US sanctions Cuban President Díaz-Canel and other officials for human rights violations
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on social media platform X that the State Department also would impose visa restrictions on Cuban judicial and prison officials 'responsible for, or complicit in, the unjust detention and torture of the July 2021 protesters.'
The protests, which were not led by an opposition group, developed July 11 and 12, 2021, drawing attention to the depths of Cuba's economic crisis.
'The U.S. will continue to stand for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Cuba, and make clear no illegitimate, dictatorial regimes are welcome in our hemisphere,' Rubio said in the statement.
The Trump administration has taken a harder line against Cuba's government than the Biden administration.
In addition to Díaz-Canel, the U.S. sanctioned Cuban Defense Minister Álvaro López Miera and Interior Minister Lázaro Álvarez Casas.
Shortly after the announcement, Johana Tablada, deputy director of the U.S. department in the Cuban Foreign Ministry, lashed out at Rubio, calling him a 'defender of genocide, prisons and mass deportations.'
The rare protests in 2021 came about after repeated blackouts in Havana and other cities. One man died and some marches ended in vandalism.
Groups supporting the government responded along with authorities to repress the protests. Human rights groups estimated there were more than 1,000 arrests but the government gave no official figures.
At the time, the Cuban government said it was the result of a U.S. media campaign and decades of U.S. sanctions.
In 2022, Cuban prosecutors said some 790 people were investigated for acts related to the protests ranging from disorder to sabotage and vandalism.
The advocacy group 11J, whose name alludes to the protests, said late last year there were 554 people serving sentences related to the protests, but some were given conditional release in January after an appeal from Pope Francis.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Antonio Brown, at court-mandated appearance for bankruptcy case, downplays rich lifestyle
In social media posts, Antonio Brown has appeared to be living a life of luxury in the United Arab Emirates. In a court-mandated appearance as part of his bankruptcy case, however, he said the reality is different. Brown fielded questions about his finances and social media activity during an Aug. 1 meeting of creditors in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, downplaying the lavish lifestyle that he has appeared to be living in Dubai over the past seven weeks. The former NFL wide receiver said he does not have any cryptocurrency accounts, does not own any jewelry, does not own any of the expensive sports cars that he has been seen driving in social media posts and is not paying rent in the United Arab Emirates. "I'm actually staying out here with some people, brother," Brown said when asked about his living arrangements. The 37-year-old declined to specify who owns the property at which he has been staying or who is paying the rent, but he said the person is not an American citizen. Attempted murder charge. Bankruptcy. Music. The bizarre post-NFL life of Antonio Brown Brown also indicated that he could soon return to the United States, where he has a warrant out for his arrest after being charged with attempted second-degree murder on June 11. The charge stems from an alleged altercation outside an amateur boxing event on May 16 in Miami. "Hopefully, yes," Brown said, when asked if he planned to return to the U.S. at some point in the near future. The question came in the context of scheduling, as Brown will be asked to sit for a deposition in the bankruptcy case. Because he has an active warrant out for his arrest, he likely would be detained by Customs and Border Protection upon returning to the U.S. A State Department spokesperson declined comment earlier this week when asked by USA TODAY Sports if Brown could be extradited from the United Arab Emirates. The spokesperson cited the department's longstanding policy to not comment on the possible existence of extradition requests. Brown filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May 2024, according to court records, and his case has since been converted to Chapter 7 − a form of bankruptcy in which the court can seize assets and garnish wages to repay creditors. The longtime Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver, who publicly estimated that he made more than $100 million during his NFL career, now owes more than $3.5 million to a handful of creditors. Brown was ordered to appear at Friday's meeting of creditors, which is also known as a 341 meeting, after previously failing to provide the necessary financial documents to the U.S. trustee overseeing his case, Leslie Osborne. Brown joined the meeting several minutes late from what appeared to be a Dubai hotel room. Meetings of creditors are not court hearings and they are not overseen by a judge. But they nevertheless play an important role in the early stages of the bankruptcy process, requiring debtors to answer questions about their finances under penalty of perjury. Friday's meeting was open to members of the public. Osborne's attorney, D. Brett Marks, asked Brown several questions about his life in Dubai and some of his activity on social media, including a June 26 post on X in which the former NFL wideout posted a screenshot of an account balance exceeding $24 million with the caption "bankrupt over." Brown replied that it was an old post and he does not have an account with $24 million. Brown also offered unclear answers when asked about how he is making money and paying for his current lifestyle. When asked about video clips of himself driving luxurious sports cars that he has posted on social media, he denied owning any cars in the United Arab Emirates, then suggested that such clips might have been manufactured by artificial