U.S. ELECTION 2028: The Battle for the Post-Trump Era

200

How the 2028 U.S. presidential election could redefine power dynamics in the Western Hemisphere, reshape the geopolitical balance of the Caribbean, and open a new strategic chapter for Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and the island states in the face of the rise of China, Russia, and other emerging powers.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC REPORT │ Strategic Foresight • Geopolitics • International Relations • Security • Diplomacy • Strategic Economics

By the editorial staff of CaribPulse Global News Network (CPGNNews).

Why This Report?

The 2028 U.S. presidential election is about far more than the United States. It will influence the political, economic, and strategic dynamics of the entire Western Hemisphere, with direct repercussions for the Caribbean, Latin America, and, more broadly, the international system.

Since 2016, American politics has entered a period of sustained polarization. Successive changes in administration have profoundly altered the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, challenging policy orientations that were long considered stable. Today, each change in administration brings a reassessment of diplomatic priorities, international alliances, and geopolitical power dynamics.

The 2028 election falls within this broader dynamic. Well before the official launch of the campaign, the leading political figures are already preparing for the post-Trump era. Governors are raising their national profile, think tanks are developing new doctrines, major donors are reorganizing their influence networks, and potential candidates are testing their policy positions on key national and international issues.

The objective of this report is not to predict the outcome of the election. Rather, it is to identify trends, analyze power dynamics, and assess the most plausible scenarios based on currently available data. In geopolitics, uncertainty remains a constant. It does not prevent analysis; on the contrary, it is its very reason for being.

Why Is the Caribbean Already Affected?

The Caribbean occupies a strategic position that is often underestimated. Situated at the crossroads of the major maritime routes linking North America, Latin America, and Europe, it constitutes a vital space for regional security, international trade, migration flows, and digital infrastructure.

In recent years, the relative influence of the United States in the region has been progressively challenged by the growing presence of other powers, notably China, Russia, Turkey, India, and several Gulf states. This evolution is reshaping traditional balances and placing the Caribbean at the center of a strategic competition that is likely to intensify.

The future U.S. president will have to define the role this region will play in American foreign policy. Decisions made in Washington will have direct consequences for migration policies, security cooperation, investment, development assistance, and the political stability of Caribbean states.

Why Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela?

Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela occupy a unique place in American strategic thinking. Each represents a distinct challenge, yet their geographic proximity and political significance make them three closely interconnected issues. Cuba remains a major foreign policy challenge, shaped by more than six decades of tensions with Washington. Venezuela continues to be central to the region’s energy, migration, and security concerns. Haiti, meanwhile, remains a persistent humanitarian, political, and security challenge for the United States and its partners.

The evolution of these three issues will be a key indicator of the regional policy of the next U.S. administration. Beyond their respective national situations, they illustrate the strategic choices Washington will have to make in response to the new realities of the Western Hemisphere.

The Key Questions This Report Addresses

This report is structured around several questions that will shape the American strategic debate in the coming years and whose consequences will extend far beyond U.S. borders. The first concerns not so much the identity of the next president as the type of leadership the American political system is now capable of producing. In a landscape marked by polarization, the evolution of party primaries, the growing influence of major donors, and the transformation of the media ecosystem, what kind of political leadership is most likely to emerge by 2028?

The second concerns U.S. foreign policy. Will the next administration prioritize strategic competition with China, refocus on domestic priorities, or make a more assertive return to its immediate neighborhood? The answer will largely determine the diplomatic, economic, and security orientations of the Western Hemisphere.

The third examines the evolution of the triangle formed by Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela. Each of these countries represents a distinct challenge for Washington. Together, they constitute a laboratory for the contradictions of U.S. policy in the Caribbean, where migration, regional security, energy, political influence, and geopolitical rivalries intersect.

The fourth question analyzes the intensification of competition among the major powers in the region. The expansion of Chinese influence, Russia’s renewed presence, and the growing engagement of other actors such as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, India, and Brazil raise fundamental questions about the United States’ ability to preserve its strategic position in a region long regarded as part of its natural sphere of influence.

Finally, this report examines the room for maneuver available to Caribbean states. How can they strengthen their institutional resilience? How can they diversify their partnerships without compromising their strategic interests? How can they move from a position of dependence to a genuine capacity for diplomatic initiative in an increasingly multipolar international environment?

These questions do not claim to provide definitive answers. Rather, they constitute the analytical framework of this report. Its ambition is less to predict the future than to provide the keys to understanding, identify major trends, and shed light on the decisions that public and private actors will have to make in the years ahead.

The United States on the Threshold of a New Political Cycle

Before understanding what 2028 could mean for the Caribbean, it is first necessary to understand what the United States has become. Not the America of simplified representations—the America of skyscrapers, Silicon Valley, or bustling commercial districts—but the real America: a society shaped by deep divisions, persistent contradictions, and quiet political realignments.

The country preparing to enter a new electoral cycle is no longer the one that carried Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, nor even the one that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Today, it is more demographically diverse, older, more politically fragmented, and more distrustful of its institutions. This internal evolution directly influences how the United States defines its role in the world and, consequently, its relationship with its regional environment, particularly the Caribbean.

This first part establishes the general framework for the analysis. It examines the transformation of the two major American political parties, the evolution of American society, and the underlying forces that explain why the 2028 presidential race has already begun long before the official launch of the campaign. Understanding the international implications of this election first requires understanding the domestic dynamics that shape the choices of American voters.

From Reagan to Trump: Forty Years of Transformation in the Republican Party

To understand the Republican Party of 2028, one must return to 1980. That year, Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory over Democrat Jimmy Carter and ushered in a new conservative vision of America. His message rested on a central conviction: the United States is an exceptional nation destined to exercise global leadership, but its potential is weakened by a federal government that has become too large, too costly, and too deeply involved in the nation’s economic and social life.

In his inaugural address, Reagan delivered a phrase that would become one of the most iconic in American political history: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” This statement encapsulated a profound ideological transformation. The Republican Party, already engaged in a conservative shift for several years, gradually became the principal vehicle for challenging the role of Washington. It attracted suburban middle-class voters, Southern evangelicals, Western entrepreneurs, and a segment of the white working class that increasingly felt alienated from the Democratic Party.

This electoral coalition, often identified with the Reagan era, would shape American politics for decades. It led to the election of George H. W. Bush in 1988 and later George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, while serving as a powerful counterweight during the Democratic administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Yet this coalition rested on sometimes conflicting currents. Religious conservatives sought social policies rooted in traditional values. Business leaders advocated tax cuts and deregulation. Foreign policy hawks favored a strong and active American role on the international stage, while another segment of the conservative movement remained committed to a more cautious approach to overseas engagements. For many years, these different tendencies were held together by two powerful forces: opposition to Democratic liberalism and the ideological confrontation with the Soviet Union.

The end of the Cold War in 1989, followed by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, profoundly altered this equilibrium. The disappearance of the Soviet adversary deprived the Republican Party of one of its principal unifying forces, while the war on terror became America’s new strategic priority. Gradually, tensions among the party’s various factions became increasingly visible.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 marked another major turning point. Republicans lost the White House amid a severe economic crisis and witnessed the rise of a new generation of Democratic leaders who embodied a different vision of America: more diverse, more supportive of an expanded role for government in certain sectors, and more focused on social and environmental issues. For a significant portion of the American right, Obama symbolized a cultural transformation that they viewed as a challenge to the nation’s traditional foundations.

The reaction came swiftly. In 2009, the Tea Party movement emerged and gradually reshaped the Republican grassroots. It called for deep spending cuts, lower taxes, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and greater distrust of Washington’s political establishment. Beyond its economic agenda, the Tea Party reflected a broader sense of lost control among many voters confronting rapid demographic, cultural, and social change.

This evolution paved the way for a new phase with the emergence of Donald Trump. In 2015, the New York businessman and former Democrat launched a presidential campaign that upended the traditional norms of the Republican Party. When he declared, “I am your voice,” he presented himself not simply as Ronald Reagan’s political heir but as the representative of Americans who felt forgotten by political elites, disadvantaged by globalization, and marginalized by the country’s cultural transformations.

The break was profound. Whereas Reagan primarily advocated limiting the role of government, Trump proposed using the power of the state to defend American national interests. Whereas the traditional Republican Party strongly supported free trade and an interventionist foreign policy, Trumpism embraced economic nationalism, stronger border security, and a more transactional approach to international relations.

Many observers believed that Trump could not win the 2016 presidential election. Yet his victory fundamentally transformed the Republican Party. More than an electoral realignment, it represented a profound ideological reorientation. Republican leaders who initially opposed him largely ended up aligning themselves with his agenda or accepting his dominance. Conservative institutions gradually adapted their positions, and Trumpism became the party’s new ideological reference point.

As 2028 approaches, the Republican Party appears to have undergone a profound transformation. It is no longer the party of the Cold War, free trade, and military interventionism that dominated much of the second half of the twentieth century. It has become the party of economic nationalism, strengthened national sovereignty, and growing skepticism toward certain international institutions.

Domestically, it promotes a conservative vision of society and opposes progressive policies related to cultural and identity issues. Electorally, it remains deeply rooted in rural America, small towns, and among a significant segment of the white working class, while seeking to expand its appeal among parts of the Latino electorate, particularly Cuban American and Venezuelan American communities that are especially receptive to anti-communist and anti-socialist messages.

Yet this dominance remains fragile because it depends heavily on one exceptional political figure: Donald Trump himself. The question of succession has therefore become central. The Republican challenge is to preserve the electoral energy of Trumpism while preparing a new generation of leaders capable of carrying the movement beyond its founder.

This tension will lie at the heart of the 2028 Republican primary. Candidates will have to demonstrate loyalty to Trump’s political legacy while establishing their own identities. They will also have to navigate a media environment profoundly transformed by social media, political podcasts, and digital platforms, which have increasingly replaced traditional media as the principal channels of electoral mobilization.

Understanding this evolution helps explain the central paradox of the Republican Party in 2028: a powerful political force capable of mobilizing a cohesive electoral coalition built around shared identities and geographic strongholds, yet also vulnerable because much of its contemporary identity remains closely tied to a single political leader.

The following sections examine the leading Republican contenders for the White House, assessing their strengths, weaknesses, and political strategies. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to turn to the other major force in the American political system: the Democratic Party, which is itself undergoing a profound transformation.

From Clinton to Today: How the Democratic Party Has Been Transformed

If the Republican Party has undergone a spectacular transformation under the effect of Trumpism, the Democratic Party has evolved through a more gradual, less visible, but equally profound process. To understand the Democrats of 2028, one must return to another pivotal moment in American political history: the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.

After twelve years of Republican presidencies, Democrats understood they could no longer hope to regain power durably by remaining associated solely with the traditional left, unions, the expansion of social programs, and a historical distrust of the market. Clinton then proposed a new orientation, often called the “Third Way”: a centrist positioning that accepted part of the economic transformations underway since the Reagan era while maintaining a protective role for the state.

This strategy marked an important evolution of the party. Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, despite opposition from part of the labor movement. He reformed the welfare system, declaring he wanted to “end welfare as we know it.” He also adopted a firmer approach on issues of domestic security and crime, choices later criticized by some progressive sectors of the party. Ultimately, Clinton embodied a Democrat capable of governing on several economic and security issues in a spirit close to the American political center, while retaining a progressive identity on social and environmental questions.

This strategy worked electorally. Clinton won two presidential elections and helped reposition the Democratic Party at the center of American political life. After him, Al Gore narrowly lost in 2000, then Barack Obama came to power in 2008 with a promise of generational and political renewal. Obama embodied change, but his time in power was marked by institutional pragmatism. He saved the automobile industry after the financial crisis, passed the Affordable Care Act—known as Obamacare—which constituted a historic advance in health coverage while remaining far from the ambitions of the most radical Democratic left. Internationally, his administration continued several military engagements inherited from previous years, maintained certain contested surveillance practices, and defended trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), despite criticism from parts of his own camp.

During this period, the Democratic Party relied on a broad electoral coalition uniting minorities, younger generations, women, urban voters, graduates, and populations of major metropolitan areas. It gradually became the party of cultural diversity, international openness, trust in institutions, and support for scientific research. However, this coalition remained fragile as it rested on a permanent balance between several sensibilities: a progressive wing desiring a deeper transformation of the economic and social system, and a moderate wing attached to electoral credibility among the middle classes and independent voters.

The 2016 election profoundly disrupted this dynamic. Hillary Clinton’s defeat to Donald Trump was a major shock for Democrats, who were largely convinced of their victory. The explanations were numerous: some highlighted the limitations of the U.S. Electoral College, others denounced Russian interference in the campaign, while others pointed to the weaknesses of Clinton’s candidacy itself. But a more fundamental analysis eventually prevailed: the Democratic Party had gradually lost part of its historical connection to certain segments of the American working class, particularly in the industrial states of the Midwest, where a portion of voters turned to Donald Trump.

This realization opened a strategic debate that still pervades the party in 2028. For the progressive wing, notably represented by Bernie Sanders, the Democratic defeat resulted from abandoning the popular classes in favor of a party that had become too close to economic and financial elites. For the moderate wing, associated with Joe Biden, Democrats lost because they appeared too far removed from the daily concerns of voters and too focused on certain cultural issues at the expense of economic and social ones. This confrontation between two visions of the Democratic future remains one of the party’s main challenges.

Joe Biden’s election in 2020 aimed to address this identity crisis. His project was based on restoring institutions, returning to a more traditional foreign policy, and implementing ambitious but pragmatic economic and social programs. His administration achieved several important results, notably in investments related to infrastructure, industry, and the energy transition, while strengthening certain international alliances. However, it also faced major difficulties: inflation, the migrant crisis at the southern border, the political consequences of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a national polarization that became increasingly difficult to contain. Above all, Biden did not always succeed in embodying a generational vision capable of overcoming partisan divisions.

As 2028 approaches, the Democratic Party thus remains a party in search of balance. It is divided between a progressive wing calling for structural reforms, a more regulated economy, and a less interventionist foreign policy, and a moderate wing seeking to restore the trust of centrist voters on economic, social, and security issues. Between these two currents, a new generation of leaders is emerging who belong neither entirely to the Clinton era nor to the Obama era, and who seek to define a new Democratic identity adapted to the realities of the 21st century.

This rising generation may be the party’s primary opportunity for 2028. Figures like Gavin Newsom, Governor of California; Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan; or Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, represent this desire for renewal. Their challenge will be to demonstrate they can transcend their regional roots and build a national vision capable of uniting a sufficiently broad electoral coalition.

The Democratic Party must also respond to a profound transformation of its electoral base. Its traditional coalition, composed of minorities, young people, and women, remains important but is no longer as automatic as before. A portion of the Latino electorate, notably certain Cuban-American and Venezuelan-American groups, has moved closer to the Republican Party due to particular sensitivity to anti-communist and anti-socialist rhetoric. African American voters remain largely attached to Democrats, but their mobilization is no longer guaranteed without effort. As for younger generations, they manifest growing distrust of political institutions and may turn to alternative candidates or choose abstention.

In this context, the 2028 Democratic primary will be as much a competition among personalities as a debate on the ideological future of the party. Each candidate will have to propose a vision capable of responding to progressive aspirations while reassuring a centrist electorate concerned with economic stability, security, and governance capability. Understanding this evolution allows one to grasp the paradox of the 2028 Democratic Party: a formation weakened by its internal divisions and the loss of some traditional voters, but still possessing considerable assets thanks to a diversified electoral base, potential for generational renewal, and a historical capacity for reinvention.

An American Society Profoundly Reshaped

Political parties are never abstract constructions. They are the product of a society: its demographic evolutions, economic transformations, cultural tensions, and collective aspirations. To understand why the Republicans and Democrats of 2028 defend sometimes profoundly different visions of the American future, one must first understand what American society has become. In recent decades, the country has undergone considerable changes that have gradually redefined relations between generations, territories, social groups, and political institutions.

The America of 2028 is more diverse, more connected, and more open to the world than it was at the end of the 20th century, but it is also more politically and culturally fragmented. Demographic, economic, and technological transformations did not occur separately; they combined to create a society where old political categories have become less stable and electoral behaviors harder to predict.

The first major change concerns demographics. The United States remains a dynamically growing nation demographically, but it is also experiencing a gradual aging of its population. The baby boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964, dominated American political life for over half a century. This generation participated in the great cultural transformations of the 1960s before becoming one of the main pillars of political conservatism during the Reagan era. For a long time, it occupied a central place in the economic, media, and political institutions of the country.

However, as 2028 approaches, its relative weight is diminishing. Some baby boomers are now retired, while others are gradually passing away. Their electoral influence remains significant, but it is no longer sufficient to define the country’s political orientation on its own. In their place, Generations X, Y, and Z are emerging, whose historical experiences and social references differ profoundly from those of their predecessors.

Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, now constitute a major electoral generation. More diverse, more urban, and generally more educated than previous generations, they have however experienced an economic path marked by several crises: the 2008 financial crisis, rising housing costs, student debt, and a more uncertain job market. Their relationship to politics is thus marked by greater distrust of traditional institutions and a demand for deeper changes in the country’s economic and social functioning.

The second major transformation concerns American political geography. The United States has become an increasingly polarized society along territorial lines. Major metropolitan areas and their close suburbs now constitute the main Democratic strongholds, while rural areas and small towns remain largely favorable to the Republican Party. This territorial division sometimes gives the image of two distinct Americas: that of large coastal cities, more multicultural and progressive, and that of rural or industrial interior territories, more attached to conservative values and a traditional vision of national identity.

This geographic opposition remains more complex than it appears, however. The true electoral battlegrounds are often in the intermediate zones, notably the suburbs. Long considered naturally Republican territories, some suburbs have evolved under the effect of social transformations and the rejection by some moderate voters of Donald Trump’s political style. However, this electoral shift is not irreversible. Republicans are now seeking to win back these voters by placing greater emphasis on the economy, security, and the daily concerns of middle-class families. In 2028, suburbs could once again be among the main arbiters of the presidential election.

