UN General Assembly Votes 130-17, With 25 Abstentions, to Call for End of U.S. Embargo on Cuba; Support Is Lowest Since 1995
The 34th annual resolution passed easily but drew 35 fewer yes votes than in 2025, after a U.S. lobbying campaign and a floor confrontation between Ambassador Mike Waltz and Cuba's foreign minister.
A vote that passed 130 to 17 and still counted as a loss
On Wednesday, October 28, 2026, the UN General Assembly voted 130 to 17, with 25 abstentions, to call on the United States to end its embargo on Cuba[1][2]. That is a lopsided win. It is more than 7 to 1 among the countries that picked a side.
It is also the weakest showing for the resolution since 1995[2][3]. Last year the tally was 165 to 7, with 12 abstentions[4]. That is 35 fewer yes votes in one year. UN News called the result a 20-year low, while AFP and Euronews called it a 30-year low[3][4][5].
Both facts are true, and each side's account leans on one of them. The rest of the story is about what moved those votes and what the result means.
Where the 35 votes went
The shift came mostly from countries stepping back, not from a wave of new opponents. Abstentions rose by 13. No votes rose by 10. About 21 member states did not vote at all[4].
Germany, Italy, South Korea and Latvia moved from yes to abstain[2][5]. Several countries voted no, including Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Morocco, Slovenia and Bosnia. Euronews describes several of them as new or first-time no votes[5]. Argentina and Paraguay also voted no, but they had done so in 2025 too[2][5].
The United States and Israel voted no, as they have in past years. Reuters and AP both describe a U.S. lobbying campaign before the vote[6][8]. Cuba objected to that campaign publicly[14].
None of the sources we found gave detailed explanations from the swing states. Their reasons are inferred from how they moved. Abstaining or skipping the vote costs a government little and avoids friction with Washington. That may be why the movement came mostly in abstentions and non-votes rather than in no votes[5][6].
A shouting match at the podium
The day before the vote, the debate turned physical. On October 27, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla approached U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz at the podium. Rodríguez called Waltz "a liar." Waltz told him to "back up"[7][11].
Fox News led with Waltz's line, "This is America. Back up!"[7] RT ran the same moment under a headline saying the ambassador "erupts"[18]. The New Republic's headline said the two men "yell at each other"[12].
The U.S. later said it was expelling a Cuban diplomat. Waltz and Secretary of State Rubio accused him of shoving a U.S. official[2]. That is a U.S. allegation. The sources we checked did not include a Cuban response to it.
Embargo or blockade? The word is the argument
The two governments disagree about what to call the policy. An embargo means a country refuses to trade with another. A blockade, in the strict legal sense, means physically stopping other countries' ships. That is close to an act of war.
Washington says it does only the first. Americans can't trade with Cuba, but everyone else can. Waltz says Cuba is not under a "blockade"[2].
Havana says the line is blurred. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act lets the U.S. penalize foreign companies that do business with Cuba. So U.S. law, Cuba argues, reaches well beyond U.S. borders[2]. Critics also point to U.S. moves since early 2026 to keep fuel from reaching the island[12][16].
Each word carries a case. "Embargo" implies a bilateral choice. "Blockade" implies being cut off from the world.
What is happening on the island
Underneath the diplomacy is a real crisis. UN agencies report blackouts of up to 20 hours. Hospitals have postponed non-emergency surgery[16][19]. In May 2026, OCHA and the WHO said more than 100,000 patients were waiting for operations delayed by fuel shortages[16][19].
UN Resident Coordinator Francisco Pichon said the tightened embargo has led to an energy crisis and a possible humanitarian collapse[9][10]. The UN said it was talking with "several countries" about supplying fuel[19].
Waltz puts the blame elsewhere. He said "the plight of the Cuban people is exclusively the fault of this corrupt communist regime"[2]. He accused Cuban leaders of keeping a private island and Rolex collections[12]. Supporters of the U.S. position add that the pressure targets a government that jails dissidents. In their view, easing it would reward repression[17].
Rodríguez says the measures directly cause shortages of fuel, medicine and food. During the debate he showed an on-screen counter of the embargo's cost. It read more than $22.9 million since the debate opened[11].
Two ways to read the same tally
Washington reads the drop as a sign that governments are tiring of Havana's argument. Waltz cited a tripling in the number of countries that shifted[2]. A Miami-based exile outlet carried the U.S. line that "the world begins to resist the regime's propaganda"[17]. For the administration, 10 more no votes and 13 more abstentions than last year count as a diplomatic gain[4]. It still lost by a wide margin.