intelligence. Upon further questioning, Brown said he sometimes has access to sports cars as part of a promotional arrangement with a rental car company. Report: Former NFL WR Antonio Brown facing attempted murder charge in Florida Osborne, the trustee tasked with helping Brown pay off his debts, said at the start of the meeting that he had received only two of the requested bank statements from the seven-time Pro Bowler. Brown told Osborne that he would work with his attorney to provide the requested documents − including the original deed of one of the houses he owns in Florida, which could be put up for sale to pay off some of Brown's debts. At the most recent court hearing in Brown's bankruptcy case, on July 24, judge Peter Russin said Brown's case would be "hanging in the balance" if he did not provide financial documents and follow the court's rules. "I really want to explain to him that he's got his future in his own hands," Russin said during the hearing. "He can resolve all these things very simply just by doing what he's obligated to do anyway, and leave here with his financial situation generally intact." Contact Tom Schad at tschad@ or on social media @
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Pushing for New Judge in Green Card Lawsuit, Lawyer Says
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration's move to shift an immigration case involving foreign nationals to a new judge has resulted in new and urgent legal filings, a lawyer for the plaintiffs has told Newsweek. Newsweek reached out to the State Department via email for comment. Why It Matters A number of Afghans who had assisted American forces following the United States' two-decade military presence in the region were provided Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Policy changes under the Trump administration, however, have resulted in the termination of TPS for some people, raising concerns about potential deportations. The U.S. ended TPS for Afghans effective July 14, 2025, according to a Department of Homeland Security notice published in May. President Donald Trump has vowed to remove millions of migrants without legal status. This has left a number of foreign nationals unsure of their legal status. It translates to more than 9,000 people losing their protection from deportation and authorization to work, according to the International Rescue Committee. The White House said in January that anyone living in the country unlawfully is considered to be a "criminal." The U.S. Department of State building in Washington, D.C., on July 19, 2019. The U.S. Department of State building in Washington, D.C., on July 19, 2019. Getty Images What To Know On July 22, 102 nationals of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Togo, Somalia, and Iran, including 55 Diversity Visa 2025 (DV-2025) program selectees and their 47 beneficiaries, filed a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of Presidential Proclamation 10949, Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. Plaintiffs challenged the travel ban under a nondelegation theory, as well as challenging the State Department's policy of treating an entry ban as a visa issuance ban—which lawyers for the plaintiffs claim is beyond the scope of the president's authority. The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who already is overseeing two other lawsuits where Iranian visa applicants are seeking leave to amend their complaints to also challenge the travel ban. Chutkan, who has a past history with Trump due to her previously overseeing the president's federal election interference case, previously cited the aforementioned misinterpretation of law in a September 2021 opinion, Rai v Biden. On Friday, Curtis Morrison told Newsweek that he, on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case Thein v. Trump that challenges the lawfulness of travel ban, filed motions for both expedited discovery and preliminary injunction—saying that the Trump administration "is desperately trying to get this case transferred away from Judge Chutkan, using the exact opposite logic they used in similar case before her in 2020." The motion for preliminary injunction calls the defendants' actions delaying and withholding a proper adjudication of diversity visas "unlawful," and mandates that they "fulfill their nondiscretionary duty to process plaintiffs' immigrant visa applications; compel a proper adjudication of Plaintiffs' immigrant visa applications; and issue diversity visas to eligible plaintiffs before September 30, 2025, the end of fiscal year." Time is of the essence, according to Morrison. "The motion for preliminary injunction, that's necessary because we need a timely decision on whether or not the ban is lawful or not because for diversity visa applicants, their journey ends on September 30," Morrison said. "They don't get to immigrate if they don't overcome this ban by then, so that's why we're pushing for that. "The motion for expedited discovery—basically, [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio has sent a cable to the embassies; this is the way they implement proclamations with guidance on how to implement it, and since we're alleging that that guidance was a misinterpretation of law and unlawful, we need that cable." Morrison was an attorney who stood before Chutkan in a visa diversity lawsuit back in 2020, where the government argued that the case had to be taken from her and given to another judge who at the time was already handling cases regarding the government proclamation. "The irony of that is now they're arguing the opposite, and they're saying just because she has other cases challenging the proclamation, they're different visa categories and so this case should get reassigned," Morrison said. "So, it's just obvious that it's not in good faith. They're just trying to get away from her because they know her view on this legal issue. ...We're on track right now to get an order that causes a serious problem with the implementation of the travel ban." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump in his June 4 proclamation: "As President, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people. I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety." The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote on X (formerly Twitter) on May 5: "Green cards and visas will be revoked if an alien breaks the law." It said in a later post: "USCIS works alongside our @DHSgov and @StateDept partners each day to keep America, and Americans, safe. From designating foreign terrorist organizations to imposing sanctions, we're taking action to protect and secure our nation for your families, friends, and future." Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, previously told Newsweek: "The Trump administration's decision to turn its back on our Afghan allies who risked their lives and the lives of their families to support American troops in Afghanistan is unconscionable." What Happens Next Morrison expects to receive a response next week of whether Chutkan will proceed in overseeing this case or not.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
State Department announces investigation into Harvard international visas
** This article has been updated on July 23, 2025, at 1:25 p.m. to include a comment from a Harvard spokesperson. The State Department has opened an investigation into Harvard University's use of international visas, according to an announcement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio said all sponsors of the government's Exchange Visitor Program must 'fully comply' with the 'exchange visitor regulations, transparency in reporting, and a demonstrated commitment to fostering the principles of cultural exchange and mutual understanding upon which the program was founded.' The program is intended for foreign citizens who wish to enter the United States. It can used by anyone from a student to a professor to an au pair, according to its website. In doing so, the sponsoring institution must not conduct their programs 'in a manner that does not undermine the foreign policy objectives or compromise the national security interests of the United States.' 'The American people have the right to expect their universities to uphold national security, comply with the law, and provide safe environments for all students,' Rubio said. 'The investigation will ensure that State Department programs do not run contrary to our nation's interests.' A Harvard spokesperson said the investigation is 'yet another retaliatory step' taken by the administration, which violates their First Amendment rights. 'Harvard continues to enroll and sponsor international scholars, researchers and students, and will protect its international community and support them as they apply for U.S. visas and travel to campus this fall,' the spokesperson said. Read more: 'That Harvard education is paying off for you': Judge jabs at Trump lawyer in Harvard case The announcement comes amid talks of a deal between Harvard and the Trump administration, and as two lawsuits take shape in federal court. One of the lawsuits focuses on the Trump administration's attacks on international students, including its revocation of a key certification that allows Harvard's international students to study there. What has happened between the Trump admin and Harvard? The Trump administration has gone after Harvard since April, cutting billions of dollars. Demanding an overhaul of Harvard's leadership structure, admissions and hiring, the federal government warned the school could risk losing $9 billion in funding. Harvard rejected those demands, stating the government seeks to 'invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court.' Then the fight over funding began. It started with a $2.2 billion funding freeze on April 14 after the school refused to comply with the federal administration's demands. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit on April 21, arguing that its constitutional rights had been violated by the government's threats to pull billions of dollars in funding. Harvard President Alan Garber also signed onto a letter with hundreds of other university presidents pushing back against 'government overreach and political interference' by the Trump administration. At the beginning of May, the Trump administration said it would bar Harvard University from acquiring new federal grants while the school continues to refuse to comply with the administration's demands for change on its campus. A few days later, eight federal agencies cut $450 million in grants and then the United States Department of Health and Human Services cut $60 million in grants from the university. Harvard went on to amend its lawsuit against the Trump administration. On May 16, a wave of nearly one thousand federal research grant terminations began, amounting to more than $2.4 billion, according to an analysis by Nature. In response, Harvard established a new Presidential Priorities Fund, asking for donations in the midst of federal cuts. Some of Harvard's schools, including its School of Public Health, took to social media to ask for donations after nearly every single federal grant had been terminated. Other investigations and threats have been made against the institution, some of which have also focused on threatening the university's ability to enroll international students. That is the university's second lawsuit. More Higher Ed Brandeis gets tax-free $135 million bond for new residence hall Columbia expels, suspends students who participated in pro-Palestine protests 'That Harvard education is paying off for you': Judge jabs at Trump lawyer in Harvard case As Harvard faces federal funding cuts, its medical school secures new donations Federal judge questions cuts to Harvard's federal funding, its links to antisemitism Read the original article on MassLive.