The third transformation is cultural. The United States has always had significant debates around national identity, religion, race, and social values, but these tensions have taken on a new dimension in recent years. Cultural issues have become factors of political mobilization as powerful as economic issues.

A significant portion of the conservative electorate considers recent cultural transformations a threat to the country’s traditional benchmarks. This perception fuels strong opposition to progressive policies related to identity, gender, or diversity issues, often grouped by their opponents under the term “woke.” Conversely, a portion of the progressive electorate believes the United States must continue its efforts to correct historical injustices and build a more inclusive society. For these voters, resistance to social change represents less a defense of traditions than a refusal to address persistent inequalities.

This opposition now transcends simple partisan differences. It touches on how each side imagines the country’s future. For conservatives, the central question is often the preservation of a national identity perceived as threatened. For progressives, it concerns more the transformation of a society still deemed marked by structural inequalities. This cultural fracture is one of the most visible elements of contemporary American polarization.

The fourth transformation is economic. The United States remains the world’s leading economic power, but this global wealth masks profound changes in the distribution of income and opportunities. Since the 1980s, the gaps between the most favored categories and parts of the middle and working classes have widened considerably. Globalization, automation, and industrial transformations have created winners and losers, fueling a feeling of downward mobility among a portion of the population.

This economic reality has a major political dimension. A significant portion of Americans feels the economic system functions in an unbalanced way, that large corporations and the wealthiest categories wield excessive influence, and that political leaders no longer sufficiently respond to citizens’ daily difficulties. This sentiment of frustration provides fertile ground for the rise of populist discourse, on both the right and the left.

On the right, it fuels criticism of globalization, defense of economic protectionism, and rejection of political and economic elites. On the left, it reinforces demands for increased regulation, redistribution, and reform of American capitalism. In both cases, it reflects the same question: whether the American economic model continues to benefit the entire population fairly.

The fifth transformation concerns the technological revolution. The United States has entered a new phase where digital technologies are profoundly changing how citizens work, communicate, and participate in public life. Social networks have gradually replaced some traditional media as primary sources of political information, creating an environment where opinions circulate faster but divisions can also deepen.

Digital algorithms have fostered the creation of separate informational communities, where citizens are often exposed to content reinforcing their initial beliefs. This fragmentation of the public sphere represents a major challenge for American democracy, as it reduces common spaces for discussion and makes political compromises harder.

Artificial intelligence adds a new dimension to this transformation. It will have significant consequences on employment, economic competitiveness, national security, and the very functioning of electoral campaigns. The 2028 election will likely be the first where artificial intelligence plays a central role in producing political content, electoral analysis, targeted communication, and risks related to disinformation.

Finally, the last major transformation is generational. The young Americans who will be under thirty in 2028 grew up in a historical environment profoundly different from that of their parents. They did not experience the Cold War as a central political reality and did not experience the September 11, 2001 attacks with the same perception as previous generations. Their world view has been shaped by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 financial crisis, debates on climate change, social mobilizations related to racial justice, and the explosion of digital technologies.

This generation has a more critical relationship with traditional institutions, but it is also more open to the world and more attentive to global issues. Its electoral behavior will be decisive in 2028, as it will represent a growing share of the U.S. electorate. It could contribute to accelerating the transformation of the political system by favoring new economic, social, and environmental priorities.

These different changes do not operate independently of each other. They reinforce each other and produce an American society that is more diverse yet more fragmented, richer yet more unequal, more connected yet also more politically isolated. They create a more volatile electorate in its choices, but also more attached to certain cultural, territorial, and generational identities. It is in this profoundly reshaped America that the 2028 presidential battle will unfold. A battle that will not be just about candidates or parties, but about two competing visions for the future of the United States and its place in the world.

Why the 2028 Presidential Campaign Has Already Begun

There is a widely held idea, fostered by some media and political observers, that U.S. presidential elections truly begin in the election year. This perception is nonetheless inaccurate. In the United States, preparation for a presidential election always starts well before the official campaign opening, but this phenomenon has become even more pronounced in the context of 2028. The next presidential battle began the day after the 2024 election, and some of its elements were visible even before.

Behind the apparent calm political period, considerable work is already underway. Potential candidates are assessing their chances, testing their messages with voters, meeting donors, building influence networks, and seeking to identify themes likely to define the next campaign. Think tanks are developing policy proposals, teams of advisors are beginning to take shape, and electoral strategies are often developed subtly before being officially unveiled.

This precocity is first explained by the financial factor. U.S. presidential campaigns are among the most costly political operations in the world. The scale of electoral spending imposes long-term preparation on candidates. Even before officially declaring, a contender must establish a donor network, create fundraising structures, develop support committees, and build an organization capable of operating on a national scale. In a system where fundraising ability often serves as an early indicator of political credibility, time becomes a major strategic advantage.

The second factor is the transformation of the media environment. American politics now operates in a permanent news cycle. Cable news channels, social networks, digital platforms, political podcasts, and specialized media have eliminated the old distinction between electoral and non-electoral periods. Every speech, every appearance, every statement, or every mistake can be instantly analyzed, amplified, or exploited politically.

In this environment, candidates can no longer wait for the official campaign opening to build their public image. They must progressively establish their political identity, develop national name recognition, and convince potential voters they embody a credible response to the country’s challenges. Contemporary American politics has become a permanent competition for public attention.

The third factor concerns the complexity of the primary system. Unlike many political systems where candidates are quickly designated by parties, the United States imposes a long internal selection process. Candidates must face a succession of electoral consultations in states with very different profiles, each with its own political culture, local media, and specific priorities.

The ability to navigate this process successfully requires considerable preparation. One must build a national organization, recruit local teams, establish activist networks, and adapt one’s message to the realities of each territory. A U.S. presidential campaign is therefore not built in a few months; it relies on gradual establishment that often begins several years before the final vote.

The fourth factor is the particular role played by think tanks, universities, and expert networks in shaping U.S. public policy. Unlike other democracies where political parties directly produce much of their doctrine, the United States relies heavily on research institutions that influence economic, social, military, and diplomatic debates.

These organizations produce reports, analyses, and proposals that subsequently feed into candidates’ platforms. Future political leaders thus begin very early to assemble their teams of experts, identify the major orientations of their potential administration, and establish the networks that could support them if they come to power.

The final factor is uncertainty. The 2028 election remains largely open. The Republican and Democratic candidates are not definitively known, the main campaign issues may still evolve, and no one can predict the national or international crises that could shift voters’ priorities. This uncertainty pushes contenders to prepare well ahead of the deadline. They must position themselves early enough to be identified by voters, build a coherent image, and be able to seize political opportunities when the context becomes favorable.

This dynamic is further reinforced by a central question: the legacy of Donald Trump. Regardless of his personal involvement in the 2028 campaign, Trump will likely remain one of the defining figures of the Republican Party. If he seeks to re-enter the presidential race, the Republican primary could be largely dominated by his candidacy, and the general election would then become a judgment on his political record. If he does not run, the Republican battle will take the form of an open succession where several candidates will try to present themselves as the legitimate heirs of the movement he profoundly transformed. In both scenarios, the competition will have begun well before the official opening of the polls.

Understanding this precocity allows one to understand the very nature of the 2028 election. It is not a political event that will suddenly appear at the time of the vote; it is a process already underway, gradually constructed through alliances, ideological repositioning, media strategies, and electoral calculations. It is already influencing the behaviors of American candidates, the expectations of voters, and even the strategies of foreign powers closely observing Washington’s political evolution. The 2028 presidential election has not arrived yet, but it is already shaping the future American political landscape.

The Ten Numbers That Explain the America of 2028

To conclude this first part dedicated to the internal transformations of the United States, ten figures summarize, through a few key indicators, the major demographic, economic, and social forces that will shape the American political landscape as the 2028 presidential election approaches.

1. Approximately 340 million inhabitants:

2. The U.S. population continues to grow, but at a slower pace than in previous decades. This demographic evolution marks a new stage for the United States, simultaneously facing the aging of its population and increasing diversification of its society.

3. Nearly a quarter of the population of Hispanic or Latino origin:

The growth of the Hispanic population is one of the major demographic transformations of the 21st-century United States. This evolution is gradually changing the country’s electoral composition and forcing the two major parties to adapt their strategies towards an electorate that has become essential.

4. Nearly half of voters identifying as independent:

The increase in the number of Americans who refuse to define themselves exclusively as Republicans or Democrats reflects growing distrust of the two major parties. This independent electorate represents a major issue in presidential elections, particularly in states where a few thousand votes can decide the outcome.

5. Approximately $30 trillion in public debt:

The historic level of U.S. federal debt constitutes one of the major economic challenges for future administrations. It will weigh on budgetary choices, social policies, public investments, and the federal government’s ability to respond to future crises.

6. Inflation persistently felt by households:

Even after the slowdown in price increases observed following the inflationary shock of the early 2020s, the cost of living remains one of the primary concerns of American voters. For many families, the central issue is not just the level of inflation, but the erosion of purchasing power accumulated over the years.

7. Tens of millions of Americans born abroad:

Immigration remains one of the country’s major political issues. The United States remains a nation built by successive waves of migration, but the scale and speed of recent migratory movements fuel intense debate over borders, integration, and national identity.

8. Approximately 80% of the population living in urban or peri-urban areas:

Urban concentration has profoundly transformed American political geography. Large cities and their suburbs now constitute the main economic, technological, and cultural centers of the country, but they have also become arenas of major electoral confrontation.

9. Approximately 12% African American population:

The African American community retains essential political weight, notably in several key states and major urban areas. Its level of electoral mobilization remains a determining factor for the Democratic Party, even if its political behavior evolves according to generations and territories.

10. Durably weakened institutional confidence:

A significant portion of Americans express growing distrust of the federal government and national institutions. This crisis of confidence spans both major parties and is one of the engines of contemporary American populism.

11. A majority of Americans believing the country is heading in the wrong direction:

Political pessimism has become one of the characteristic traits of contemporary America. Despite its economic and technological power, a significant portion of the population considers the country is going through a period of uncertainty, marked by social divisions, economic difficulties, and loss of trust in institutions.

These figures are not mere statistical data. They reveal the underlying forces shaping the America of 2028: a nation more diverse but more fragmented, more powerful but more anxious, more innovative but more distrustful of its institutions. It is upon this social, economic, and demographic reality that presidential candidates will build their speeches, strategies, and promises. These figures constitute the political backdrop for the battle ahead.

The Republican Party: Consolidating the Trump Legacy

The first part established the general framework: the America of 2028 is a profoundly transformed society, traversed by demographic, economic, cultural, and institutional fractures that are redefining its political landscape. In this new reality, the Republican Party occupies a particular position. After having been for several decades the party of Reagan, then that of institutional conservatism dominated by economic and diplomatic elites, it has become the political vehicle of a new movement embodied by Donald Trump.

This transformation constitutes one of the most significant political events in recent U.S. history. Trumpism has not only modified the discourse of the Republican Party; it has changed its priorities, social alliances, and vision of America’s role in the world. The central question of 2028 is therefore not only whether Republicans will retain power, but whether they will be capable of transforming a movement built around an exceptional personality into a lasting political doctrine.

The strength of the Republican Party today rests on a profoundly restructured electoral coalition: rural areas, part of the white working class, religious conservatives, but also a growing fraction of Latino voters sensitive to themes of order, immigration, and opposition to socialism. This coalition allowed Trump to reshape the party, but it also carries a fundamental fragility: its cohesion remains largely tied to the president’s personal legacy.

The major challenge of the period ahead is therefore that of succession. How can the political energy of Trumpism be preserved without Donald Trump? How can the loyalty of its base be maintained while expanding the Republican electorate towards independents and suburban middle classes? How can a revolt against the establishment be transformed into a sustainable governing vision?

This second part analyzes this historic mutation. It examines Trumpism as a political phenomenon, the particular role of Donald Trump in the balance of the Republican Party, and then the figures who could claim his succession. Beyond personalities, the objective is to understand which ideological orientation could define the American right in the coming years and what consequences this evolution could have on U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Caribbean space.

Trumpism: Electoral Phenomenon or Durable Political Doctrine?

The question of the nature of Trumpism has become one of the great political debates of 21st-century America. Is it a temporary movement built around an exceptional personality, destined to disappear with Donald Trump? Or does it represent a deeper transformation of American conservatism, comparable in its historical influence to the Reaganism of the 1980s?

The answer probably lies between these two analyses. Trumpism was born around a man, but it also responds to social and political evolutions that existed before him. It is the expression of accumulated discontent: a feeling of economic decline in certain regions of the country, distrust of institutions, rejection of a globalization perceived as unfair, anxieties about cultural transformations, and the sense that political elites no longer represent a significant portion of the population.

Observers use several concepts to define this current: populist nationalism, identity conservatism, economic sovereigntism, strategic isolationism, or anti-establishment reaction. Each of these definitions describes part of the phenomenon, but none alone suffices. The heart of Trumpism rests on a simpler idea: America must be protected.

This promise of protection is probably its most powerful element. Trump offered voters a direct response to several simultaneous anxieties: protecting American jobs from the effects of globalization, protecting borders from illegal immigration, protecting traditional values from rapid cultural changes, protecting American sovereignty from international institutions deemed constraining. For a segment of the electorate, this promise represented less a detailed political program than a recognition of their frustrations and anxieties.

Trumpism also rests on a particular political method: permanent rupture with established norms. Unlike traditional conservative leaders who generally sought to respect institutional codes, Trump built his relationship with voters around confrontation. His direct style, his attacks on the media, his criticisms of judicial institutions, and his rejection of classical political conventions were interpreted differently by each camp.

For his opponents, this approach represents a threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law. For his supporters, it constitutes precisely proof of his authenticity. Trump was perceived not as a traditional politician seeking to preserve the system, but as an outsider capable of defying a system considered closed and inefficient. Beyond the method, Trumpism also carries a particular vision of the world. Internationally, it questions several principles that had structured U.S. foreign policy since World War II: automatic support for multilateral alliances, the promotion of an international order based on institutions, and the idea that American leadership rests on permanent global engagement.

Against this approach, Trump opposed a more transactional conception of international relations. Alliances must, according to this logic, be evaluated based on the direct benefits they bring to the United States. Trade agreements must better protect American industry. International organizations must not limit national sovereignty. Foreign partners must contribute more to funding their own security. This vision has deeply worried many traditional U.S. allies, particularly in Europe and Asia. It has created a fundamental question about the reliability of U.S. engagement in the world. This question remains open in 2028: even after subsequent years, doubt about the permanence of the United States’ international role remains one of the most significant legacies of the Trump era.

The great question of 2028 is therefore the survival of Trumpism after Trump. Its disappearance is possible, as the movement remains strongly associated with a unique personality. Donald Trump never built a structured political doctrine comparable to Reaganism; he rather embodied a political intuition, a leadership style, and a direct relationship with his electorate. But its complete disappearance also seems unlikely, as he has durably transformed the expectations of the Republican base. His successors will now have to contend with voters who consider immigration, economic sovereignty, criticism of elites, and priority given to American interests as central elements of conservative identity.

The future of the Republican Party will therefore depend on its ability to institutionalize this legacy. Three paths are possible: complete fidelity to the Trump model, adaptation intended to make the movement more acceptable to the centrist electorate, or an attempt at synthesis between traditional conservatism and nationalist populism. It is precisely this battle of interpretation that will define the 2028 Republican primary. All candidates will be, in one way or another, heirs of Trump. But they will have to answer a fundamental question: should the movement be continued as it exists, or should its legacy be transformed to build the next generation of American conservatism?

Donald Trump: President, Arbiter, or Kingmaker?

Even after leaving the White House, Donald Trump remains the dominant figure of the Republican Party. His influence far exceeds that of a traditional former president. Where other former U.S. heads of state have gradually taken an institutional distance from their party, Trump continues to occupy a central position in defining Republican priorities, choosing candidates, and the ideological orientation of the conservative movement.

In 2028, the real question is therefore not only who will be the Republican candidate for president, but what role Donald Trump will choose to play in this new political battle. Will he himself be a candidate for another term? Will he become the arbiter of a succession among several heirs? Or will he seek to become the true “kingmaker” of the Republican Party, capable of imposing his successor while retaining decisive influence over the direction of the movement?

This uncertainty constitutes one of Trump’s main political strengths. By keeping open the possibility of a new candidacy, he retains considerable strategic power over potential contenders. As long as his intention remains ambiguous, Republican candidates must calculate their positions carefully. They seek the support of his electoral base without appearing as adversaries, they claim his legacy without giving the impression of being mere copies, and they try to prepare for the future while remaining loyal to the one who redefined the party.

Trump’s real power today rests less on an institutional function than on a personal political relationship with tens of millions of voters. This relationship is one of the major transformations of the contemporary American party system. A segment of his electorate no longer defines itself primarily by its affiliation with the Republican Party, but by its attachment to Trump himself and what he represents: opposition to political elites, an assertive defense of national sovereignty, and a willingness to break with the established order.

This personal loyalty gives Trump an exceptional capacity for influence. A candidate publicly endorsed by him can benefit from a considerable advantage in a Republican primary. Conversely, a candidate who directly confronts him risks losing a significant portion of the conservative base. This reality explains why most contenders for succession seek less to break with Trump than to present themselves as the true heirs of his movement.

However, this influence also has limits. Politics also relies on generational renewal, and no political figure can maintain the same level of dominance indefinitely. Age, electoral fatigue, media wear and tear, and accumulated controversies are factors that could gradually reduce Trump’s ability to impose his will.

The Trump paradox is therefore as follows: he remains indispensable to the Republican Party, but he also represents a question the party will have to answer sooner or later. Can a political movement survive durably when built around such a dominant personality? The answer will largely determine the future of American conservatism.

Succession thus represents the main strategic challenge for the Republican Party. If Trump chooses not to run again, he will have to decide which candidate can preserve his legacy while being capable of broadening the electoral coalition. This decision will be difficult, as the criteria may conflict. The most loyal successor is not necessarily the one with the best electoral capacity. The candidate most competent to win a national election is not necessarily the one who will most reassure the Trumpist base.

