A group of young attorneys affiliated with the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) of Cuba orchestrated an unusual "anti-imperialist tribunal" in Havana. In this theatrical event, they staged a mock trial against the United States government, ultimately declaring it "guilty" for the impact of the embargo on Cuba's economy. This spectacle joins a long list of ridiculous media stunts orchestrated by FAR's Communication Directorate, aimed at propaganda.
The participants, who are adult professionals with law degrees, play-acted as judges and prosecutors in this "symbolic court," which unsurprisingly concluded with a "verdict" against the United States. Far from being a legitimate or useful legal exercise, this was a politically motivated performance with no legal standing, organized to reinforce the regime's narrative about how the U.S. embargo affects its state enterprises, particularly the military-controlled conglomerate Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), which dominates over 70% of the Cuban economy.
Instead of addressing GAESA's opaque dealings, debts, real losses, or lack of public audits, the state propaganda machine prefers to engage in these mock trials, where everything is pre-determined, including the outcome. The event was detailed in a report by the Noticiero Nacional de la Televisión Cubana, showcasing how official media are used to promote a crude distraction, funded with public resources, amid widespread shortages and the collapse of basic services in the country.
During the symbolic trial, a report was read, allegedly quantifying millions of dollars in losses due to the embargo from March 2024 to February 2025. These figures are unverifiable, lack detail, and cannot be cross-referenced with independent sources. The tribunal failed to critically analyze the role of Cuban military enterprises in the nation's economic management, and the report did not feature statements from any lawyers who might have hypothetically defended imperialism, assuming any member of the courtroom dared to uphold the principle of contradiction.
Nonetheless, the mock trial included testimony from handpicked witnesses, presentation of "documentary evidence" against Washington, and a final verdict declaring the U.S. government guilty of obstructing access to essential goods for the regime of Miguel Díaz-Canel. All of this took place in an air-conditioned room, while the Cuban people endure power outages, rampant inflation erodes workers' wages, and thousands of families struggle to provide sufficient food for their children.
The broadcast concluded with chants of "Down with imperialism!" and "Long live the Cuban revolution!" resembling a school assembly. The most insulting aspect is that this was not performed by students or high schoolers but by lawyers, professionals within Cuba's military judicial system.
On social media, the outrage was immediate. Comments such as "they get more ridiculous every day," "they just want dollars while talking about the blockade," and "cry about it, that's the corrupt Castroist policy" reflected the popular sentiment toward propaganda that no longer convinces anyone. The dictatorship fantasizes about judging the external enemy while refusing to publicly review the dealings of GAESA, one of the country's most secretive and powerful entities. There is no access to its accounts, no transparency, and certainly, no court in Cuba has summoned FAR to be accountable to the people.
Understanding the Mock Trial Against U.S. Imperialism in Cuba
What was the purpose of the mock trial organized by FAR lawyers in Cuba?
The mock trial was a politically motivated performance aimed at reinforcing the regime's narrative about the negative impact of the U.S. embargo on Cuba's economy. It was not a legitimate legal exercise but rather a propaganda stunt orchestrated by the FAR's Communication Directorate.
Why is GAESA significant in the context of this mock trial?
GAESA is a military-controlled conglomerate that dominates over 70% of Cuba's economy. The mock trial aimed to deflect attention from GAESA's opaque dealings and lack of public accountability, instead blaming the U.S. embargo for economic issues.