Havana calls 130 votes a "victory" won despite "unprecedented pressure"[13]. Losing 35 yes votes does weaken its claim to near-unanimous backing. CiberCuba, a Spain-based outlet critical of Havana, headlined it as a resolution losing momentum[22].
The coverage split along the same lines. AFP wrote that Cuba "wins" with the weakest backing in 30 years, giving both facts in one line[3]. Reuters led with the U.S. getting more countries to oppose the text[6]. Al Jazeera said the vote came "despite" the U.S. push[2]. Xinhua stressed an "overwhelming" 34th straight condemnation and did not mention the drop in its headline[15]. AP's "sit out" blends abstentions with non-votes, which are different things[8].
What the vote can and can't change
The resolution is nonbinding. The embargo is written into U.S. law, so only Congress can lift it[2]. No UN vote or presidential order alone can end it. The vote measures world opinion. It is not a policy lever.
So the embargo stays, and so does the fuel shortage unless something else changes. The open questions are whether the lower support holds next year and whether more governments choose neutrality over a vote against Washington. If the shift lasts, the resolution's diplomatic weight will shrink[3][5].
Summary
On Wednesday, October 28, 2026, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling on the United States to end its economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba. The vote was 130 in favor, 17 against and 25 abstentions[1][2]. The Assembly has passed this resolution 34 times. This year's support was the lowest since 1995[2][3]. In 2025 the tally was 165-7, with 12 abstentions[4]. The resolution is nonbinding. Under U.S. law, only Congress can lift the embargo[2].
The drop followed a U.S. lobbying campaign[6][2]. Germany, Italy, South Korea and Latvia moved from yes to abstain[2][5]. Several countries voted no, including Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Morocco, Slovenia and Bosnia, many for the first time. Argentina and Paraguay, which also voted no in 2025, again opposed it[5][2]. The day before, U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla confronted each other on the Assembly floor. Rodríguez called Waltz 'a liar,' and Waltz told him to 'back up'[7][11]. The U.S. then said it was expelling a Cuban diplomat it accused of shoving a U.S. official, an allegation made by Waltz and Secretary of State Rubio[2].
The main dispute is over cause. Cuba and UN humanitarian officials say the tightened embargo, including limits on fuel reaching the island, has deepened a severe energy and health crisis[9][10]. Waltz says Cuba is not under a 'blockade.' He says 'the plight of the Cuban people is exclusively the fault of this corrupt communist regime'[2]. Supporters of each view read the smaller majority differently. Washington, citing a tripling of countries that shifted, calls it a sign that more governments are rejecting Havana's argument[2][17]. Cuba calls it a win won despite heavy pressure[13].
The Event
On October 28, 2026, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the need to end the U.S. embargo on Cuba. The vote was 130 to 17, with 25 abstentions[1][2]. About 21 member states did not vote. The vote followed a debate on October 27 in which Ambassador Mike Waltz and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla confronted each other at the podium[7][11]. The U.S. later said it was expelling a Cuban diplomat accused of assaulting a U.S. official[2].
Undisputed Facts
- The resolution passed 130 in favor, 17 against and 25 abstaining[1][2].
- In 2025 the same resolution passed 165-7, with 12 abstentions[4].
- This year's yes total was the lowest since 1995. UN News described it as the weakest in two decades, and AFP and Euronews as the weakest in 30 years[2][3][4][5].
- The United States and Israel voted no. So did Argentina and Paraguay, which also voted no in 2025, and Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Morocco, Slovenia and Bosnia, several of them for the first time[2][5].
- Germany and Italy abstained after voting yes in earlier years[2][5].
- General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding, and only the U.S. Congress can lift the embargo[2].
- The U.S. carried out a lobbying campaign before the vote, and Cuba publicly objected to it[6][14].
- On October 27, Rodríguez approached Waltz at the podium and called him 'a liar.' Waltz told him to 'back up'[7][11].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Embargo vs. 'blockade': what the word means
- An embargo is a country's refusal to trade with another. A blockade, in the strict legal sense, means physically stopping other countries' ships, which is close to an act of war. The U.S. says it does only the first: Americans can't trade with Cuba, but everyone else can. Cuba says the line is blurred. Helms-Burton lets the U.S. punish foreign firms that deal with Cuba, so U.S. law reaches non-Americans[2]. Since early 2026, critics also point to U.S. moves to keep fuel from reaching the island[12][16]. Each side's word choice carries its argument. 'Embargo' implies a bilateral choice. 'Blockade' implies being cut off from the world.