Several profiles could then emerge. Some will seek to extend the movement directly, taking up the central themes of Trumpism with a new generation of leaders. Others will attempt a strategic evolution: retaining the populist and sovereigntist energy of the movement while adopting a more institutional tone capable of attracting independent voters and moderate suburbs.

In all scenarios, Donald Trump will remain a major player in the 2028 presidential election. Even without being a candidate, he will influence debates, alliances, and internal power dynamics. His legacy will likely surpass the question of his own political career, as he will have profoundly changed how a significant portion of Americans perceive the role of government, the relationship between the people and elites, and the place of the United States in the world.

Internationally, this influence will also remain significant. Trump’s vision on China, military alliances, multilateral institutions, and foreign political regimes will continue to weigh on the American strategic debate. For U.S. partners, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, understanding the future of the Republican Party necessarily involves understanding the role Trump will continue to play, whether in the forefront or behind the scenes. In 2028, Donald Trump may no longer be the U.S. president, but he could remain the man who still defines the contours of the American right.

The Republican Contenders: The Battle for the Trump Legacy

The Republican Party of 2028 faces a historic paradox. It is more ideologically powerful than it has been for several decades, but it must resolve a fundamental question: how to transform a movement built around an exceptional leader into a political force capable of lasting beyond its founder? The next Republican primary will therefore not just be a competition among ambitious personalities. It will be a battle of interpretation over the Trump legacy. All candidates will have to answer the same question: should Trumpism be extended in its current form, modernized, or surpassed?

The difficulty is considerable. The Republican electoral base expects its leaders to demonstrate loyalty to the themes that enabled the party’s transformation: national sovereignty, immigration control, priority to American economic interests, criticism of progressive elites, and a more transactional foreign policy. But a national victory also requires convincing independent voters, suburban middle classes, and a portion of moderate voters who remain wary of the most divisive aspects of the movement.

The 2028 Republican primary will therefore be a search for balance between fidelity and renewal. The best-positioned candidates will not necessarily be those who imitate Trump the most, but those who understand how to transform his legacy into a new stage of American conservatism. Among the figures likely to play a major role in this competition, several profiles stand out:

J.D. Vance
The Intellectual Heir of Trumpism?

J.D. Vance represents one of the most visible attempts to transform Trumpism into a structured political doctrine. His trajectory symbolizes an important evolution of the American right: a conservatism that is no longer limited to reducing the state or traditional social issues, but places economic sovereignty, protection of the working class, and criticism of globalization at its center. Originally from Ohio, an industrial state that has become a symbol of the political shift of the white working class towards the Republican Party, Vance has a profile particularly suited to the political narrative of the new conservatism. His book Hillbilly Elegy gave him national visibility by describing the social and economic difficulties of a part of peripheral America, which constituted one of the main electoral supports for Donald Trump.

His political journey is also revealing of the Republican Party’s transformation. Initially critical of Trump, Vance became one of his most convinced defenders. This evolution allowed him to gain the trust of part of the Republican base, which sees in him a representative of a new generation capable of continuing the movement after Trump. His strengths are significant. He is young, media-savvy, capable of defending a coherent ideological vision, and has roots in a politically strategic state. He also benefits from a growing network of supporters in conservative and technological circles, notably among actors seeking to influence the country’s economic and regulatory future.

But his vulnerabilities also exist. His conversion to Trumpism remains a source of criticism among some traditional conservatives who accuse him of changing positions for electoral reasons. His Democratic opponents will likely seek to present his trajectory as political opportunism rather than a sincere ideological evolution. His other challenge will be national. A presidential candidacy requires going beyond the traditional Republican base. Vance will have to demonstrate he can attract independents, suburban voters, and social categories still hesitant about economic and cultural populism.

Internationally, J.D. Vance embodies a particularly important trend of the new Republican Party: a strategic nationalism more concerned with domestic U.S. priorities than with the permanent management of global affairs. He criticizes traditional military interventionism, wants to reduce certain foreign engagements, and considers competition with China to be the primary strategic priority for the United States.

Regarding the Caribbean, notably Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his likely approach would be more based on direct U.S. interests, regional security, and control of migration flows than on a traditional policy of democratic promotion or humanitarian intervention. His positioning could therefore represent a significant evolution in the relationship between Washington and its regional neighborhood. J.D. Vance thus appears as one of the candidates most representative of the 2028 Republican dilemma: he embodies the continuity of Trumpism, but he must still demonstrate he can become more than an heir—a genuine national leader.

Ron DeSantis

Institutional Conservatism After Trump?

Ron DeSantis represents another possible path for the future of the Republican Party: a conservatism strongly inspired by the Trump era on cultural and identity issues, but more structured around a classic governmental experience. Unlike some heirs of the movement, DeSantis does not present himself as a mere continuator of Trump; he rather seeks to demonstrate he can achieve Trumpism’s objectives with a more disciplined and more institutional approach.

Governor of Florida, a state that has become one of the most important bastions of the modern Republican Party, DeSantis built his national reputation around several themes: opposition to progressive policies in public institutions, defense of conservative values, immigration control, and affirmation of a strong executive. His political strategy rests on the idea that the American right can retain the cultural energy of Trumpism while reducing dependence on a unique personality.

His main advantage lies in his executive experience. Unlike several potential contenders, he has a concrete governmental record to present to voters. He can defend the idea that he has already administered a large American state, managed public crises, and implemented a coherent conservative program. This experience could be an important argument for voters who want ideological continuity but with a different leadership style. However, DeSantis also has a major weakness: his relationship with Donald Trump. When he tried to establish himself as an alternative to the outgoing president, he did not succeed in surpassing Trump’s personal influence with the Republican base. A portion of conservative voters perceived him not as a natural heir, but as a rival who had tried to replace the movement’s founder too quickly.

In 2028, his challenge will therefore be to convince that he is neither an adversary of Trump nor a mere copy of Trump. He will have to demonstrate he represents a new generation capable of continuing certain priorities of the movement while bringing superior governmental efficiency. Ideologically, DeSantis belongs to a more organized and more institutional right than original Trumpism. He attaches great importance to cultural issues, the sovereignty of federal states, and confrontation with what he considers the excessive influence of progressive elites in universities, media, and large corporations.

Economically, he generally defends a pro-business approach, combining deregulation and support for national industrial policies. He shares with Trump the criticism of certain effects of globalization, but his approach is more oriented towards American competitiveness than permanent rupture. In foreign policy, DeSantis represents an intermediate position. He is less isolationist than some heirs of Trumpism, but less interventionist than traditional post-Cold War Republicans. He considers China the main strategic challenge for the United States and advocates for a strengthening of American power, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

Regarding the Western Hemisphere, his approach would likely be marked by particular attention to regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests, notably Cuba and Venezuela. His policy towards Haiti could be more centered on regional security, migration, and institutional stability, with an approach less focused on traditional development aid programs.

DeSantis’s potential thus rests on a promise: retaining Trump’s political energy without depending entirely on Trump. But this very position constitutes his main challenge. He will have to convince an electoral base that still greatly appreciates the former president that a new generation can carry the movement without betraying it.

Nikki Haley

The Attempt at Reconciliation with Moderate America

Nikki Haley represents a different trajectory within the Republican Party. Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she embodies more of the party’s traditional internationalist conservative tradition: a Republicanism favorable to an active America in the world, attached to alliances, and closer to the diplomatic legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Her profile constitutes a possible response to the question many Republicans ask: how to broaden the party’s coalition beyond the Trumpist base? Haley seeks to present a more institutional right, capable of retaining certain conservative priorities while reassuring independent voters and U.S. international partners. Her diplomatic experience is her main asset. Unlike candidates whose international approach rests essentially on economic competition or national sovereignty, Haley defends a vision where American leadership abroad remains an essential instrument of power.

She notably insists on the need to maintain alliances, support U.S. strategic partners, and firmly respond to regimes considered adversaries of Washington. This position could appeal to Republican voters who desire a return to a more traditional foreign policy. But her main difficulty remains her relationship with the Trumpist base. Her past criticisms of Donald Trump could limit her acceptance among a segment of the Republican electorate. To succeed in a primary dominated by the Trump legacy, she will have to demonstrate she understands the frustrations that fueled the movement while offering a credible alternative. On the international stage, Haley likely represents the Republican current most favorable to active U.S. engagement. Her vision could lead to a more coordinated policy with allies and more attentive to democratic issues in the Western Hemisphere.

For Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this approach could mean a return to more classical diplomacy: pressure on authoritarian regimes, cooperation with regional partners, and use of American diplomatic instruments as tools of influence. The Haley candidacy would thus pose a fundamental question to the Republican Party: should the movement’s future remain centered on populist rupture, or regain an international dimension closer to traditional conservatism?

Marco Rubio

The Bridge Between Trumpism and the Republican Internationalist Tradition

Marco Rubio likely represents one of the most complex profiles in the Republican succession. Senator from Florida, former presidential candidate, and a major figure in conservative foreign policy, he embodies an attempt at synthesis between several currents of the Republican Party: traditional conservatism, the new populist right, and the strategic vision centered on competition with China.

His career is particularly interesting because it reflects the very evolution of the Republican Party over the past fifteen years. At the beginning of his national career, Rubio was considered one of the faces of the new conservative generation, favorable to free trade, international alliances, and an active U.S. foreign policy. But Donald Trump’s arrival profoundly changed the political environment in which he operated. Like several Republican officials, he had to adapt his positioning to remain connected to an electoral base that had become more distrustful of the traditional establishment.

This evolution is both his strength and his weakness. His strength, because he has significant experience of how Washington works, in-depth knowledge of international issues, and an ability to dialogue with several sensibilities within the party. His weakness, because he must convince two electorates sometimes hard to reconcile: Trumpist voters seeking loyalty and traditional conservative voters who value experience and institutional competence.

Originally from Florida, a strategic state for Republicans, Rubio also benefits from a particular advantage in Latin American politics. His political heritage and roots in a community highly mobilized on Cuba and Venezuela give him specific credibility on Western Hemisphere affairs. Ideologically, Rubio could represent an evolution of Trumpism towards a more structured doctrine. He shares with Trump several priorities: competition with China, criticism of certain economic dependencies, defense of American interests, and a firmer approach towards regimes considered adversaries. But he remains more attached to international alliances and the strategic use of American diplomacy. In a Rubio administration, foreign policy might therefore seek a balance between the relative withdrawal advocated by some Trump heirs and the traditional interventionism of post-Cold War Republicans.

Regarding Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be influenced by three factors: regional security, the migration issue, and the fight against the influence of rival powers in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba and Venezuela would likely occupy a central place due to their proximity to U.S. interests and their ties with Russia or China. Haiti, for its part, would be more addressed from the angle of regional stability, governance, and control of migration flows. Rubio’s challenge will therefore be to convince that he can be the candidate of a transformed Republican Party without being a prisoner of its contradictions. He must appear sufficiently close to the Trump legacy to gain the support of the base, while offering a presidential stature capable of reassuring the entire country and the United States’ international partners.

Vivek Ramaswamy

The New Technological and Generational Right

Vivek Ramaswamy embodies a different dimension of the Republican transformation: the emergence of a new generation right, stemming from the entrepreneurial and technological world, seeking to combine economic nationalism, criticism of traditional institutions, and intensive use of new media. An entrepreneur before becoming a politician, Ramaswamy made a name for himself through a particularly offensive discourse against what he considers the excessive influence of major cultural, economic, and academic institutions. His positioning echoes several themes of Trumpism: criticism of elites, opposition to cultural progressivism, defense of national sovereignty, and a willingness to break with traditional political norms.

His main advantage lies in his generational profile. Unlike a large part of the American political class coming from classical institutions, he represents a new generation of leaders who built their influence outside traditional structures. His mastery of digital platforms and his ability to communicate directly with voters correspond to the evolution of contemporary American politics. However, his lack of governmental experience also constitutes a major limitation. A presidential election requires not only an ability to mobilize an electoral base, but also credibility in state management, national security, and foreign policy.

Internationally, Ramaswamy shares several positions with the most sovereigntist wing of the Republican Party. He considers that the United States must reduce engagements deemed secondary and concentrate resources on national priorities, notably competition with China. His approach could therefore lead to a more selective foreign policy, where Washington would intervene less in peripheral crises but would seek to strengthen its economic and strategic influence in regions deemed essential.

In the Caribbean, this vision could mean prioritizing security, trade, immigration, and geopolitical competition with China. Haiti could be analyzed primarily through the prism of regional stability and migration consequences for the United States. Ramaswamy thus represents an important question for the Republican future: is the American conservative movement transitioning from a political generation dominated by former leaders towards a generation stemming from the digital economy and new forms of communication?

Kristi Noem

Territorial Conservatism and Rural America

Kristi Noem represents another important component of the modern Republican coalition: that of rural America, sparsely populated states, and voters attached to a traditional conception of public authority, individual liberty, and national identity. Governor of South Dakota, she fits the profile of a political leader capable of speaking directly to conservative voters in regions far from major urban centers. Her political image rests on defending individual liberties, reducing the role of the federal government, and valuing local communities. Her main asset is her proximity to an electoral base that still constitutes the heart of the Republican Party. She represents a cultural continuity with the electorate that brought Trump to power: rurality, social conservatism, distrust of Washington, and attachment to traditional values.

Her main difficulty, however, will be her national visibility. Unlike some other contenders with strong media or international recognition, she will have to demonstrate she possesses a stature capable of transcending her regional roots. Internationally, her approach would likely be close to pragmatic conservatism: priority to American interests, border control, and particular attention to the domestic consequences of international decisions. She could represent a more traditional wing of Trumpism, less ideological on the world stage but deeply attached to themes of sovereignty, order, and national identity.

The America of 2028 and the World: What Role for the World’s Leading Power?

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will not merely be a clash between two parties or two visions of American society. It will also be a decisive moment for the international order. Since 1945, the United States has held a unique place in the global system: dominant military power, leading technological economy, major financial center, and indispensable actor in major international institutions. Yet this position is now contested from within and without.

The fundamental question running through the 2028 campaign will therefore be this: which America do voters want to project into the world? A more cautious America, focused on its immediate national interests, wary of foreign commitments? Or an America that still considers its global influence an essential instrument of its security and prosperity? This question extends far beyond U.S. borders. It concerns Europe facing Russia, Asia facing China, the Middle East facing new power rivalries, but also the Western Hemisphere, where the Caribbean remains directly influenced by Washington’s strategic choices.

For the countries of the region, and particularly for Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Central American states, the 2028 U.S. election will therefore not be a mere foreign political event. It will be a determining factor in the migration, security, economic, and diplomatic policies that will shape the next decade.

After the Trump Era: The Redefinition of American Leadership

For nearly eight decades, U.S. foreign policy has rested on a fundamental conviction: America’s power depends on its ability to organize and influence the international order. After World War II, Washington built a system based on military alliances, economic institutions, and permanent global presence. This strategy, often called American liberal internationalism, survived political alternations. Democratic and Republican presidents could diverge on methods, but they generally shared the same idea: American withdrawal creates a vacuum that other powers immediately seek to fill.

Donald Trump’s arrival profoundly disrupted this consensus. For the first time in several generations, a U.S. president openly challenged the idea that the United States should bear the primary responsibility for world order. His “America First” doctrine asserted that international engagements should be evaluated not by their contribution to global stability, but by their direct benefit to American interests.

This rupture did not only concern international institutions. It also transformed the perception of alliances. Where previous administrations considered NATO, Asian partnerships, or relations with Western Hemisphere neighbors as power multipliers, Trump often presented them as costly arrangements requiring renegotiation.

In 2028, this transformation remains one of the great strategic debates of the Republican Party. Trump’s heirs are not all agreed on the future direction. Some want to continue the logic of selective withdrawal, considering the United States should avoid engagements that do not directly serve its security. Others believe the country risks losing its influence if it abandons its international responsibilities too quickly. This division reflects a deeper question: are the United States still willing to pay the price of global leadership?

China: The Central Strategic Rival of America

If there is a point of convergence among different American political sensibilities, it is the perception of China as the primary strategic challenge of the 21st century. Unlike debates on Russia, the Middle East, or military interventions, competition with Beijing now enjoys consensus in Washington. China represents a different threat from those encountered by the United States in the previous century. The Soviet Union was primarily a military and ideological power. China is simultaneously an industrial, technological, commercial, financial, and military power. It does not merely seek to challenge U.S. influence in a specific region; it aims to reshape the global balance.

The China question will therefore be at the heart of the 2028 election. Both Republican and Democratic candidates will have to answer several questions: should economic confrontation be prioritized? Strengthen alliances in Asia? Limit industrial dependencies? Continue cooperation on certain issues like climate and global health? For the Caribbean, this rivalry also has a particular dimension. Beijing has strengthened its economic presence in several countries in the region through investments in infrastructure, telecommunications, and trade. Washington watches this development closely, as Sino-American competition is no longer just about Asia: it is also playing out in the Western Hemisphere. The next U.S. administration will therefore have to define a strategy capable of responding to China’s rise without turning every diplomatic space into a permanent battlefield.

Russia, Ukraine, and the End of the Post-Cold War American Order

The relationship between the United States and Russia is one of the issues that most clearly reveals the internal divisions in U.S. foreign policy. Unlike China, which now enjoys relatively broad strategic consensus in Washington, Russia remains a subject of profound disagreement among different American political sensibilities.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has long considered Russia a weakened but nonetheless important power for international stability. Successive administrations have attempted to combine dialogue and firmness, seeking to integrate Moscow into an international order dominated by Western institutions while limiting its regional ambitions.

The 2022 invasion of Ukraine profoundly disrupted this approach. It marked the return of a direct confrontation between Russia and the West and placed the question of European security back at the center of U.S. strategy. For supporters of an interventionist policy, Ukraine represents a major issue: defending an attacked country, preserving the credibility of American alliances, and preventing a great power from changing borders by force.

Conversely, a growing portion of the American right considers that the United States has devoted too many resources to foreign conflicts and that Europe must assume more of its own security. This vision, notably borne by certain currents close to Trumpism, believes that the primary U.S. strategic priority should be competition with China and the reconstruction of domestic power.

