Can Spanish Hotel Chains Forge Ties with Trump? New Dynamics in the Fight Against GAESA

The withdrawal of Sherritt International from Cuba in response to the latest sanctions imposed by Donald Trump has not only raised alarms about the future of foreign investment on the island. It also poses a question that once seemed unlikely: Could Spanish hotel chains seek to redefine their relationship with Washington to navigate this new landscape?

This notion is gaining traction among analysts and financial sectors following the formal designation of GAESA by the United States under Executive Order 14404.

This move places the Cuban military conglomerate at the heart of the Trump administration's economic offensive, significantly increasing the risks for foreign companies involved in Cuba's tourism sector.

Challenges for Spanish Hotel Chains

Up until now, chains like Meliá, Iberostar, and Barceló have weathered decades of political tensions, U.S. sanctions, and lawsuits under the Helms-Burton Act. However, Sherritt's exit has altered the perception of risk.

The Canadian mining company concluded that continuing operations in Cuba could jeopardize its relationships with international banks and threaten its access to the global financial system.

The Need for Transparency

For Spanish hotel chains, whose operations are even more reliant on international payments, booking platforms, insurance providers, and banking correspondents, the message was clear.

In this context, a middle ground between staying or leaving Cuba is emerging: enhancing collaboration and transparency with Washington to mitigate sanction risks.

This strategy would involve clarifying the true scope of their contracts with Cuban entities, making financial flows transparent, and demonstrating operational separation from structures directly controlled by GAESA.

Institutional Opacity and Its Critics

The challenge lies in the fact that foreign tourism operations in Cuba have long been shrouded in institutional opacity. Details of contracts, administrative mechanisms, revenue distribution, and corporate structures remain largely out of public scrutiny and away from independent audits.

This lack of transparency has been a major point of criticism from activists, human rights organizations, and financial experts, particularly due to the labor model controlled by the Cuban state, where foreign companies pay wages in foreign currencies to state agencies while workers receive only a small portion in Cuban pesos.

Implications of New Sanctions

The new sanctions could alter this dynamic. If Washington continues to pressure GAESA and increases oversight on financial operations linked to Cuban tourism, some foreign chains might be compelled to demand greater legal and accounting assurances to safeguard their access to the international banking system.

However, this scenario would also present a delicate dilemma for the Cuban regime. Fully opening the accounts and contracts of the tourism sector would mean exposing the internal workings of one of the most sensitive economic pillars controlled by the military apparatus.

So far, no Spanish chain has publicly hinted at such a move. Yet, following Sherritt's exit, the discussion is no longer unimaginable.

The fundamental question remains whether the Cuban tourism model, built over decades on opacity and state control, can adapt to a scenario where the financial survival of foreign partners depends precisely on revealing what has remained hidden until now.