- Only Congress can act
- The embargo is written into U.S. statute, so no UN vote or presidential order alone can end it. That makes the General Assembly vote a measure of world opinion, not a policy lever[2].
- Leverage over UN votes
- Abstaining or not voting costs a government little and avoids friction with Washington. That is why the vote moved most in abstentions and non-votes rather than in no votes[5][6].
Material realityCuba is in a severe energy crisis. Blackouts last up to 20 hours, and fuel shortages have delayed surgeries for more than 100,000 patients, according to UN agencies[16][19]. UN officials link the crisis partly to the tightened U.S. embargo[9][10]. The U.S. blames Cuba's government[2]. Neither the vote nor the shouting match changes U.S. law. The embargo stays in place unless Congress acts[2].
Narrative as a weaponThree narratives are competing. Washington and right-leaning U.S. media want readers to see a crumbling consensus and a regime losing its excuses. Havana and Chinese and Russian state media want readers to see an overwhelming global rebuke of U.S. 'aggression.' U.S. left-leaning outlets and UN humanitarian voices want readers to see U.S. policy driving a humanitarian emergency. Each claim rests on part of the record. The resolution passed by more than 7 to 1, and support also fell to its lowest level since 1995. Coverage that gives only one of those facts is choosing a side.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asWashington argues the embargo only limits trade with the United States. Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world, so the word 'blockade' is propaganda[2]. In this view, Cuba's shortages come from a one-party state that mismanages its economy and enriches its elite. Waltz accused Cuban leaders of keeping a private island and Rolex collections[12]. Supporters add that the pressure targets a government that jails dissidents. In their view, easing pressure would reward repression. They read this year's vote shift as evidence that more democracies agree[17].
WhyKeep economic pressure on Havana. Show that U.S. diplomacy can move votes at the UN. Satisfy Cuban-American and other hard-line constituencies at home[6][17].
Impact on themThe administration won a diplomatic point: 10 more no votes and 13 more abstentions than in 2025[4]. But it still lost by a wide margin. It is also exposed to UN criticism over the humanitarian effects of its fuel restrictions[9].
Frames it asHavana calls the embargo a 'blockade.' It says U.S. law reaches beyond U.S. borders. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act penalizes companies in other countries that do business with Cuba, so the effect is felt worldwide[2]. Rodríguez said the measures directly cause shortages of fuel, medicine and food. During the debate he displayed an on-screen counter of the embargo's cost, which read more than $22.9 million since the debate opened[11]. Havana says winning 130 votes despite 'unprecedented pressure' is a victory[13].
WhyKeep international pressure on Washington, win fuel and aid from other countries, and blame outside forces for the island's hardship[13][14].
Impact on themCuba faces blackouts and fuel shortages severe enough that UN officials warned of a possible 'humanitarian collapse'[10]. Losing 35 yes votes weakens its claim to near-unanimous world backing[22].
Frames it asUN officials focus on effects rather than blame. Resident Coordinator Francisco Pichon said the tightened embargo has led to an energy crisis and a possible humanitarian collapse[9]. UN agencies report blackouts of up to 20 hours that forced hospitals to postpone non-emergency surgery. In May 2026, OCHA and the WHO said more than 100,000 patients were waiting for surgeries delayed by fuel shortages[16][19].
WhySecure fuel and access for humanitarian operations. The UN said it was talking with 'several countries' about supplying fuel to Cuba[19].
Impact on themUN operations in Cuba depend on fuel and supply chains that the restrictions affect[10][19].
Frames it asNone of the sources we found gave detailed explanations of their votes. Their positions are therefore inferred from where they moved. Several Latin American governments that voted no, including Argentina, Ecuador and Paraguay, are aligned with Washington. European abstainers moved from opposing the embargo to staying neutral[5][6].
WhyReuters and AP describe direct U.S. lobbying before the vote[6][8]. Governments weigh their ties with Washington against a long-standing objection to sanctions that reach beyond the country that imposes them.