This debate will be central in 2028. The Ukraine question will not merely be a foreign policy issue; it will have become a symbol of two opposing visions of the American role in the world. On one side, an America that considers its influence depends on its ability to defend its partners. On the other, an America that believes its primary duty is to protect its own interests before those of other nations.

Beyond Ukraine, this evolution poses a fundamental question: could a gradual American disengagement encourage other powers to test the limits of the international order? Or, conversely, would it allow the United States to concentrate its resources on what it considers priority challenges? The answer to this question will have consequences far beyond Europe. In a world where great powers seek to expand their influence, every region becomes a potential space for competition. The Caribbean itself is not exempt from this new reality.

The Caribbean in the New Power Competition: Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela at the Heart of the Stakes

For a long time, the Caribbean was considered by Washington as a zone of natural, almost exclusive, influence. Geographic proximity, historical ties, migration issues, and security interests made this region a particular strategic space for the United States. But this situation has changed. In the 21st century, the Caribbean is no longer just an American neighborhood. It has become a space where several influences converge: American, Chinese, Russian, European, and Latin American. Ports, digital infrastructure, natural resources, trade routes, and migration issues have transformed the region into a discreet theater of geopolitical competition.

Three countries hold a particular place in this equation: Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti. Each represents a different challenge for Washington.

Cuba remains the historical symbol of the confrontation between the United States and a communist regime located less than two hundred kilometers from American shores. Since the 1959 revolution, the relationship between Washington and Havana has oscillated between periods of confrontation and attempts at rapprochement. The Cuban question remains heavily influenced by U.S. domestic politics, notably by the electoral weight of the Cuban-American community in Florida.

In 2028, the Cuban debate could pit two approaches against each other. The first, inherited from the traditional Republican line, considers that economic and diplomatic pressure remains necessary to foster political change in Havana. The second believes an engagement strategy could better serve U.S. interests by reducing the influence of external actors like China and Russia. Venezuela represents another major issue. The political, economic, and humanitarian crisis that has marked the country for several years has transformed Caracas into a regional flashpoint. U.S. sanctions, the energy question, mass migration, and the growing presence of foreign actors have made Venezuela a strategic file.

For some U.S. officials, Venezuela is primarily a problem of regional security and democratic stability. For others, a more pragmatic approach could serve U.S. energy interests while reducing the influence of rival powers. But it is likely Haiti that represents the most complex challenge for the next U.S. administration. Unlike Cuba and Venezuela, Haiti is not perceived as an ideological adversary of the United States. Rather, it represents a multidimensional challenge combining institutional crisis, insecurity, poverty, migration, state weakness, and the growing influence of criminal networks.

The Haitian question illustrates an important evolution in U.S. policy in the Caribbean: security can no longer be separated from development. Political, economic, and social crises directly produce regional consequences, notably through migration flows and transnational threats.

In 2028, U.S. policy towards Haiti will largely depend on the strategic vision of the next president. A more interventionist administration might favor increased engagement in security and institutional reconstruction. A more nationalist administration might seek to limit direct commitments and favor targeted partnerships. In both cases, Haiti will remain a major test of the American capacity to exercise constructive influence in its immediate environment.

The Republican Contenders: The Battle for the Trump Legacy

The Republican Party of 2028 faces one of the most important questions in its recent history: how to transform Donald Trump’s legacy into a sustainable political force without depending exclusively on his personality? Since 2016, Trump has profoundly altered the party’s identity. He has shifted the Republican center of gravity toward economic nationalism, more restrictive immigration policy, criticism of international institutions, and a challenge to the old Washington consensus. But a question remains open: has Trumpism become a doctrine capable of surviving its founder, or does it remain a political movement attached to a man exceptionally capable of mobilizing an electoral base?

The 2028 Republican primary will therefore be much more than a competition among candidates. It will be a battle to define the ideological future of American conservatism. Several currents will clash.

The first is that of the direct heirs of Trumpism, who consider that the rupture initiated since 2016 must be pursued and deepened. For them, Trump did not merely win an election: he revealed a new political coalition based on the working class, rural voters, workers affected by globalization, and a portion of the middle class anxious about the country’s cultural transformations.

The second current is that of the power Republicans, who accept the populist transformation of the party but wish to preserve a more traditional vision of the American role in the world. They consider that the United States must remain a dominant power, maintain its alliances, and use its diplomatic and military influence to defend its interests.

The third current is that of the conservative renovators, who seek to retain Trump’s electoral gains while developing a discourse more capable of attracting independents, suburbanites, and younger generations.

The 2028 battle will therefore be a confrontation between several visions of America: a sovereigntist America wary of the outside, a conservative but globally engaged America, and an America seeking to move beyond the divisions of the Trump era.

J.D. Vance: The Ideological Heir of Trumpism

J.D. Vance appears as one of the most natural representatives of the new American right. His trajectory symbolizes the transformation of the Republican Party since Donald Trump’s arrival. A former critic of the Republican president, he became one of his most convinced defenders, to the point of embodying a new generation of political leaders who consider Trumpism not as an interlude, but as a historical reorientation of American conservatism. Senator from Ohio, a state emblematic of the Republican reconquest among the industrial working class, Vance has built an image as spokesman for a popular America that feels abandoned by economic, cultural, and political elites. His personal background, popularized by his book Hillbilly Elegy, gives him particular legitimacy with voters who see in his story that of a part of the country hit by deindustrialization, social crisis, and a feeling of decline.

His main advantage is his proximity to Trump’s electoral base. He masters the central themes of the movement: economic sovereignty, border control, criticism of elites, defense of traditional values, and a desire to place American interests at the center of national policy. He also benefits from the support of a new generation of conservative donors, particularly from the tech world, who wish to build a political movement different from the old economic conservatism based solely on tax cuts and deregulation.

But this proximity to the heart of Trumpism also constitutes his main challenge. A presidential election requires a broader coalition than a primary. Vance will have to convince independent voters, urban middle classes, and a portion of moderate voters who might be sensitive to his economic discourse but hesitant about his cultural conservatism. His political transformation is also a subject of debate. His opponents recall he was once a severe critic of Trump before becoming one of his most fervent defenders. His supporters reply that it is not a change of conviction, but an evolution linked to his analysis of American social transformation.

Internationally, J.D. Vance represents the wing closest to the modern isolationism of the Republican Party. He considers that the United States must avoid foreign engagements deemed costly and concentrate resources on its own economic and social priorities. This approach would challenge several decades of U.S. foreign policy based on global leadership.

Regarding the Western Hemisphere, his approach would likely favor a stricter national security logic, a reduction in foreign aid programs, and limited U.S. intervention to situations considered directly related to U.S. strategic interests. For Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this vision could mean a policy more centered on regional stability, migration, and security than on large-scale institutional transformation programs.

Marco Rubio: The Return of Internationalist Republicanism

Marco Rubio represents another possible path for the Republican Party of 2028. An experienced figure in the U.S. Senate and a major personality in Republican foreign policy, he embodies an attempt at synthesis between the economic populism that emerged with Trump and the American tradition of international leadership. His background gives him a considerable advantage. Unlike several younger contenders, Rubio knows U.S. institutions, diplomatic mechanisms, and major geopolitical balances deeply. He possesses international experience rare in a political generation more marked by domestic debates.

His roots in Florida also constitute a major strategic asset. This state has become a political laboratory of contemporary America: strong demographic growth, Latin American influence, considerable economic weight, and a central role in debates concerning Cuba, Venezuela, and the Caribbean. Rubio notably benefits from a privileged relationship with a significant portion of the Cuban-American and Venezuelan electorate, which sees the Republican Party as a bulwark against socialist regimes in the region. However, his main obstacle remains his image. A portion of the Republican base continues to see him as a representative of Washington’s old political system. His campaign will therefore have to demonstrate that he fully belongs to the post-Trump era and that he can defend a new conservative majority without returning to the Republicanism of pre-2016.

On foreign policy, Rubio represents a much more interventionist vision than that of J.D. Vance. He considers that American power rests on a network of alliances, a global presence, and the capacity to influence international events. He defends a hard line against China, traditionally supports Western alliances, and believes America must retain a driving role in the Western Hemisphere.

On Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach is more based on diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions against authoritarian regimes, and support for forces favoring a democratic transition. His vision therefore represents a stronger continuity with classical Republican foreign policy.

Ron DeSantis: The “Trump Without the Chaos”

Ron DeSantis likely represents the most structured attempt to move beyond Donald Trump’s personality while retaining a large part of his political legacy. Governor of Florida, former member of Congress, and rising figure in American conservatism, he has established himself as one of the first Republican leaders capable of transforming Trump’s popularity into a more institutional governmental doctrine. His supporters often present him as the “Trump without the chaos”: a leader who shares the major orientations of the movement—immigration control, defense of conservative values, opposition to progressive policies on cultural issues—but who intends to implement them with greater administrative discipline and institutional predictability.

His main advantage is his executive experience. Unlike several candidates from Congress or the media world, DeSantis can present a governor’s record. He can defend concrete management experience, particularly on economic, educational, and regulatory issues. In a presidential election, this dimension can be an important advantage for voters looking less for a figure of protest than a leader capable of governing. His roots in Florida also represent a strategic asset. The state has become a symbol of the new Republican coalition: traditional conservative voters, retirees, entrepreneurs, Latin American communities, and voters attracted by a discourse of low government intervention in the economy but firmness on cultural issues.

However, his trajectory also reveals several difficulties. His previous presidential candidacy showed the limits of an approach essentially based on competence and organization. Many voters considered him intelligent and prepared, but struggled to establish an emotional connection with him. Yet, the Trump era has profoundly changed the expectations of a segment of the Republican electorate: the ability to mobilize, create a political narrative, and embody a cause has become almost as important as governmental experience.

DeSantis will therefore have to solve a complex equation: remain sufficiently close to Trump to retain the movement’s base, while demonstrating he possesses his own political identity. On foreign policy, he occupies an intermediate position between J.D. Vance’s isolationism and Marco Rubio’s internationalism. He defends a policy centered on American interests, criticizes certain international engagements deemed excessive, but recognizes the importance of strategic competition with China and maintaining U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be dominated by three priorities: regional security, migration control, and protection of U.S. interests in the Caribbean. He might favor targeted cooperation with partner governments rather than a policy of large-scale political or institutional intervention.

Glenn Youngkin: The Moderate and Entrepreneurial Alternative

Glenn Youngkin represents another possibility for the Republican Party of 2028: a return to a more moderate form of conservatism, more oriented towards economic management and winning back independent voters. A former business executive turned Governor of Virginia, Youngkin built his political career by demonstrating that a Republican could still win in a politically competitive state by combining conservative economic discourse, pragmatic governance, and a cultural strategy capable of mobilizing the base without provoking mass rejection among moderate voters.

His success in Virginia attracted the attention of the Republican Party, as it showed a different path from the most confrontational Trumpism. Youngkin seeks less to embody a political revolution than to offer governmental efficiency, improvement of the education system, and a favorable environment for businesses. His main advantage is therefore his potential among voters who could be decisive in 2028: independents, suburban middle classes, educated voters, and entrepreneurs. But this position also constitutes his challenge. In a Republican primary heavily influenced by the Trump legacy, a candidate who is too moderate risks appearing insufficiently committed to the base. Youngkin will have to convince that he can defend conservative priorities without being seen as a return to pre-Trump Republicanism. His lack of national name recognition is also an obstacle. Unlike Trump, Rubio, or DeSantis, he does not yet have comparable political recognition across the country.

Internationally, Youngkin would likely defend a pragmatic approach: maintaining American leadership, supporting alliances when they serve U.S. interests, and seeking a balance between firmness and diplomacy. In the Caribbean, he might favor a policy combining security, economic development, and regional cooperation. Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be less ideological than that of other candidates, seeking more concrete results on stability, migration, and economic opportunities.

Tim Scott: Optimistic and Unifying Conservatism

Tim Scott represents another facet of the contemporary Republican Party. Senator from South Carolina and one of the few African American Republicans at the national level, he embodies a vision of conservatism based on economic opportunity, individual responsibility, and the possibility of social progress through American institutions. His personal story is his main political argument. Coming from a modest background, he presents his trajectory as a demonstration of the American model’s capacity to enable social mobility. His message stands out from the confrontational rhetoric that often dominates contemporary American politics. Scott possesses several assets. He can speak to a segment of the traditional conservative electorate, but also attempt to broaden the Republican coalition among minorities and voters seeking a less conflictual discourse. His political style, marked by optimism and dialogue, could appeal to some independents tired of permanent polarization.

However, his challenge is considerable. In a primary dominated by questions of political identity and loyalty to Trump, he will have to demonstrate he is not merely a moderate alternative, but a true heir capable of mobilizing the Republican base. Some conservatives might also consider his approach too consensual in the face of the major cultural clashes structuring part of the American political debate.

On foreign policy, Scott belongs more to the Republican internationalist tradition. He supports American alliances, considers China a strategic adversary, and defends an active U.S. presence in the Western Hemisphere. For Haiti, he has historically favored an approach combining security, development aid, and institutional cooperation. On Cuba and Venezuela, he supports a line of firmness towards authoritarian governments while recognizing the need for a sustainable diplomatic strategy.

Kristi Noem: The Voice of Rural and Cultural Conservatism

Kristi Noem represents one of the most faithful expressions of the popular conservatism that has transformed the Republican Party since Donald Trump’s arrival. Governor of South Dakota, former member of the House of Representatives, she established herself as a national figure through her opposition to government restrictions, her defense of individual liberties, and her positioning very close to the concerns of the conservative base.

Her main asset is her political identity. In a Republican Party where a significant portion of voters seeks leaders capable of embodying resistance to cultural and institutional elites, Noem appears as a candidate authentically aligned with the philosophy of the Trump movement. She speaks particularly to rural voters, religious conservatives, and those who consider Washington exerts excessive influence on citizens’ daily lives.

She also has a significant symbolic advantage: she could become one of the first women to carry the Trumpist legacy at the presidential level. In a party seeking to broaden its base among female voters while maintaining its conservative coalition, this dimension could play a strategic role. But her profile also presents important limitations. South Dakota remains a sparsely populated state, which limits her national exposure compared to governors from more competitive states. She will have to demonstrate she can transition from a policy adapted to a rural state to a vision capable of meeting the challenges of a global power.

Her other difficulty will be convincing beyond the conservative base. Her very pronounced positioning on cultural issues could strengthen her support among the most engaged Republican voters, but complicate her ability to attract independents and voters from major urban areas. On foreign policy, Kristi Noem belongs to the most cautious wing of the Republican Party. She defends an approach centered on the direct interests of the United States, a reduction of foreign engagements, and greater demands regarding the use of American resources abroad.

Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this philosophy could lead to a more restrictive policy on international aid, favoring security, the fight against irregular migration, and the protection of American interests rather than large-scale institutional assistance programs.

Other Emerging Personalities: A Competition Still Open

Beyond the most visible candidates, the Republican Party has a significant reservoir of personalities likely to alter the dynamics of the 2028 primary. American political history regularly shows that candidates considered secondary can benefit from an unexpected event, a political crisis, or a shift in public opinion to become serious contenders.

Among them is Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He represents a Republican wing very attached to American power, strategic competition with China, and assertive foreign policy. His governmental experience is a major advantage, but his highly ideological image could limit his appeal to a broader electorate.

Nikki Haley represents another path. Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she embodies a more internationalist and more institutional conservatism. Her profile—woman, minority, executive and diplomatic experience—could enable her to attract some moderate voters. However, her difficult relations with Trump and part of his base could be a major obstacle.

Tucker Carlson, for his part, represents a particular evolution of American politics: the rise of media figures capable of transforming a cultural audience into political force. Without electoral experience, he nevertheless has considerable influence among a segment of the conservative electorate. His candidacy would depend on his ability to transform media popularity into political organization.

Josh Hawley belongs to the same generation as J.D. Vance and shares several themes of the new conservative populism: criticism of major tech companies, defense of the working class, and skepticism towards certain foreign interventions. He could represent a more combative alternative within the same ideological family.

Finally, Sarah Huckabee Sanders embodies another possibility: that of an institutionalized Trumpism in feminine form. Former White House Press Secretary under Donald Trump, she benefits from strong recognition among the conservative base and a privileged political relationship with the former president.

These figures show that the Trump succession will not simply be a competition among a few favorites. It will be a battle between several visions of American conservatism.

Money, Networks, and the Invisible Battle of the Primary

A U.S. presidential election is not won on ideas or personality alone. It is also won with organization, networks, and considerable financial resources. The 2028 Republican primary will also be a competition between different political infrastructures. Super PACs, major private donors, conservative religious networks, economic groups, and media platforms will play a determining role in candidates’ ability to reach voters.

The Trump movement has profoundly changed the relationship between money and politics. For a long time, the Republican establishment rested mainly on major donors from finance, industry, and traditional business circles. The new Republican Party functions more as a hybrid coalition associating working class, technology entrepreneurs, alternative media, and activist networks. This transformation opens a new battle: who will control the political apparatus capable of replacing Trump? A candidate with a strong popular base but limited financial organization could be overtaken by a better-structured competitor. Conversely, a candidate with significant resources but unable to mobilize the Trumpist electorate could fail. The 2028 primary will therefore be a confrontation between personalities, but also between political machines.

Strategic Overview: The Six Main Paths of Trumpism’s Succession

Candidate	Political Current	Main Advantage	Main Risk
J.D. Vance	Ideological Trumpism	Loyalty to the base and doctrinal coherence	Difficulty broadening the coalition
Marco Rubio	Internationalist Republicanism	Experience and global credibility	Image of former establishment
Ron DeSantis	Institutional Trumpism	Executive experience and organization	Difficulty creating emotional connection
Glenn Youngkin	Moderate Conservatism	Ability to attract independents	Low national profile
Tim Scott	Unifying Conservatism	Positive image and broadening potential	Risk of being seen as too moderate
Kristi Noem	Rural Populist Conservatism	Strong proximity to the base	Difficulty winning urban electorate

The Battle for the Trump Legacy

Ultimately, the question of Donald Trump’s succession extends far beyond the choice of a candidate. It concerns the very nature of the Republican Party. Trump succeeded in transforming an electoral coalition into a political movement. But a movement built around a personality must always face the moment when that personality disappears or loses its influence. The candidate who wins the 2028 Republican primary will have to accomplish an almost contradictory task: be sufficiently loyal to retain the Trump legacy, but sufficiently different to demonstrate he or she can build the future. The real battle will therefore not only be for the White House. It will be to define what it means to be conservative in 21st-century America.

