroe Doctrine. This would mean trying to have more control in the Western Hemisphere while reducing involvement in Europe and Asia. Hal Brands, a historian, thought Trump would give the doctrine more energy during a second term, matching his “America First” approach. James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation also suggested reinvigorating the doctrine to counter foreign influence, particularly from China. Experts at Foreign Affairs and Carnegie Endowment pointed out that Trump’s policies reflected a modern take on the doctrine, trying to expand U.S. influence beyond the Western Hemisphere.

Trump’s trade policies aimed to reduce the influence of other countries and strengthen U.S. control in nearby regions. One key move was imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico. He argued these tariffs would help decrease migration and stop fentanyl trafficking, but they also served to pressure Mexico to follow U.S. interests, reflecting an idea similar to the Monroe Doctrine, which emphasizes U.S. influence in the Americas. In his trade conflict with China, Trump focused on reducing China’s growing economic power in Latin America. His goal was to curb China’s influence and shift supply chains back to the Americas. To achieve this, he implemented reciprocal tariffs, including a basic 10% tariff on most Latin American countries, with higher rates for Guyana and Nicaragua. This approach was about claiming economic control in the region and showed Trump’s willingness to prioritize U.S. interests over existing free trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. Trump also used tariffs to push countries toward aligning with U.S. priorities in areas like security cooperation and trade agreements. For instance, Paraguay’s purchase of U.S. radars and Ecuador’s consideration of hosting a U.S. military base highlight how his economic measures were tied to broader geopolitical goals.

The Monroe Doctrine originally aimed to keep European powers out of the Americas, but Trump wanted it to apply worldwide. He believed some large organizations and allies were trying to weaken the U.S. or take advantage of its resources without giving enough return. Trump was sceptical of NATO and the EU because he thought Europe relied too much on American security and didn’t spend enough on their own defence. His administration wanted European countries to handle their security more, so the U.S. could reduce its role and investment in NATO. This was a significant change from the usual U.S.-Europe partnership. Trump’s interest in Greenland shows his use of the Monroe Doctrine approach. He wanted to buy Greenland to increase U.S. influence in the Arctic, where there are lots of valuable resources. This move was also meant to challenge China and Russia’s presence in the region. Although Denmark rejected the idea, Trump’s focus on Greenland aligns with the Monroe Doctrine by trying to control key areas and preventing other countries from gaining power there. In addition, his tariff actions against Europe and his efforts to strengthen the U.S. dollar show his desire to change the global economy to favour the United States.

Trump’s actions against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) demonstrate how he applies his “America First” ideas. He targeted USAID because some argued it supported projects that hurt U.S. interests or advanced foreign agendas conflicting with his policy. By freezing foreign aid and stopping USAID activities in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine, Trump aimed to align U.S. foreign assistance with domestic priorities. This decision also fits with Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which he used to address perceived threats from non-state actors or certain ideologies. Critics claimed USAID funding supported initiatives associated with regime changes or left-wing agendas abroad, which Trump viewed as harmful to U.S. sovereignty and regional stability.

Donald Trump’s “America First” policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” He used this idea to show U.S. power around the world. Trump challenged Global institutions like NATO, the EU. He decided to bypass these institutions and put tariffs on both allies and competitors of the U.S. His interest in buying Greenland showed a Monroe-like plan to control important areas to compete with China and Russia. Trump’s aim to shift supply chains more toward the Americas followed the doctrine’s focus on this region. Years, decades later another U.S President may emulate President Donald Trump’s Policies and commentators may name it America First 2.0, or Monroe Doctrine 3.0. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.