Impact on themTheir votes are the main reason support fell. If the shift holds, the resolution's diplomatic weight will shrink[3][5].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.8
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agence France-Presse | French state-subsidized wire, center | 2 | Cuba wins UN vote against US embargo with weakest backing in 30 years | Plain and balanced. It gives the win and the decline in one line. |
| Associated Press | U.S. center | 3 | UN condemns US economic embargo of Cuba though more nations sit out after Trump administration push | Gives both the result and the decline. 'Sit out' blends abstentions with non-votes, which are two different things. |
| Reuters | U.S./UK center | 3 | US Gets More Countries to Oppose UN Resolution Condemning Its Cuba Embargo | Frames the story around U.S. diplomatic success. The resolution's passage comes second. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 4 | UN votes to condemn embargo of Cuba despite US lobbying push | 'Despite' casts the U.S. lobbying as an effort that failed. The story does report the drop and quotes Waltz in full. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 6 | 'This is America. Back up!': Trump UN envoy clashes with Cuban foreign minister | The confrontation and Waltz's line lead the story. The fact that the U.S. lost the vote by 113 votes is secondary, and the UN's humanitarian warnings get little space. |
| The New Republic | U.S. left | 6 | Mike Waltz and Cuban Foreign Minister Yell at Each Other at U.N. | Says Waltz blamed Havana 'even as the U.S. continues to block fuel,' which presents U.S. policy as the cause in the outlet's own voice. |
| Xinhua | Chinese state | 7 | U.S. embargo on Cuba draws overwhelming UN condemnation for 34th straight year | 'Overwhelming' and 'straight year' suggest continuity. The headline leaves out the sharpest drop in support in decades. |
| RT | Russian state | 7 | 'Back up!' US ambassador erupts at Cuban minister (VIDEO) | 'Erupts' assigns the aggression to the U.S. envoy, although Rodríguez was the one who walked to the podium. |
References
- General Assembly Adopts Resolution to Lift United States Embargo of Cuba — UN Press (Meetings Coverage) · Official UN Secretariat record
- UN votes to condemn embargo of Cuba despite US lobbying push — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded
- Cuba wins UN vote against US embargo with weakest backing in 30 years — France 24 (AFP) · French state-funded broadcaster carrying AFP wire
- Backing for UN call to end Cuba embargo falls to 20-year low — UN News · Official UN news service
- Support for UN vote to end US embargo on Cuba falls to 30-year low — Euronews · European, partly EU-funded
- US Gets More Countries to Oppose UN Resolution Condemning Its Cuba Embargo — Reuters (via U.S. News) · Commercial wire, center
- 'This is America. Back up!': Trump UN envoy clashes with Cuban foreign minister — Fox News · U.S. right, commercial
- UN condemns US economic embargo of Cuba though more nations sit out after Trump administration push — Associated Press (via Washington Post) · Nonprofit cooperative wire, center
- General Assembly weighs US embargo against Cuba ahead of 34th vote — UN News · Official UN news service
- Cuba: UN warns of possible humanitarian 'collapse', as oil supplies dwindle — UN Geneva · Official UN
- U.S. and Cuban diplomats clash at UN ahead of vote on Cuba embargo — Fortune (AP) · U.S. business press carrying AP wire
- Mike Waltz and Cuban Foreign Minister Yell at Each Other at U.N. — The New Republic · U.S. progressive magazine
- Cuba hails "victory" of UN vote to lift U.S. embargo — Xinhua · Chinese state news agency
- Cuba slams U.S. for pressing countries to vote against lifting embargo at UNGA — Xinhua · Chinese state news agency
- U.S. embargo on Cuba draws overwhelming UN condemnation for 34th straight year — Xinhua · Chinese state news agency
- Frequently asked questions: Cuba's humanitarian crisis and US tensions in 2026 — House of Commons Library · UK Parliament nonpartisan research service
- United States Applauds Cuba's Setback at the UN: "The World Begins to Resist the Regime's Propaganda" — CubaHeadlines · Miami-based Cuban exile-oriented outlet, critical of Havana
- 'Back up!' US ambassador erupts at Cuban minister (VIDEO) — RT · Russian state broadcaster
- UN says Cuba needs humanitarian aid despite recent fuel shipment — JURIST · University of Pittsburgh-based legal news service
- UN General Assembly backs resolution calling for end to US embargo on Cuba — Anadolu Agency · Turkish state news agency
- UN votes overwhelmingly against U.S. embargo on Cuba — People's Daily · Chinese Communist Party newspaper
- The resolution against the embargo loses momentum at the UN: 35 fewer votes and more than double in opposition — CiberCuba · Spain-based independent Cuban outlet, critical of Havana