The Economic Challenges: Americans’ Pocketbooks at the Heart of the 2028 Battle

The economy will likely be the primary arbiter of the 2028 U.S. presidential election. Behind the great ideological confrontations, cultural debates, and international issues, the fundamental question will remain the one voters have always asked: has their standard of living improved or deteriorated? In a democracy where economic perception often plays a determining role in electoral choice, housing prices, food costs, access to healthcare, wage levels, and opportunities for new generations will weigh more heavily than abstract discourse.

The America of 2028 will inherit a decade of profound economic upheavals. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of global supply chains; the war in Ukraine accelerated energy and food tensions; rivalry with China transformed industrial policy into a national security issue; while artificial intelligence is beginning to profoundly alter the organization of work. The American economic debate will therefore not only be about growth or taxation. It will address a much broader question: what strategy will allow the United States to maintain its economic power in a world that has become more competitive, more fragmented, and more technological?

This question will be at the heart of the confrontation between the two major parties. Republicans will seek to convince that the American renaissance lies in domestic production, reducing the weight of the state, lowering taxes, and a more offensive trade policy. Democrats will defend the idea that American competitiveness will depend on public investment, education, infrastructure, the energy transition, and regulation of new strategic sectors. But beyond this partisan opposition, both camps will have to answer the same concern: how to ensure that the benefits of growth truly reach the entire population.

Inflation and the Cost of Living: The Economic Fracture Still Marking Minds

Even if inflation slows before 2028, its political impact will remain lasting. The experience of the 2020s will have profoundly marked American households, because a decrease in the rate of price increases does not mean a return to previous prices. For a large part of the population, especially the middle classes and modest workers, the dominant sentiment will remain one of a loss of purchasing power.

Housing will likely be one of the main sources of frustration. In several major urban areas, homeownership will have become more difficult for younger generations, while rents will continue to represent a significant share of income. Added to this will be healthcare costs, higher education, and essential services, which remain structural concerns of American society.

Republicans will present inflation as the result of an overly spendthrift economic policy and excessive public intervention. Their argument will be that sustainable growth can only come from a favorable environment for businesses, private investment, and domestic production. In this logic, reducing public spending, deregulation, and lowering tax burdens will be presented as necessary instruments to restore economic confidence.

However, the Republican Party of 2028 will no longer be simply the party of traditional economic conservatism. Under the influence of Trumpism, a significant part of the party will defend a more nationalist approach: protection of American industries, tariffs on certain foreign products, fight against offshoring, and priority given to American workers. This evolution represents a significant break with the old Republican consensus favorable to free trade.

Democrats, for their part, will explain that American inflation was largely influenced by international factors: global logistical disruptions, the energy crisis, geopolitical tensions, and rapid economic recovery after the pandemic. Their response will rely more on public investment, support for households, competition against monopolies, and the development of a more inclusive economy.

For the Caribbean, this American economic debate will have direct consequences. The region’s economies depend heavily on imports, international prices, and financial transfers sent by diasporas living in the United States. A stable U.S. economy fosters regional stability; a weakened U.S. economy quickly reverberates across Caribbean societies.

Public Debt: The Invisible Limit of American Power

The second major economic challenge will be public debt. For several decades, American power has rested on an exceptional ability to simultaneously finance defense, innovation, infrastructure, social programs, and its role as the world’s leading power. But the continuous accumulation of debt now raises a fundamental strategic question: how far can the United States pursue its ambitions without undertaking a profound reform of its budgetary model?

As of November 2025, federal debt outstanding had crossed the historic threshold of $38 trillion, or about 124% of GDP, before approaching $39.1 trillion in early 2026. For fiscal year 2026, the deficit is estimated at nearly $1.9 trillion, equivalent to 5.8% of GDP. Debt held by the public now represents more than 101% of GDP and, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, could reach nearly 120% by 2036 and about 175% over the next thirty years if no structural correction is undertaken. More than $8 trillion of this debt is held by foreign investors, including over $800 billion by China, while the overall weight of indebtedness now represents a theoretical burden of over $112,000 per capita.

Republicans will generally view this trajectory as a threat to national competitiveness, financial stability, and future generations. Their response will rest on gradual deficit reduction, limiting the growth of federal spending, and reforming major social programs. A large part of the party will believe American prosperity depends above all on a leaner federal state, more competitive taxation, and a private sector capable of sustainably stimulating investment and growth.

Democrats will defend a different approach. They will argue that debt must be controlled without compromising the investments essential to the United States’ future competitiveness. Their strategy will favor increasing targeted tax revenues on large corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers, while preserving spending on infrastructure, research, education, the energy transition, and cutting-edge technologies.

Beyond national considerations, this debate will have major geopolitical significance. Washington’s budgetary choices will directly determine its capacity to finance its military apparatus, alliance network, international aid, and economic and security cooperation programs. For Caribbean countries, a sustained tightening of U.S. public finances could translate into a reduction in resources allocated to regional security, development, public health, humanitarian assistance, and economic stabilization mechanisms.

Reindustrialization: Rebuilding American Productive Power

The industrial question will be one of the great symbols of American political transformation. For several decades, globalization allowed American consumers to benefit from cheaper products, but it also led to the disappearance of many manufacturing jobs in certain regions of the country. This economic fracture fueled a feeling of abandonment among part of the working class and contributed to the emergence of the economic populism championed by Donald Trump.

In 2028, the question will no longer simply be whether the United States should produce more, but how it should rebuild its industrial power in an environment dominated by competition with China. The populist wing of the Republican Party will defend a policy of economic sovereignty based on tariffs, incentives for industrial repatriation, and protection of strategic sectors. Republicans closer to business circles will, however, seek to avoid overly protectionist policies that could reduce the competitiveness of American companies.

Democrats will advocate a new industrial policy based on public investment, vocational training, modern infrastructure, and clean technologies. Their goal will be to create a new generation of industrial jobs linked to future-oriented sectors. For the Caribbean, this transformation represents both an opportunity and a risk. A U.S. strategy aimed at diversifying supply chains could strengthen partnerships with neighboring countries. But a strongly protectionist trade policy could also limit the access of certain Caribbean economies to the U.S. market.

Artificial Intelligence: The Economic Revolution Redefining Work

Artificial intelligence will likely be the most profound economic challenge of the late 2020s. Unlike previous technological revolutions, it will not only concern industrial or repetitive jobs. It will also affect skilled professions in finance, law, communication, administration, research, and certain medical sectors. The political debate will therefore center on an essential question: how to benefit from the productivity gains linked to artificial intelligence while avoiding a new explosion of inequalities?

Republicans will generally favor an approach favorable to rapid innovation. They will consider the priority must be to allow American companies to stay ahead of their Chinese competitors and avoid excessive regulation that would slow technological progress. Democrats will place greater emphasis on the need to regulate artificial intelligence to protect workers, limit abuses, and ensure better distribution of economic benefits. For them, the question will not only be technological, but social. This battle will extend far beyond U.S. borders. Dominance in artificial intelligence will become a central element of global competition between Washington and Beijing. The United States will seek to maintain its lead in semiconductors, data, digital infrastructure, and AI systems.

For the Caribbean, this transformation represents a considerable challenge. Economies dependent on remittances from diasporas could be affected if certain employment sectors in the United States undergo rapid automation. But it can also create new opportunities in digital services, technological training, and the remote economy.

The Choice Between Two Models of America’s Future

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will therefore be largely structured by a fundamental economic question: what form will American power take in the 21st century? The first model considers that the United States must regain its strength by protecting its industry, reducing external dependence, and prioritizing national interests. The second believes America’s future will depend more on innovation, investment, education, and the ability to lead new technological revolutions.

This confrontation will transcend U.S. borders. Washington’s economic choice will influence the Caribbean, Latin America, and the global economic balance. In 2028, American voters will therefore not only choose a president; they will also choose a vision of America facing the economic transformations of the century.

The Social Issues: America Facing Its Internal Fractures

Beyond economic performance and international rivalries, the 2028 U.S. presidential election will be deeply marked by social issues that touch upon the very identity of the country. Immigration, healthcare, education, justice, public safety: these subjects are not merely technical debates. They represent different visions of America’s future, the role of the state, the function of the national community, and how the United States should respond to the profound transformations of its society.

These issues are all the more important as they cut across traditional partisan lines. They pit Republicans and Democrats against each other, but they also reveal internal divisions within each camp. In 2028, voters will not only choose between two political programs; they will choose between two conceptions of the American model.

For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, these debates will have direct consequences. U.S. immigration policy, cooperation programs, health policies, or security strategies will impact millions of people linked to the United States through migration, investment, or economic exchange.

Immigration: Between Border Control and Humanitarian Responsibility

Immigration will likely remain one of the most sensitive issues of the 2028 presidential election. For several years, the migration question has become a symbol of American political divisions. For a segment of the Republican electorate, it represents a question of national sovereignty and state control. For Democrats, it also constitutes a humanitarian and economic issue requiring comprehensive reform.

In 2028, the southern border will remain at the center of the debate. Migration flows, asylum applications, and pressure on reception infrastructure will fuel criticism of successive migration policies. Republicans will likely defend a security-based approach: strengthening the border, increasing control means, limiting certain immigration pathways, and accelerating the expulsion of undocumented migrants.

Democrats will propose a different approach, more oriented towards system reform: modernizing asylum procedures, creating legal immigration pathways, regularizing certain categories of long-established migrants, and cooperating with countries of origin to reduce the root causes of departures.

For Haiti, this debate will be particularly strategic. Haitian migrants are among the populations most exposed to changes in U.S. migration policy. Many flee a combination of factors: persistent poverty, insecurity, institutional instability, and natural disasters. An exclusively restrictive policy could accentuate the vulnerability of thousands of Haitians and create new social tensions in an already fragile country. Conversely, a policy combining control, humanitarian protection, and support for development could contribute to a more sustainable approach to the migration crisis.

Healthcare: The Debate Over the American Model

The healthcare system will remain one of the great social debates of 2028. The United States has some of the most advanced medical technologies in the world, but its system remains one of the most costly and unequal among major developed economies. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the structural flaws of the American model: disparities in access to care, vulnerability of precarious populations, and dependence on private insurance. Despite progress made since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, several million Americans remain inadequately covered.

Republicans will defend a more market-oriented approach: reducing regulations, competition among insurers, patient choice, and tax incentives for individuals and businesses. Democrats will instead seek to strengthen the role of the state: extending existing coverage, increasing public aid, and possible debate around a public option or a more universal system.

For the Caribbean, the issue transcends U.S. borders. Millions of citizens from the region live in the United States and depend directly on the American healthcare system. Furthermore, several Caribbean countries benefit from U.S. health cooperation programs. A reduction in U.S. engagement could weaken some essential programs, while strengthened cooperation could further support regional health systems.

Education: Preparing the America of Tomorrow

Education will be another major battleground. The United States has some of the world’s most prestigious universities, but its education system faces considerable challenges: inequalities between schools, relative decline in academic performance, high cost of higher education, and the weight of student debt.

The university question will be particularly sensitive among young voters. Student debt, accumulated by millions of Americans, has become a symbol of the economic difficulties faced by a generation confronted with a high cost of living and more difficult access to homeownership. Republicans will generally favor an approach based on individual responsibility, competition between institutions, the development of vocational training, and a reduced federal role in education. Democrats will defend greater public investment, student aid, reducing the cost of higher education, and increased federal intervention.

For Haiti, this debate has a strategic dimension. Rebuilding a country cannot be done without human capital. Access to quality education, technical training, and university development are essential conditions for strengthening the Haitian state. A U.S. policy more oriented towards training and human development could have a lasting effect in the region.

Justice and Crime: Public Safety vs. Institutional Reform

The question of justice and public safety will also remain central in 2028. The United States continues to face complex debates around crime, the role of police, judicial reform, and social tensions related to inequality. Republicans will emphasize state authority: increased police resources, stricter penalties for criminals, and enhanced security in major cities. Democrats will favor an approach combining security and reform: improving police practices, reducing judicial inequalities, crime prevention, and reintegration programs.

This debate will have particular resonance in Haiti. The country is going through a major security crisis marked by the expansion of armed groups, the weakening of judicial institutions, and the loss of control over certain urban areas. Washington’s orientation on international security could directly influence U.S. cooperation with Haiti, notably in the areas of police training, intelligence, and institutional strengthening.

The social issues of 2028 will therefore be much more than a series of internal electoral debates. They will reveal the great question running through contemporary America: how to reconcile a more diverse, more technological, and more globalized society with the expectations of a portion of the population that demands more protection, control, and stability?

For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, this election will be decisive. Decisions made in Washington will directly influence migration, economic cooperation, regional security, and development prospects.

International Challenges: America Facing the New World Order

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will not only be a clash over domestic issues. It will also be a strategic choice on the place of the United States in a profoundly transformed world. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the international order built after World War II has been progressively challenged by the rise of new powers, the return of military rivalries, economic fragmentation, and the emergence of new fields of confrontation like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and space. The next U.S. president will have to respond to several simultaneous challenges: competition with China, the relationship with Russia, the future of Ukraine, stability in the Middle East, the role of NATO, security in the Indo-Pacific, and the transformation of global trade.

Behind these major issues lies a fundamental question: should the United States continue to play the role of the leading power of the international system, or should it favor a strategy of restraint, more centered on its immediate national interests? This question deeply divides the Republican Party. It pits a more nationalist and cautious tendency, embodied by some heirs of the “America First” current, against a more interventionist tradition attached to historical American alliances. Democrats, for their part, remain broadly favorable to active international engagement, even if debates also exist within their ranks.

For the Caribbean, this evolution will be strategic. An America more focused on major geopolitical confrontations could reduce its attention to its immediate neighborhood. Conversely, a policy that recognizes the importance of the Western Hemisphere could open a new phase of regional cooperation.

China: The Great Competition of the 21st Century

The rivalry between the United States and China will likely be the main international issue of the 2028 presidential election. This competition extends far beyond the military domain. It concerns the economy, advanced technologies, supply chains, artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and diplomatic influence.

China has considerably strengthened its global presence over recent decades. Through its investments in infrastructure, ports, technology, and natural resources, Beijing has developed growing influence in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Republicans will likely defend a firmer approach: limiting economic dependencies, controlling Chinese investments in strategic sectors, technological restrictions, and strengthening military alliances in the Indo-Pacific. Democrats will seek more of a balance between competition and cooperation. They will consider China a strategic rival, but will continue to defend the need for international coordination on certain issues like climate, global financial stability, or technological regulation.

For the Caribbean, this Sino-American duel represents a major issue. Several countries in the region have benefited from Chinese investments in infrastructure, telecommunications, or energy. Increased confrontation between Washington and Beijing could transform the Caribbean into a new space for geopolitical competition. States will then have to find a balance between their development needs and the preservation of their strategic autonomy.

For Haiti, this competition could also create opportunities, provided the country is capable of presenting a clear international partnership strategy based on its national interests.

Russia: Between Confrontation and Geopolitical Reshaping

Russia will remain another major challenge for U.S. foreign policy. The war in Ukraine has profoundly altered relations between Moscow and Washington, reviving a confrontation many thought belonged to the past. Russia remains a major nuclear power, with significant military capability and a network of influence that extends beyond its regional environment. It also seeks to strengthen its relations with several countries opposed to U.S. influence, notably in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Within the Republican Party, the Russian question is a significant fault line. A portion of the party believes the United States should limit its foreign engagements and concentrate its resources on national priorities. Another tendency considers Washington must continue to defend its alliances and prevent the expansion of rival powers. Democrats remain broadly favorable to a policy of firmness towards Moscow, considering that the defense of Ukraine contributes to preserving the international order based on certain rules.

For the Caribbean, the Russian question has a particular dimension. Moscow’s diplomatic and military presence in certain countries of the region, notably Cuba and Venezuela, reminds us that the rivalries of great powers can also reach the Caribbean space.

Ukraine: The Debate on American Engagement

The future of Ukraine will be a major test for U.S. foreign policy. After several years of war, the question will no longer be just about immediate military support, but about the overall strategy of the United States facing international conflicts. Republicans will be divided between two visions. The first considers Washington should reduce its financial involvement and encourage a diplomatic solution. The second believes abandoning Ukraine would weaken U.S. credibility with its allies. Democrats will likely continue to defend significant support for Kyiv, believing European stability and the defense of democracies depend on America’s ability to respond to foreign aggression.

For the Caribbean, the impact of this war is primarily economic. Disruptions related to energy, grains, and international markets have affected the region’s vulnerable economies. A durable resolution of the conflict could contribute to global economic stabilization, but it could also accelerate a new redistribution of international alliances.

The Middle East: Influence, Energy Security, and Regional Balance

The Middle East will remain another major dossier of U.S. foreign policy. Despite the rise of China and concerns related to the Indo-Pacific, the region remains strategic due to its energy importance, persistent conflicts, and geopolitical influence. Republicans will remain broadly favorable to strong support for Israel, a policy of firmness towards Iran, and a U.S. presence capable of containing rival powers. Democrats will seek more of a balance between support for traditional allies, defense of human rights, and pursuit of diplomatic solutions.

For the Caribbean, the Middle East may seem distant, but its consequences are real. Energy fluctuations directly affect island economies dependent on imports. Furthermore, investments from Gulf countries represent a potential source of financing for certain regional projects.

NATO and the Indo-Pacific: The Future of American Alliances

The question of alliances will be at the heart of the 2028 international debate. Since its creation, NATO has represented the main collective security instrument led by the United States. But its future is now the subject of significant discussions within the Republican Party. Some consider European allies must assume a greater share of their own defense and that the United States must reduce its permanent commitments. Others believe an American withdrawal would weaken the entire Western system and give more strategic space to Russia and China. In the Indo-Pacific, the American consensus is broader: China’s rise is pushing Washington to strengthen its partnerships with Japan, Australia, India, and other regional actors.

