A policy order imploring the Trump Administration to stop blocking oil exports into Cuba turned into a debate on Cambridge City Council’s role in commenting on United States foreign policy decisions. Discussion came to an abrupt end when Councillor Patty Nolan used her charter right to place the issue on next meeting’s agenda, which frustrated dozens of anti-blockade advocates waiting in city hall for the vote and split councillors about how they should represent a diverse, international community like Cambridge.
What’s Happening in Cuba?
The U.S. has embargoed all trade with Cuba since 1962 — a policy reaffirmed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike for 64 years. But since the Trump Administration’s incursion into Venezuela January 3 to capture then-leader Nicolás Maduro, tensions between the U.S. and its island neighbor, just 90 miles off the coast of Florida, have escalated.
Less than a month after deposing Maduro, Trump signed Executive Order 14380, which threatens tariffs against any country that supplies oil to Cuba. Oil imports have since plummeted, causing island-wide blackouts and grinding the already-struggling economy to a halt.
In his executive order, Trump calls Cuba “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. interests. “The United States has zero tolerance for the depredations of the communist Cuban regime.”
“The notion that small island nation poses a threat to the most powerful and sophisticated military regime in the world is absurd,” said Andrew King, Cambridge resident and two-time school committee candidate, during the public comment portion of Monday’s meeting. “This is a case of Goliath turning his full attention to David.”
King and dozens of others attended Monday’s meeting in person to support a policy order introduced by Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, which would make the council go on record calling for Trump to rescind the executive order, end the oil embargo, and “carry out his foreign policy agenda with respect to the wishes of the people of the United States and in accordance with international law.” The policy order was co-sponsored by councillors Marc McGovern and Ayah Al-Zubi. It drew the vast majority of public comments on Monday.
Advocates against the embargo were seen rallying in front of City Hall ahead of the meeting, Cuban flags in tow. Many were especially troubled by the impact the Cuban energy crisis has had on hospitals. Religious professional Tara Sandlin, a Cambridge resident, said during public comment she went to Cuba with advocacy group Pastors for Peace last month and saw the impacts of the blockade on the hospitals and medical clinics they visited.
“While I was in Cuba, the national power grid failed for the third time in a single month,” she said. She added that reduced capacity for children’s hospitals “has had an immense psychological impact on these children who understand that they have a curable illness, and that they have a medical team who wants to help them and has the knowledge to help. But the United States government has said that they do not deserve to live.”
Precedent on City Council
This isn’t the first time city council has weighed in on matters related to Cuba. In 2021, council passed a similar policy order calling on its congressional delegation to support legislation that would end the longstanding embargo. The order, introduced by Nolan and co-sponsored by Sobrinho-Wheeler, passed unanimously.
None of the councillors disagreed with the content of the policy order, but some were reluctant to address foreign policy during a city council meeting.
“This federal government action vis-à-vis Cuba is wrong and unethical, full stop … I believe all of us residents, including councillors, should take a stand and support Cuba,” councillor Nolan said. But she thought that foreign-policy related topics “are great for other types of meetings — community activism, organizing — not for our regular municipal business meetings, like tonight.”
She later told Cambridge Day she’s “totally owning” her decision in 2021 to bring matters related to U.S.-Cuba relations to council. Now, though, “I don’t think it’s appropriate. I don’t think that’s what we’re hired for.”
Vice mayor Burhan Azeem and councillors E. Denise Simmons, Timothy Flaherty and Cathie Zusy all agreed that council meetings weren’t the time or place to debate U.S. foreign affairs. They held conflicting views on what exactly the precedent on council was.
Azeem said that the policy order was consistent with previous council actions — to his chagrin. “I’ve tried in my first two terms to say that we shouldn’t do foreign policy and my colleagues have not agreed,” Azeem said. “Every time I vote ‘no’ on these policy orders, people feel like I disagree with them on the merits … since we’ve set up the rules this way, I will vote for this tonight.”
Simmons drew a distinction between imploring changes to foreign policy actions taken by the president and advocating for legislation, however. “If the council wants to go on record in urging its congressional representatives to support pending legislation, that’s fair game and fairly standard,” Simmons said. “[But] we need to be respectful, not just for the lines of jurisdiction, but also people’s time.”
Nolan, Simmons and Flaherty all said they would be voting “present” on the policy order. Flaherty made a motion to refer the policy order to the Government Operations committee with the intent of taking the opportunity to change the rules of the council in order to prevent foreign policy issues from being raised again.
Sobrinho-Wheeler said he would be open to a larger discussion on the matter, but still hoped the order could receive a vote during Monday’s meeting.
“That conversation could happen separately from the policy order,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said. He noted the policy order would just end up back on council’s agenda. “If the goal is to not talk more about this, this is gonna lead to two or three more conversations about this specific policy order.”
Nolan, uncertain about Flaherty’s motion, used her charter right before it could be put to a vote, terminating all debate on the entire policy order. About 20 attendees, appearing puzzled, exited council chambers into the hallway, where McGovern caught up with them to explain what had just happened.
Joe Tache, who spoke in favor of the policy order during public comments, expressed his frustration over the delay. (Tache is running as a Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate to unseat Sen. Ed Markey.) He called it “an abdication of leadership and responsibility” that the council avoided taking the vote. “It’s important for people all across the city to be taking action, to be on the right side of history,” he said.
After the meeting, McGovern said votes on foreign policy, especially when the community is in overwhelming agreement over a particular issue, are in line with city council’s role in informing its congressional delegation.
“This was not something that was a distraction to the three of us who sponsored it. It did not take an excessive amount of time,” McGovern said. “Now, because of the charter right, we have to come back and do this all over again. So, if you were concerned about this taking up too much time, you’ve now made it take up even more time than if we just passed it tonight.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.