A new State Department report argues that Cuba has cultivated a network of American activist organizations capable of being mobilized against U.S. policy, citing a publicly posted plan for protests at U.S. military bases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities and federal buildings as evidence of the effort.
The June "National Rapid Response Plan" was distributed by the National Network on Cuba, a U.S. coalition of more than 60 organizations. The State Department links the coalition to the Cuban government through its relationship with ICAP, the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, which was sanctioned in June for allegedly supporting Cuban intelligence activities.
The plan calls for "coordinated nationwide actions" within 24 hours of a U.S. military attack or the "imminent threat" of one, stating its goal is to make it "politically and materially costly for the U.S. government to wage war on Cuba." The document establishes specific timelines: if military action begins before 3 p.m. Eastern time, demonstrations would start at 6 p.m. local time that day; if later, activists would mobilize at 6 p.m. the following day.
Organizers are instructed to gather at federal buildings, courthouses and post offices; military bases and recruiting offices; or ICE detention centers and field offices. The plan also lists sports arenas during high-profile events as optional locations. According to the State Department report, activists are directed to a Black Alliance for Peace database that maps 1,335 U.S. military and law-enforcement locations across the Western Hemisphere.
The National Network on Cuba openly promotes the plan on its website as part of its "No War on Cuba" campaign, alongside calls for rallies, banner drops, caravans, teach-ins and other demonstrations.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive organizations named in the State Department report defended their activities as constitutionally protected speech and legitimate anti-war organizing. The groups listed include Code Pink, the People's Forum, Democratic Socialists of America and the National Lawyers Guild's Cuba Committee.
Advocates argue that the rapid-response plan represents standard activist coordination common across American political movements. They note that grassroots organizing against military intervention has a long history in U.S. politics, from Vietnam War protests to more recent anti-war coalitions.
Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about government surveillance of domestic protest groups. First Amendment defenders contend that Cuba solidarity organizations operate transparently and legally within the United States, and that characterizing them as foreign threats risks chilling protected political speech.
The National Network on Cuba describes its mission as advocating for normalized U.S.-Cuba relations and opposing military intervention. The coalition frames its activism as representing humanitarian concerns and opposition to what members describe as decades of failed U.S. embargo policies.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican lawmakers and national security officials have pointed to ICAP's leadership as evidence of intelligence connections. ICAP is led by Fernando González Llort, a former member of Cuba's Wasp spy network that infiltrated exile organizations and gathered information about U.S. military facilities in South Florida during the 1990s. González served 15 years in a U.S. prison before returning to Cuba.
The State Department report describes ICAP as "the central hub of Cuba's international influence operation," claiming it coordinates more than 2,000 solidarity organizations across more than 150 countries. The report states that National Network on Cuba materials reveal "the continuing reach, coordination and sophistication of Cuba's subversive capabilities on American territory."
Conservative critics argue the plan demonstrates foreign exploitation of U.S. civil society. They point to the Black Alliance for Peace database mapping military and law enforcement locations as a potential national security concern, arguing that such data collection by foreign-influenced organizations warrants investigation.
The Trump administration has escalated pressure on Havana, with President Trump floating a "friendly takeover" of Cuba and telling reporters in May that "it looks like I'll be the one that does it" regarding intervention. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the administration prefers diplomacy while leaving military action on the table as an option.
What the Numbers Show
The National Network on Cuba represents more than 60 member organizations, according to the coalition's publicly available materials. ICAP coordinates what the State Department estimates are over 2,000 solidarity organizations across more than 150 countries worldwide.
The Black Alliance for Peace database referenced in the rapid-response plan lists 1,335 U.S. military and law-enforcement locations across the Western Hemisphere, according to the State Department's characterization of the data. The group describes this information as a basis for local organizing.
ICAP was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in June alongside other Cuban government entities accused of supporting intelligence operations. This marks an expansion of U.S. financial restrictions targeting Havana beyond previously blacklisted companies and officials.
The State Department report identifies six organizations receiving specific attention: ICAP (Cuban government entity), National Network on Cuba (U.S.-based coalition), Code Pink, the People's Forum, Democratic Socialists of America, and the National Lawyers Guild's Cuba Committee.
The Bottom Line
The State Department's report represents a significant escalation in how U.S. officials characterize Cuban influence operations targeting American soil, presenting what it describes as documentary evidence of coordinated activist mobilization capability linked to Havana.
The timing coincides with increased administration focus on Cuba policy. President Trump and Secretary Rubio have signaled willingness to consider military options while also pursuing economic pressure through expanded sanctions targeting foreign enablers of the Cuban government.
Civil liberties advocates will likely scrutinize any federal response, arguing that domestic political organizing remains protected regardless of its international connections or sympathies. The constitutional questions around government classification of activist groups as potential foreign assets remain unresolved.
The Cuban embassy in Washington could not immediately be reached for comment on the State Department report.