For the Caribbean, this strategic focus on Europe and Asia poses an essential question: will Washington continue to consider its own neighborhood a priority? A decrease in U.S. attention could leave more space to other external powers.

Global Trade, Technology, and Cybersecurity: The New Battlefields

Economic and technological issues will complement the major international debates of 2028. Global trade has entered a new phase marked by the return of protectionism, the securitization of supply chains, and competition for strategic technologies. Republicans will likely favor an approach privileging U.S. economic sovereignty: tariffs, control of foreign investments, and protection of national industries. Democrats will seek more to maintain an open trade framework governed by international rules and social protections.

Simultaneously, cybersecurity will become a central issue of national security. Cyberattacks on infrastructure, businesses, and public institutions now represent a threat comparable to traditional conflicts. For the Caribbean, these transformations present both risks and opportunities. The region’s economies depend heavily on international trade and remain vulnerable to external crises. But digital development can also offer new growth levers, notably in services, education, and innovation.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will therefore also be a referendum on the place of the United States in the world. Behind the debates on China, Russia, Ukraine, or the Middle East lies a fundamental question: should America continue to lead the international order or redefine its role around a more national approach? This decision will have consequences far beyond U.S. borders. For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, the issue will be whether Washington will still consider this region a strategic space or merely a periphery.

In a world marked by great power competition, small states can no longer simply wait for others’ decisions. They must develop their own strategies, strengthen their institutions, and transform their geographic position into a diplomatic advantage.

The Electoral Weight of the Caribbean Diaspora in 2028

The Caribbean diaspora in the United States constitutes one of the most underestimated electoral factors in contemporary American politics. For a long time, electoral analyses focused on traditional large groups—white voters in rural areas, suburbs, African Americans, unions, or urban youth—neglecting the growing role of communities from the Caribbean. Yet, these populations now represent a political force capable of influencing decisive states, particularly when electoral margins are counted in a few thousand votes.

This reality is particularly visible in Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Georgia, where significant Cuban, Haitian, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Jamaican, Dominican, and Trinidadian communities are concentrated. These groups do not form a homogeneous political bloc. Their historical trajectories, migration experiences, and concerns differ profoundly. Some remain attached to Democrats due to their history with the party’s social and migration policies. Others have moved closer to Republicans due to their opposition to socialism, security concerns, or a desire for more conservative economic policy.

The 2028 presidential election could therefore confirm a major transformation: U.S. Caribbean policy will no longer be determined solely by Washington’s strategic interests in the region, but also by the electoral weight of Caribbean communities established on U.S. soil. Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela thus become issues with a double dimension: foreign policy issues, but also subjects of domestic electoral mobilization.

Florida: The Political Center of Gravity of the American Caribbean

Florida remains the state where the electoral dimension of the Caribbean is most visible. With its thirty electoral votes, it has for decades represented a strategic territory for any presidential campaign. Its large and politically active Caribbean population makes it a veritable laboratory of American electoral transformations.

Cuban Americans have historically been the most influential Caribbean group in Florida. Concentrated mainly in Miami-Dade County, they have long been associated with the Republican Party due to their opposition to the Cuban regime and their distrust of socialist policies. This political identity, built around the experience of exile and the fight against Castroism, has deeply marked Florida politics.

However, this community is evolving. New generations born in the United States sometimes have a different relationship with the Cuban question. For a portion of young Cuban Americans, economic issues, housing, education, healthcare, and the cost of living now occupy a place as important as foreign policy towards Havana. This evolution could make their vote more competitive in 2028, even if Republicans retain a significant lead among this community.

Haitian Americans represent another essential component of the Florida electoral landscape. Settled mainly in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties, they constitute a community deeply linked to migration, humanitarian, and security issues concerning Haiti. Historically close to the Democratic Party, many Haitian Americans have mobilized around the defense of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), the question of deportations, and the political situation in their country of origin.

However, this community is not politically static. A growing portion of Haitian-American voters express concerns similar to those of other immigrant groups: security, entrepreneurship, taxation, access to housing, and economic opportunities. Candidates who manage to articulate a credible policy both on Haiti and on the daily concerns of immigrant families could alter traditional balances.

Venezuelans in Florida also represent an expanding electoral group. Their experience of the political and economic crisis in Venezuela has brought them closer to the Republican Party, notably due to the anti-socialist discourse carried by several conservative leaders. For them, U.S. policy towards Caracas is not an abstract question: it directly touches their family history, their security, and their perception of the American political model.

Finally, the Puerto Rican community occupies a particular place in this electoral recomposition. Long associated with the Democratic Party, it has experienced political evolution in recent years, notably among voters settled in Florida after the economic crises and natural disasters that affected Puerto Rico. Economic issues, the reconstruction of the island, political recognition, and family values are becoming important factors in their electoral behavior.

Thus, in 2028, Florida could be one of the states where the presidential battle is played out as much on national themes—inflation, immigration, security—as on the candidates’ ability to understand the specific realities of Caribbean communities.

New York: The Historical Heart of the Haitian Community

If Florida represents the political center of the American Caribbean, New York remains its historical and cultural heart. The metropolis is home to one of the largest Haitian communities in the United States, concentrated notably in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and certain areas of New York State.

The New York Haitian community has a long tradition of political engagement. It has played a major role in defending interests related to Haiti, mobilizing around migration issues, and the emergence of several local political leaders. Its electoral orientation remains largely Democratic, but its political behavior is more complex than simple partisan alignment. The concerns of this community extend far beyond traditional ideological boundaries. The protection of TPS, Haiti’s stability, the security of relatives back home, remittances, access to healthcare, housing, and the economic success of new generations are determining issues.

This evolution opens a political space for both parties. Democrats have a historical advantage due to their position on immigration and social programs. But Republicans could seek to gain ground by developing a discourse more centered on entrepreneurship, security, and the reconstruction of Haiti. The issue extends beyond the presidential election alone. In a state like New York, traditionally Democratic, the mobilization of the Caribbean diaspora also influences local elections, primaries, and political representation in Congress.

Massachusetts and Georgia: The New Mobilization Territories

Massachusetts constitutes another important hub of the Caribbean diaspora. The Boston area has hosted a significant Haitian community for decades, as well as Jamaican, Trinidadian, and Dominican populations. As in New York, these communities remain predominantly Democratic, but their priorities are evolving with new generations.

The economic question is progressively becoming central. The cost of housing in major American cities, access to higher education, business creation, and social mobility are now as important as traditional migration issues. Georgia represents a more recent phenomenon. Atlanta has become one of the preferred destinations for Caribbean populations, attracted by its economic dynamism, job market, and relatively more accessible cost of living. In a state that has become highly competitive since 2020, even a relatively limited electoral community can play a decisive role when results are decided by a narrow margin.

Democrats have invested heavily in mobilizing urban and immigrant minorities in Georgia. Republicans, for their part, seek to broaden their coalition by emphasizing the economy, security, and family values. The Caribbean diaspora could therefore become one of the groups courted by both camps in this new electoral battle.

Puerto Rico: An American Political Singularity

Puerto Rico holds a unique place in the relationship between the United States and the Caribbean. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but those residing on the island do not directly participate in the U.S. presidential election. However, Puerto Ricans settled on the mainland can vote and particularly influence states where their presence is significant, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, or New York.

This situation creates a democratic contradiction often debated: U.S. citizens fully participate in national political life when they live on the mainland, but do not have the same electoral power when they reside on the island. The question of Puerto Rico’s political status—U.S. statehood, independence, or maintenance of the current status—could become an issue in the 2028 campaign. Democrats are generally favorable to a clarification of status through a democratic process. Republicans are divided between those who support potential statehood and those who prefer to maintain the status quo.

For presidential candidates, Puerto Rico therefore represents both an institutional and an electoral question. How they address this issue could influence the Puerto Rican vote in several decisive states.

The American Caribbean diaspora no longer constitutes a mere cultural extension of the Caribbean region. It has become a political actor in its own right. Its influence rests not only on its numbers, but on its geographic concentration in states where every vote can count.

In 2028, presidential candidates will therefore have to understand a new reality: talking about the Caribbean no longer means only talking about diplomacy, security, or international aid. It also means talking to millions of American voters whose family histories, identities, and concerns cross borders.

For Haiti in particular, this evolution is strategic. The Haitian-American community could become a major intermediary between Washington and Port-au-Prince, provided its concerns are integrated into a broader vision of partnership, security, and development. The 2028 American electoral battle will therefore also be, in part, a battle to understand and mobilize the American Caribbean.

The Caribbean Becomes a Major Geostrategic Space Again

For several decades, the Caribbean occupied a marginal place in the United States’ international strategy. Caught in a vision inherited from the Cold War, often reduced to an American “backyard,” the region was progressively relegated behind other priorities: Middle Eastern wars, China’s rise in Asia, European tensions with Russia, or major global economic challenges. This relative strategic indifference nonetheless created a vacuum that other powers gradually sought to fill. China developed a growing economic presence through investments in infrastructure, ports, telecommunications, and energy. Russia strengthened its diplomatic and military relations with certain governments in the region. Other actors, like Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or India, also identified the Caribbean as a space of economic opportunities and influence.

The transformation of the international environment now compels Washington to review its approach. The Caribbean is no longer just a zone of geographic proximity; it has become a space where several major 21st-century issues intersect: migration, maritime security, the fight against transnational criminal networks, energy transition, climate change, and great power rivalry. This evolution is particularly important as the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches. The future occupant of the White House will have to answer a fundamental question: does the United States still consider the Caribbean a strategic periphery, or an essential component of its national security and global influence?

The answer to this question will have direct consequences for the countries of the region, notably Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, three states that occupy a central place in Washington’s geopolitical calculations. It will also determine how the United States manages its relations with other Caribbean partners, like the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Barbados, or Guyana.

Why Washington Is Rediscovering Its Caribbean Neighborhood

The return of the Caribbean to American priorities is not the result of a simple shift in political perception. It stems from a profound transformation of the regional and international environment. Several dynamics, long considered separate, now converge and place the region at the center of American strategic concerns.

Migration, organized crime, competition with China, energy security, and the consequences of climate change no longer constitute isolated issues. They form an interdependent whole that directly affects U.S. internal security and the stability of the Western Hemisphere.

Migration Pressure: A Domestic Issue That Has Become Strategic

The first reason for the Caribbean’s return to Washington’s agenda is migration. For several years, migratory movements from the region have taken on major political significance in the United States. Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans, Dominicans, and nationals of other Caribbean countries participate in complex migratory flows that combine economic factors, political crises, natural disasters, and insecurity.

For Washington, this issue now goes beyond simple border management. It touches on the American state’s ability to control its borders, define its immigration policy, and respond to the expectations of an electorate deeply divided on this issue. The Haitian crisis illustrates this evolution. The rapid deterioration of the security, economic, and institutional situation has pushed thousands of Haitian citizens to seek alternatives abroad. Some take dangerous sea routes, others cross several Latin American countries before reaching the U.S. border. This dynamic transforms a national crisis into a regional issue.

Republicans generally approach this issue from the angle of national security and border control. Their approach favors strengthening surveillance means, limiting irregular immigration, and a stricter deportation policy. Democrats place greater emphasis on the root causes of migration: poverty, political instability, climate change, and institutional weakness. They defend an approach combining border control, creation of legal migration pathways, and cooperation with countries of origin. Beyond the partisan debate, one reality remains: U.S. migration policy will increasingly depend on the stability of its Caribbean environment. As long as economic and institutional crises persist in several countries of the region, migration pressure will remain a major issue in American policy.

Drug Trafficking: A Transnational Threat

The second factor explaining renewed American interest in the Caribbean is the rise of transnational criminal networks. The region has long been a transit zone for traffics originating in South America and destined for North American and European markets. The Caribbean geography—with its thousands of islands, maritime spaces difficult to control, and proximity to major consumer markets—offers criminal organizations significant logistical possibilities. Sea routes are used for transporting narcotics, weapons, illicit capital, and, in some cases, human trafficking.

This criminality directly weakens the states concerned. It fuels corruption, weakens public institutions, and contributes to the establishment of lawless zones. Haiti today represents one of the most worrying examples of this dynamic, with armed groups capable of challenging state authority and controlling strategic territories.

For the United States, this situation represents a threat at several levels. It affects their internal security, fuels criminal networks present on their territory, and threatens the political stability of their immediate neighborhood. Republicans generally favor a more security-oriented approach: military cooperation, reinforced maritime operations, sanctions against criminal organizations, and increased support for security forces. Democrats defend a more global approach combining the fight against organized crime, institutional strengthening, economic development, and social prevention. The central debate for 2028 will therefore be less about whether to act, but rather how to act: through a primarily coercive approach or through a strategy combining security, development, and institutional reconstruction.

Sea Routes: The New Battle of Strategic Spaces

The third reason for the Caribbean’s return to American calculations concerns the maritime dimension. The region is located at the crossroads of several essential trade routes linking North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia.

The Panama Canal holds a particular place in this architecture. A veritable artery of global trade, it allows for considerably reducing distances between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Its strategic value extends far beyond the purely economic domain: it represents an essential passage point for trade, supply chains, and maritime projection.

The rise of Chinese influence around port and commercial infrastructure in the region has heightened American concerns. Washington now considers that the economic presence of a rival power in its immediate environment can have security implications. The question is therefore no longer solely commercial. It concerns control of critical infrastructure, security of logistics chains, and the balance of influences in the Western Hemisphere.

For Caribbean countries, this competition represents both an opportunity and a risk. Foreign investments can contribute to economic development, but they can also create new strategic dependencies.

Cuba: Between Revolutionary Heritage and Geopolitical Realignment

Cuba remains one of the most persistent paradoxes of the Western Hemisphere. Less than 150 kilometers from U.S. shores, the island remains both a living legacy of the Cold War and a contemporary issue of geopolitical competition. For over six decades, Washington and Havana have maintained a relationship dominated by confrontation: economic embargo, diplomatic ruptures, migration crises, and ideological clashes. Yet, behind this historical opposition lies a more complex reality: Cuba is a regional actor whose stability, or instability, directly influences Caribbean security.

In 2026, the island is going through one of the most difficult periods since the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The combination of the internal economic crisis, the decline in Venezuelan support, the tightening of U.S. sanctions, and rising social tensions places the regime before its greatest challenge in several decades. The Cuban question is therefore no longer just about the survival of a political system. It has become about its evolution in a profoundly transformed international environment.

An Economy on the Brink

The Cuban economy is going through a structural crisis. For several decades, the country benefited from Venezuelan energy support, which provided a significant portion of its oil needs. But the Venezuelan economic collapse progressively reduced this assistance, worsening the island’s energy difficulties. The decrease in fuel supplies triggered a succession of crises: power outages, partial transport paralysis, industrial slowdown, and increased difficulties for agricultural and tourism sectors.

To this internal fragility were added U.S. sanctions reinforced in recent years. Washington claims these measures aim to exert pressure on the Cuban government to obtain political and economic reforms. Cuban authorities, in turn, consider the embargo a major factor in the economic crisis. The reality is more complex. Cuba’s difficulties result from a combination of factors: inefficiency of the economic model, low productivity, excessive import dependence, demographic aging, lack of foreign investment, and constraints related to U.S. sanctions.

The social consequences are visible. Food shortages, difficulties accessing medicines, frequent power interruptions, and massive emigration have profoundly affected Cuban society. Faced with this situation, the government has begun to introduce certain economic reforms. The stated objective is to attract more investment, broaden the role of the private sector, and modernize certain economic mechanisms inherited from the traditional socialist model. But these changes remain limited. The central question remains: how far is the regime willing to go without challenging the political foundations of the system?

A Regime Facing a New Generation of Protest

The economic crisis has progressively transformed the relationship between the Cuban state and its population. For a long time, the regime was able to maintain a certain stability thanks to several factors: the memory of the revolution, the institutional organization of the Communist Party, political control, and the ability to provide certain essential social services. But this historical legitimacy has gradually eroded. A new generation of Cubans, born after the Cold War, has a different relationship with power. It judges the regime less on its revolutionary heritage than on its ability to offer economic prospects, freedom of expression, and improved living conditions.

The protests of recent years have illustrated this evolution. Demands are no longer solely ideological. They also concern daily life: access to electricity, food, wages, mobility, and economic future. The Cuban government continues to attribute a large part of the national difficulties to U.S. sanctions. But this explanation no longer suffices to meet the expectations of a population facing a prolonged crisis.

The question of political succession also remains central. Since Raúl Castro’s departure, Miguel Díaz-Canel embodies a different generation of Cuban leaders. However, his power remains limited by the weight of the Party’s historical structures and the security apparatus. Havana’s challenge is now twofold: preserve political stability while responding to a society progressively demanding more openness.

Washington Facing the Cuban Dilemma: Pressure or Engagement?

For six decades, U.S. policy towards Cuba has oscillated between two major visions. The first considers that economic and diplomatic pressure is the best means of obtaining political change. This approach, historically supported by a significant portion of the Republican current, believes any opening without Cuban concessions would strengthen the regime.

The second favors diplomatic engagement. Its defenders consider isolation has not succeeded in provoking political transformation and that a more open relationship could foster internal evolution. The Trump administration favored the first approach: reinforced sanctions, limited exchanges, and increased diplomatic pressure.

This strategy has nonetheless produced a paradoxical result. If it limited certain economic capabilities of the Cuban government, it did not lead to its collapse. It also created a diplomatic space from which other actors, notably China and Russia, have benefited. A future Democratic administration might seek to resume an opening policy similar to the one initiated under Barack Obama starting in 2014: restoration of diplomatic dialogue, relaxation of certain restrictions, and encouragement of economic reforms. But the context of 2028 will be different. Strategic competition with Beijing and Moscow will weigh more heavily in American calculations.

Cuba in the Caribbean Strategic Triangle: Historical Heritage, Internal Crisis, and New Power Balance

Cuba remains one of the most singular actors in Caribbean geopolitics. Few states in the region concentrate such historical, symbolic, and strategic weight. Since the 1959 revolution, the island has held a particular place in the international political imagination: for some, it represents one of the last vestiges of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere; for others, it constitutes an example of resistance to U.S. influence. But beyond ideological perceptions, Cuba today represents a major geopolitical issue in a Caribbean that has become a space of competition among great powers.

Within the framework of this report, Cuba constitutes one of the three vertices of the Caribbean strategic triangle formed with Haiti and Venezuela. This triangle rests not only on geographic proximity. It reflects a deeper reality: these three states hold a particular position in the political, economic, and security dynamics of the region. Cuba through its historical weight and diplomatic influence, Venezuela through its energy resources and role in international rivalries, Haiti through its demographic, migratory, and humanitarian importance.

Cuba’s position is also determined by its complex relationship with the United States. A few hundred kilometers from U.S. shores, the island remains an issue where historical memory, American electoral considerations, and regional strategic issues meet. For several decades, U.S. policy towards Havana has oscillated between two approaches: that of maximum pressure aimed at provoking internal political transformation, and that of diplomatic engagement aimed at fostering a gradual evolution of Cuban society.

As the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches, the Cuban question could enter a new phase. The issue will probably no longer be solely how to contain the influence of the Cuban government, but also how to prevent a strategic space at the heart of the Caribbean from becoming more accessible to rival powers like China and Russia.

Cuba and Venezuela: A Historical Alliance Weakened by Regional Transformations

The relationship between Cuba and Venezuela constitutes one of the major axes of contemporary Caribbean geopolitics. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Caracas and Havana have built a partnership based on political convergence, energy cooperation, and diplomatic solidarity.

Under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela became an essential economic supporter for Cuba, notably through energy agreements allowing the island to obtain oil on preferential terms. In exchange, Cuba provided significant cooperation in several sectors, notably health, education, and professional services. This relationship deeply marked the regional balance. It allowed Cuba to reduce its international isolation after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and offered Venezuela a network of ideological and diplomatic influence in several Latin American countries.

However, the Venezuelan economic crisis has considerably weakened this model. The decline in Caracas’s financial capabilities, the fall in oil production, and U.S. sanctions have reduced Venezuela’s ability to maintain the same level of economic support for Cuba. This evolution has forced Havana to seek new economic partners and diversify its international relations. China, Russia, and several European actors now occupy a growing place in Cuba’s economic survival strategy.

Cuba and Haiti: A Historical Relationship Beyond Regional Politics

The relationship between Cuba and Haiti has a particular dimension in Caribbean history. The two nations share geographic proximity, a history marked by colonial and revolutionary upheavals, and common belonging to a complex Caribbean cultural space.

In recent decades, Cuban medical cooperation has constituted one of the main elements of this relationship. Cuban doctors and professionals have participated in several health programs in Haiti, notably in community care, medical training, and the fight against certain epidemics. Beyond this cooperation, Cuba and Haiti illustrate two different trajectories in facing the challenges of postcolonial development. Cuba has maintained a strongly centralized state with significant capabilities in certain social sectors, notably health and education, while Haiti has experienced deep institutional fragility.

In the new strategic configuration of the Caribbean, the relationship between Port-au-Prince and Havana could evolve. The stabilization of Haiti, migration issues, regional security, and new U.S. policies towards the region could create space for renewed cooperation between the two countries.

The Cuban Crisis: Between System Resistance and Social Pressure

Despite its historical resilience, Cuba is today going through one of the most difficult economic periods in several decades. The combined effects of the global economic crisis, trade restrictions, the decline in tourism revenues after the pandemic, and internal structural difficulties have caused a significant deterioration in living conditions.

Shortages of essential products, energy difficulties, massive emigration, and demographic aging now constitute major challenges for the country’s future. The Cuban question cannot, however, be analyzed solely through an economic lens. The Cuban political system retains institutional mechanisms capable of maintaining a certain stability, but it faces growing pressure from a population more connected to the outside world and confronted with new economic expectations. The great question for the coming years will therefore be whether Cuba can proceed with a gradual adaptation of its model without provoking a major political rupture.

The Three Possible Trajectories for Cuba After 2028

Several scenarios can be envisioned regarding Cuba’s future. The first scenario would be one of gradual adaptation. In this hypothesis, the Cuban government would pursue certain limited economic reforms, further encourage foreign investment, and seek to improve economic efficiency without deep political transformation. This path would allow for controlled evolution of the system.

The second scenario would be one of a gradual transition. The combination of economic difficulties, generational changes, and social pressures could lead to a more significant political evolution. Such a transition could open a period of international rapprochement and economic reconstruction, but it would require extremely careful management to avoid institutional instability.

The third scenario would be one of a worsening crisis. Prolonged economic deterioration could accelerate emigration, strengthen social tensions, and create a period of political uncertainty. In this scenario, the Cuban question would become not only a domestic problem, but also a major regional issue.

Cuba and the Future of U.S. Strategy in the Caribbean

Cuba’s evolution will be an important test for the next U.S. administration. The traditional policy of confrontation has maintained pressure on the Cuban government, but it has not prevented the emergence of other international actors in the Caribbean space. China considers Cuba a strategic partner due to its geographic position and economic needs. Russia, for its part, sees in Havana a historical symbol of its ability to maintain a presence in a region long considered the American strategic space.

For Washington, the issue will therefore be to define a new approach capable of combining national security, diplomatic influence, and economic cooperation. The 21st-century Cuban question will probably no longer be only: how to limit Havana’s influence? It will also become: how to prevent a strategic vacuum at the heart of the Caribbean from being durably occupied by rival powers?

Venezuela: Oil, Political Crisis, and Great Power Rivalry in the Western Hemisphere

Venezuela holds a unique place in the geopolitics of Latin America and the Caribbean. Few countries illustrate the contradictions of the contemporary world with such force: a territory possessing the largest known oil reserves in the world, but facing one of the deepest economic and social crises in the region’s recent history; a state located strategically close to the United States, which has become a symbol of political confrontation; a country where the interests of Washington, Beijing, and Moscow now intersect.

As the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches, Venezuela will remain one of the major dossiers of U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. Its importance extends far beyond national borders. The Venezuelan situation simultaneously touches several strategic issues for Washington: energy security, regional stability, migration, competition with external powers, and the future of the Latin American political order.

For more than a decade, Venezuela has been going through a multidimensional crisis characterized by economic collapse, political polarization, institutional weakening, international sanctions, and massive human exodus. Several million Venezuelans have left their country in recent years, causing one of the most significant migration crises in the recent history of Latin America and exerting considerable pressure on neighboring countries as well as on the United States.

Venezuela therefore represents a strategic paradox. For some U.S. officials, it embodies a political challenge related to governance, democracy, and the influence of rival powers. For other analysts, it also constitutes an example of the limits of a policy based primarily on economic pressure and diplomatic isolation. The central question for Washington after 2028 will therefore be: how to favor political and economic evolution in Venezuela without provoking a new period of instability that could affect the entire Caribbean?

The Venezuelan Paradox: A Weakened Energy Power

Venezuela’s recent history is one of the most striking examples of dependence on natural resources. For several decades, oil revenues allowed the country to finance ambitious social programs, develop significant regional influence, and play a major role in Latin American politics. Under Hugo Chávez, and then Nicolás Maduro, oil became much more than an economic resource. It was used as an instrument of domestic policy, regional diplomacy, and international projection. Thanks to its energy revenues, Caracas was able to establish political alliances, support certain regional partners, and increase its influence within several Latin American organizations.

However, this excessive dependence on hydrocarbons also created great vulnerability. The fall in international oil prices, difficulties in managing the energy industry, corruption, loss of technical skills, and internal political tensions gradually weakened the national oil sector. The state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), once considered one of the world’s most important energy companies, experienced a considerable decline in its operational capabilities. Oil production fell sharply, reducing the country’s main source of revenue. This economic degradation led to major social consequences. Inflation, the decline in purchasing power, difficulties accessing essential products, infrastructure degradation, and energy supply problems have profoundly affected the population.

The Venezuelan crisis thus illustrates a reality common in states heavily dependent on natural resources: abundant wealth does not automatically guarantee sustainable development. Without solid institutions and economic diversification, resources can become a source of fragility rather than a strategic advantage.

U.S. Sanctions: Political Pressure or Factor of Economic Weakening?

U.S. policy towards Caracas is one of the most controversial subjects of Washington’s regional strategy. For several years, the United States has adopted an approach based on economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to obtain political changes in Venezuela.

Washington claims these measures aim to encourage respect for democratic processes, promote transparent elections, and exert pressure on officials accused of institutional violations or human rights abuses. Venezuelan authorities and their international partners present a different reading. They consider sanctions a form of economic pressure intended to provoke regime change and accuse Washington of using its financial influence to weaken the Venezuelan state.

The geopolitical reality is more complex. Sanctions have indeed reduced the Venezuelan government’s financial capabilities and limited its access to international markets. They have also contributed to isolating Caracas diplomatically. However, their effects on the national economy are the subject of significant debate. Several analyses emphasize that these measures have also limited foreign investment, complicated the modernization of the energy sector, and worsened certain economic difficulties directly affecting the population. This question should remain at the heart of the U.S. political debate during the 2028 presidential campaign.

Two visions will likely continue to oppose each other:

• The first will favor a policy of maximum pressure, considering any opening would weaken the U.S. ability to obtain political concessions.

• The second will defend a more pragmatic approach, believing that a strategy of economic and diplomatic engagement could reduce the influence of rival powers and favor gradual stabilization.

• Behind this debate lies a broader question: is isolation or influence the best way to defend U.S. interests in the region?

The Venezuelan Political Transition: Reconstruction or Risk of Instability?

Venezuela’s political future remains deeply uncertain. The country is still marked by a lasting confrontation between the Chavista government and a fragmented political opposition. Electoral institutions, justice, security forces, and economic structures remain at the center of this power struggle. A political transition could open a new historical period. It could favor the return of international investment, economic reconstruction, improved diplomatic relations, and Venezuela’s gradual reintegration into regional mechanisms.

A controlled political change could also have positive consequences for the migration crisis. The economic and institutional stabilization of the country would likely reduce pressure on neighboring countries and on the United States. But an ill-prepared transition would also carry considerable risks.

Venezuela has fragile institutions, a powerful security apparatus, and economic actors whose interests are linked to the current system. An abrupt rupture could provoke a struggle for control of the state, institutional fragmentation, or a new migration wave. For Washington, the strategic challenge is therefore particularly complex: encouraging political evolution without provoking the collapse of a state located at the heart of the American regional environment.

Venezuela at the Center of the Washington-Beijing-Moscow Competition

The Venezuelan crisis has transformed the country into a secondary space for global rivalry among great powers. For the United States, the Chinese and Russian presence in Venezuela represents an extension of strategic competition into the Western Hemisphere. After several decades during which Washington considered Latin America and the Caribbean its privileged sphere of influence, the arrival of new actors is progressively modifying regional balances.

China has developed an important economic relationship with Caracas, mainly around the energy sector. Beijing primarily seeks to secure its economic interests, maintain commercial partnerships, and preserve its energy supplies. Russia, for its part, has developed a more political and security-oriented relationship. Moscow has supported Caracas diplomatically and strengthened its military cooperation with the Venezuelan government. However, this foreign presence must be analyzed with nuance. China and Russia do not have the same capabilities or objectives in the region. Beijing primarily favors economics and infrastructure, while Moscow uses political and security cooperation more as an instrument of influence.

Venezuela thus illustrates a major transformation: the Caribbean and Latin America no longer constitute solely a space of American influence, but are gradually becoming a theater where several powers seek to defend their interests.

Venezuela in the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Strategic Triangle

In the new Caribbean geopolitics, Venezuela constitutes the third vertex of the strategic triangle with Cuba and Haiti. With Cuba, Caracas shares an alliance built around energy, political, and diplomatic cooperation since the beginning of the 21st century. This relationship remains one of the symbols of regional political recomposition. With Haiti, historical relations rest more on regional cooperation, Latin-Caribbean mechanisms, and diplomatic ties developed over recent decades. Even if these relations have been less structuring than those between Cuba and Venezuela, Caracas’s evolution can indirectly influence Haiti’s strategic environment.

With the United States, Venezuela represents an issue where energy, security, migration, and international competition intersect. Caracas’s evolution will therefore have significant regional consequences. Stabilization could contribute to reducing migration tensions, strengthening regional economic integration, and opening a new phase in inter-American relations. Conversely, a prolonged new crisis could increase instability and offer more space to external powers.

What Future for Caracas After 2028?

Three main scenarios can be envisioned.

• The first scenario would be a negotiated transition. A political agreement would allow gradual opening, accompanied by an improvement in international relations, a partial lifting of sanctions, and a progressive return of foreign investment.

• The second scenario would be authoritarian stabilization. The power would retain political control while implementing certain limited economic reforms to ensure the system’s survival.

• The third scenario would be a prolonged crisis. The absence of political compromise would maintain a fragile economy, prolong migration pressure, and reinforce competition among foreign powers around Venezuela.

Regardless of the scenario, one conclusion is clear: Venezuela will not be merely a Latin American issue. It will be a major test of the American ability to manage its own strategic environment. The Caribbean, long considered peripheral, has become a central space where some of the great transformations of the 21st century are unfolding.

Other Strategic Actors in the Caribbean: A Region Between Sovereignty, Vulnerabilities, and Global Competition

The Caribbean cannot be understood solely through the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela strategic triangle. While these three countries hold a central place in current geopolitical dynamics due to their history, geographic position, and particular relationship with the great powers, the Caribbean space remains a much vaster and more complex reality. The region is composed of a mosaic of states and territories whose economic, diplomatic, and security trajectories directly influence the regional balance. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Puerto Rico, as well as regional organizations like CARICOM and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), each play a specific role in this new strategic configuration. These actors share several common challenges: vulnerability to climate change, external economic dependence, migration pressure, transnational crime, energy security, and the need to preserve their autonomy in an environment marked by the return of great power competition.

The 21st-century Caribbean is therefore no longer merely a peripheral zone between North America and Latin America. It is gradually becoming a strategic space where several global dynamics converge: Sino-American rivalry, Russian repositioning, energy transition, new trade routes, and transforming diplomatic balances. In this context, every Caribbean state, regardless of size, becomes an actor whose choices can contribute to modifying the regional balance.

The Dominican Republic: Haiti’s Indispensable Neighbor and a Strategic Partner for Washington

The Dominican Republic today holds a particular place in Caribbean geopolitics. Located on the same island as Haiti, it represents both a major economic actor in the region and a central element of U.S. security concerns in the Caribbean. With a population exceeding eleven million, an economy among the most dynamic in the region, and growth sustained by tourism, industrial free zones, infrastructure, and foreign investment, Santo Domingo has become one of the most important economic hubs in the Caribbean space.

This evolution contrasts sharply with the multidimensional crisis in Haiti. The coexistence of two radically different trajectories on the same island creates a deeply asymmetric bilateral relationship, marked both by economic interdependence and recurrent political tensions. The migration issue remains the main point of friction between the two countries. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians live or work in the Dominican Republic, contributing to several essential sectors of its economy, notably agriculture, construction, and services. However, Dominican migration policies towards Haitian workers and people of Haitian descent regularly draw international criticism regarding human rights and deportation conditions.

For the United States and regional organizations, the stability of the island of Hispaniola depends largely on the ability of the two states to build a more predictable relationship, based on cooperation, border security, and shared development. The Dominican Republic thus represents an important strategic partner for Washington. Its economic stability, diplomatic positioning, and regional role make it an actor whose decisions will have a direct influence on Haiti’s future and the overall balance of the Caribbean.

Jamaica: The Diplomatic Voice of the Anglophone Caribbean

Jamaica remains one of the most influential countries in the Anglophone Caribbean. Its importance rests not only on its population or economy, but also on its historical heritage, cultural influence, and regional diplomatic role. A major member of CARICOM, Kingston has traditionally played a mediating role in regional affairs. The country maintains close relations with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, while seeking to preserve a margin of diplomatic autonomy.

Its economy relies primarily on tourism, services, mining exports (notably bauxite), as well as financial transfers from its diaspora. However, like several Caribbean countries, Jamaica faces significant challenges. Organized crime, violence linked to criminal networks, social inequalities, and climate vulnerability are major obstacles to its sustainable development. Regional security has become a growing priority for Kingston. The circulation of arms, drug trafficking, and the expansion of transnational criminal networks now represent threats that extend far beyond national borders.

Jamaica also plays an important role in the Haitian question. Its involvement in regional stabilization initiatives reflects a desire to preserve the collective security of the Caribbean while maintaining a balanced approach between regional solidarity and strategic interests. In a region where small states seek to strengthen their collective influence vis-à-vis the great powers, Jamaica should continue to play a major diplomatic role.

Guyana: The New Energy Power of the Wider Caribbean

Guyana likely represents one of the most spectacular geopolitical changes in the region in the 21st century. Long considered one of the poorest countries in South America, this English-speaking state is now undergoing a historic transformation thanks to its immense offshore oil discoveries.

The exploitation of these resources has profoundly modified its economic prospects. Guyana has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, attracting the attention of the United States, China, Europe, and major international investors. This new energy wealth offers the country an exceptional development opportunity. It could allow for the modernization of infrastructure, improvement of public services, and deep economic transformation.

However, international experience also recalls the risks associated with excessive dependence on natural resources. Georgetown’s challenge will be to avoid the “resource curse” by transforming its oil revenues into sustainable development. To this economic dimension is added a major geopolitical issue: the territorial dispute with Venezuela over Essequibo, a resource-rich region claimed by Caracas.

This conflict now goes beyond the simple border issue. It has become a strategic dossier directly involving the great powers. The United States has strengthened its cooperation with Georgetown, while Venezuela seeks to maintain its historical claims. Guyana has thus become a new space where energy, regional security, and international competition intersect.

Suriname: Between Energy Potential and the Need for Economic Diversification

Located between Guyana and French Guiana, Suriname holds a particular position in the geopolitics of the wider Caribbean. A small multicultural state of about 600,000 inhabitants, it possesses significant natural resources, notably in the mining and energy sectors, which could profoundly transform its economic future.

Like neighboring Guyana, offshore oil discoveries are opening new development prospects. They could allow the country to attract more foreign investment, modernize its infrastructure, and increase its regional economic weight. However, the experience of other producer countries reminds us that the discovery of natural resources is not automatically a guarantee of development. The real challenge for Paramaribo will be to transform this potential wealth into sustainable growth, improved living standards, and strengthened institutional capacities.

Suriname must also avoid excessive dependence on hydrocarbons. In a global context marked by the energy transition, producer countries must now prepare for the future beyond oil and gas. Economic diversification, education, infrastructure, and technological innovation will become essential factors of national sovereignty. Diplomatically, Suriname seeks to maintain a balance between its traditional partners and the new powers showing growing interest in the region. Like several small Caribbean states, it attempts to benefit from international competition while preserving its strategic autonomy.

Trinidad and Tobago: The Energy Giant of the Caribbean

Trinidad and Tobago holds a particularly strategic place in the Caribbean space. Thanks to its natural gas resources, developed petrochemical industry, and level of industrialization above the regional average, the country has for decades been one of the main economic engines of the Caribbean. Its geographic proximity to Venezuela also reinforces its strategic importance. Located at the crossroads of South America and the insular Caribbean, the archipelago has particular value in energy, commercial, and security matters.

Port of Spain plays an important role within CARICOM and traditionally seeks to maintain regional influence based on its economic and diplomatic weight. The country also participates in discussions concerning regional energy security, notably in a context where global markets are undergoing profound transformations. However, like several hydrocarbon-producing economies, Trinidad and Tobago faces a major challenge: preparing for the post-oil era. The global energy transition, the evolution of international markets, and the rise of renewable energies compel the country to accelerate its economic diversification. Its future will depend on its ability to transform its current energy revenues into investments in future-oriented sectors: technology, modern industry, the digital economy, and human capital. In the new Caribbean geopolitical competition, Trinidad and Tobago thus represents an essential actor both as an energy power and as a potential strategic partner for the great powers.

Puerto Rico: The American Exception at the Heart of the Caribbean

Puerto Rico holds a unique position in the regional geopolitical balance. A U.S. territory since 1898, the island represents a particular institutional situation: its inhabitants possess U.S. citizenship, but Puerto Rico residents do not participate in the U.S. presidential election through popular vote and do not have representatives with full voting rights in Congress. This situation has been a major political debate for several decades around three main options: maintaining the current status, attaining U.S. statehood, or independence.

The Puerto Rican question could regain particular importance in the context of the 2028 U.S. election, notably due to the growing weight of the Puerto Rican community in several strategic American states, including Florida. But beyond U.S. domestic politics, Puerto Rico has major geopolitical importance. Its geographic position in the center of the Caribbean makes it an important element of the U.S. economic, military, and diplomatic apparatus in the region.

The island also represents a privileged observation point for regional transformations: migration, maritime security, transnational trafficking, relations with Cuba and Venezuela, as well as competition among great powers. Thus, Puerto Rico illustrates a fundamental reality of the contemporary Caribbean: political boundaries do not always correspond to strategic realities. Although legally linked to the United States, its future remains deeply connected to Caribbean regional dynamics.

CARICOM and the OECS: Towards a Collective Diplomacy of Small States

Faced with the rise of international rivalries, Caribbean states are seeking to strengthen their collective capacity for action. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) today constitutes the central political and economic organization of the region. It represents an essential coordination mechanism in the areas of trade, diplomacy, security, and development.

The importance of CARICOM now goes beyond mere economic cooperation. In an international environment marked by competition among great powers, it becomes an instrument allowing small states to collectively defend their interests. The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) plays a similar role for the small island states of the Eastern Caribbean. These countries, often particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and economic constraints, seek to strengthen their collective voice on the international stage.

Their common priorities are now clearly identified: climate adaptation, access to international finance, regional security, sustainable development, energy transition, and reform of international institutions. The Haitian crisis has also reinforced the diplomatic importance of these organizations. Haiti’s stability has gradually become a collective issue for the entire Caribbean, as its instability affects migration, maritime security, economic exchanges, and the regional political balance. However, Caribbean organizations still face a major difficulty: transforming their collective weight into genuine strategic capacity. Their influence will depend on their ability to overcome national divisions and build a common vision in the face of the great powers.

Panama: The Strategic Corridor Between Two Oceans

Although not an insular Caribbean state, Panama holds an essential place in the geopolitics of the wider Caribbean. Its canal is one of the world’s most important maritime infrastructures. Connecting the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, it plays a major role in international trade and the organization of global logistics chains. Approximately 5% of world maritime trade transits through this strategic infrastructure, which explains the particular attention given to it by the great powers.

But the Panama Canal faces several challenges today. Climate change is a growing threat, notably due to drought periods that reduce the water reserves necessary for lock operation. Simultaneously, the canal has become a symbol of competition between Washington and Beijing. China’s economic presence in certain Panamanian port infrastructures is observed closely by the United States, which considers this area essential to its economic and strategic security.

For Beijing, Panama represents an important point in global trade networks. For Washington, it remains a historical space where the question of external influence is of particular importance. Panama thus illustrates a major transformation of contemporary geopolitics: civil infrastructure is no longer only an economic tool. It is also becoming an instrument of power.

A Caribbean That Has Become a Global Strategic Space

The 21st-century Caribbean can no longer be considered a simple collection of islands dependent on the great powers. It has become a strategic space where several major dynamics converge: competition between Washington and Beijing, Moscow’s political return, energy transition, new trade routes, migration issues, and climate challenges. The diversity of national trajectories shows, however, that the regional future will not be determined solely by the great powers. It will also depend on the ability of Caribbean states to transform their resources, geographic positions, and alliances into genuine national strategies.

The new strategic question for the Caribbean is therefore no longer only which power will exert the greatest influence. It is rather to determine whether the states of the region will know how to use current international competition to strengthen their collective sovereignty, accelerate their development, and become themselves actors capable of weighing in on the emerging world order. The Caribbean is no longer a periphery of the international system. It is progressively becoming one of the spaces where a significant part of the geopolitical recomposition of the 21st century is playing out.

China in the Caribbean: The Economic Power Transforming the Regional Order

The rise of China in the Caribbean constitutes one of the most significant geopolitical changes of the early 21st century. For a large part of the previous century, the region was considered a space falling almost exclusively within the strategic influence of the United States. Geographic proximity, economic ties, migratory relations, and the historical legacy of the Monroe Doctrine had helped maintain a dominant American presence in regional affairs.

This reality has, however, begun to evolve with the emergence of China as a global power. Unlike Russia, whose presence in the Caribbean rests mainly on political, military, and symbolic considerations, Beijing is developing a much broader strategy, based on economic investment, trade, infrastructure, technology, diplomacy, and institutional cooperation. China is not necessarily seeking to establish a direct confrontation with Washington in the Western Hemisphere. Its strategy relies more on a logic of progressive influence: creating economic dependencies, strengthening diplomatic partnerships, and participating in the strategic sectors that will determine the region’s economic future.

The Caribbean represents for Beijing a limited space economically, but considerable geopolitically. Its position at the heart of the American hemisphere, close to the world’s major trade and energy routes, gives it particular strategic value in the global competition among great powers.

The Chinese Strategic Logic in the Caribbean

China’s presence in the region responds to several complementary objectives:

• The first objective is economic. China seeks to develop new markets for its companies, secure its supply chains, and participate in major infrastructure projects necessary for the development of Caribbean economies. In several countries of the region, infrastructure needs remain considerable: port modernization, energy networks, telecommunications, transport, housing, and public facilities.

• The second objective is diplomatic. The Caribbean has particular importance in international institutions due to the number of sovereign states it represents at the United Nations. Beijing therefore seeks to strengthen its relations with these countries to increase its diplomatic influence and progressively reduce the international space still occupied by Taiwan with certain Caribbean states.

• The third objective is strategic. China’s presence in a region historically considered the United States’ privileged sphere of influence is also a means of affirming the global dimension of Chinese power. Even without seeking a military presence comparable to Washington’s, Beijing wishes to demonstrate that no region of the world can henceforth be considered as belonging exclusively to a single power.

Infrastructure: The New Instrument of Power

One of the central elements of Chinese strategy relies on infrastructure. In several Caribbean countries, difficulties in accessing international financing have created a space favorable to Chinese investment. Beijing often offers rapid, visible projects directly linked to the immediate economic needs of partner governments. This approach appeals to several states seeking concrete solutions to improve their infrastructure and accelerate their development.

However, this presence also raises strategic questions. Modern infrastructure is no longer merely an economic tool. Ports, digital networks, power plants, or communication systems can also become instruments of political and strategic influence. It is precisely this dimension that concerns Washington. U.S. officials consider that certain Chinese investments could, in the long term, offer Beijing an additional capacity for economic, technological, or informational influence in a region located in the immediate vicinity of U.S. territory.

However, a balanced analysis also requires recognizing that China’s expansion partly responds to a reality created by the unmet needs of Caribbean states. When traditional partners do not offer sufficient investment or suitable solutions, regional governments naturally seek other alternatives.

The Panama Canal: An Infrastructure at the Heart of Global Competition

Panama holds a particular place in this new geopolitical competition. The Panama Canal remains one of the world’s most important maritime infrastructures. Connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, it constitutes an essential passage for international trade and a major element of global logistics chains. China’s economic presence around Panamanian port infrastructure has therefore acquired significant strategic importance. For Beijing, participating in Panama’s logistical development represents an opportunity for further integration into major international trade networks.

For Washington, this presence is much more sensitive. The canal has particular historical and strategic value in American memory. The United States built it at the beginning of the 20th century and administered it for several decades before its final transfer to Panama in 1999. The central question is therefore not solely economic. It also touches on the ability of a rival power to develop influence around an infrastructure considered essential to U.S. economic and strategic security.

The Panama Canal thus illustrates a major transformation of the 21st century: civil infrastructure is progressively becoming an instrument of geopolitical power.

China, Cuba, and Venezuela: A Strategy with States Under U.S. Pressure

China has also strengthened its relations with certain Caribbean states that have faced tensions with Washington for several decades, notably Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba represents a symbolically important partner. Since the 1959 Cuban revolution, the island remains one of the most sensitive issues in relations between the United States and the Caribbean. Faced with U.S. economic restrictions, Havana has long sought to diversify its international partners.

China has progressively developed cooperation with Cuba in several sectors, notably trade, energy, telecommunications, and certain infrastructures. For Havana, this relationship constitutes a source of economic support and a means of reducing its international isolation. For Beijing, Cuba also has particular political value. Its geographic proximity to the United States and its diplomatic history make it a partner whose importance extends far beyond the economic dimension.

Venezuela represents another major pillar of Chinese strategy. Before the worsening of its economic crisis, Caracas had become one of Beijing’s main energy partners in Latin America. China had granted significant financing to Venezuela and developed deep cooperation in the oil sector. After the imposition of U.S. sanctions, Beijing became an essential actor allowing Venezuela to maintain certain international economic relations. This situation illustrates an important characteristic of Chinese strategy: taking advantage of periods of crisis to gradually strengthen its influence.

The Technological Battle: Telecommunications, Digital Sovereignty, and the New Infrastructure Competition

Beyond physical investments, the competition between China and the United States in the Caribbean is progressively moving towards another strategic field: technology. The digital transformation of Caribbean economies creates new needs in connectivity, cybersecurity, data storage, and digital infrastructure. Chinese companies have sought to participate in this transformation by offering solutions in telecommunications, digital networks, and technological equipment. For several Caribbean states, these partnerships represent an opportunity to accelerate their digital modernization in a context where national financial resources remain limited.

But this technological dimension extends far beyond the commercial question. In a world where data, communication networks, and digital infrastructure become essential elements of national sovereignty, the choice of a technology provider also constitutes a strategic decision. Washington thus considers that the presence of Chinese companies in certain sensitive sectors could have implications for security, data protection, and the capacity for external influence. The question is therefore no longer only who builds digital infrastructure, but also who controls the technologies that will enable Caribbean societies to function in the 21st-century economy.

This technological competition should become one of the main axes of indirect confrontation between Beijing and Washington in the coming years. For Caribbean states, the challenge will be to benefit from the opportunities offered by the digital transformation while preserving their strategic autonomy.

The Limits of China’s Strategy in the Caribbean

Despite its rapid expansion, China’s influence in the Caribbean remains confronted with several important limits. The first limit concerns the historical depth of relations. The United States has a structural advantage in the region related to its geographic proximity, economic ties, diasporic communities, and cultural influence. This historical presence cannot be rapidly replaced by an external power.

The second limit concerns local perception. While Chinese investments are often welcomed by governments seeking alternative financing, certain questions also arise regarding contract transparency, project financial conditions, local labor participation, and risks of excessive debt.

The third limit lies in the desire of Caribbean states to preserve their autonomy. The majority of governments in the region do not wish to substitute American dependence for Chinese dependence. Their objective is rather to benefit from competition among great powers to obtain more investment, partnerships, and diplomatic space. The new Caribbean geopolitical reality therefore rests less on replacing one influence with another than on the emergence of a multipolar environment in which small states seek to maximize their interests.

China and the 2028 U.S. Election: What New Influence Model for Washington?

The rise of Chinese influence in the Caribbean should become an important subject of the American strategic debate during the 2028 presidential election. The fundamental question for Washington will be: how to preserve its historical influence in the region without pushing Caribbean states further towards alternative partners?

A policy based solely on confrontation could strengthen China’s attractiveness to governments wishing to diversify their international relations. Conversely, a purely defensive approach could allow Beijing to gradually consolidate its economic and diplomatic positions. The real challenge for the United States will therefore be to propose a more ambitious regional strategy, combining security, economic development, energy cooperation, digital transition, and support for democratic institutions.

The competition with China will likely not be won solely through diplomatic or military pressure. It will also depend on America’s ability to demonstrate that its partnership with the Caribbean remains more advantageous, more sustainable, and more respectful of the aspirations of local populations.

China, an Indispensable Power in the New Caribbean

China has become an indispensable actor in Caribbean geopolitics. Its power rests not primarily on a military presence, but on its ability to finance, build, invest, and develop long-term political relations. Its objective is not necessarily to provoke a direct confrontation with the United States in the Western Hemisphere. Its strategy consists rather of gradually transforming a space historically dominated by Washington into a region where several powers can now exercise influence.

For Caribbean states, this evolution represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The arrival of new partners can offer more economic possibilities, but it also exposes the region to the strategic rivalries of the great powers. The central question for the coming years will therefore not simply be which power will dominate the Caribbean, but rather whether the states of the region will be capable of using this new competition to strengthen their sovereignty, development, and collective decision-making capacity.

Russia in the Caribbean: The Return of a Strategic Power in the American Space

Unlike China, whose influence rests mainly on economic power, Russia’s presence in the Caribbean remains essentially political, diplomatic, and security-oriented. Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow had considerably reduced its engagement in the region, gradually allowing the United States to regain a dominant position in its immediate strategic environment.

This period of relative withdrawal has, however, begun to evolve in recent years. Russia has progressively reactivated its relations with several historical partners, mainly Cuba and Venezuela, in a logic that combines Soviet heritage, international projection, and a desire to demonstrate that Moscow retains a capacity for action beyond its immediate regional environment.

Russia’s presence in the Caribbean obviously does not represent a threat comparable to that posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow does not have the same economic resources or the same global alliance network. However, its influence has important symbolic value: it reminds us that the Caribbean is no longer a space exclusively controlled by Washington. For the United States, the Russian question in the region therefore concerns not only Moscow’s military capability. It also touches on diplomatic competition, American international credibility, and Washington’s ability to maintain its influence in its own strategic environment.

The Soviet Legacy: Cuba and the Memory of the Cold War

The relationship between Moscow and Havana remains the historical symbol of Russia’s presence in the Caribbean. After the 1959 Cuban revolution, the Soviet Union became Cuba’s main economic, military, and political partner. For several decades, the island held an exceptional place in Soviet strategy due to its geographic proximity to the United States. The 1962 missile crisis represented the most spectacular moment of this confrontation. For the first time in modern history, the rivalry between two superpowers risked provoking a direct nuclear confrontation.

After the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the Russo-Cuban relationship lost some of its intensity. However, it never completely disappeared. The gradual rapprochement between Moscow and Havana in recent years fits into a historical logic: maintaining a political presence in a region that retains strong symbolic value vis-à-vis the United States. For Cuba, Russia represents a partner allowing it to diversify its international relations. For Moscow, Cuba remains a strategic actor whose importance extends far beyond its geographic size.

Venezuela: Russia’s Main Strategic Partner in the Caribbean

Venezuela today constitutes the second pillar of Russia’s presence in the Caribbean, after Cuba. Since Hugo Chávez came to power in the early 2000s, Caracas and Moscow have progressively built a relationship based on military cooperation, energy exchanges, economic partnerships, and diplomatic rapprochement marked by common opposition to U.S. influence.

This relationship developed in a context of rising tensions between Venezuela and the United States. For Caracas, the partnership with Moscow represented a way to diversify its international alliances and reduce its historical dependence on Washington in strategic and security areas. For Russia, Venezuela constituted an opportunity to maintain a political presence in the Western Hemisphere and demonstrate that Moscow retained a capacity for action in a region traditionally considered to fall under U.S. influence.

Military cooperation has been one of the most visible aspects of this relationship. Russia has provided Venezuela with various defense equipment, including military aircraft, air defense systems, and surveillance technologies. These exchanges have strengthened Venezuelan military capabilities while giving Moscow an additional means of maintaining a strategic relationship with Caracas.

However, this cooperation must be analyzed with nuance. Venezuela has not become a Russian military base comparable to U.S. installations present in different regions of the world. The Russo-Venezuelan relationship rests more on political cooperation, diplomacy, and strategic symbolism than on a permanent military capability.

A Military Presence with High Symbolic Value

The military dimension nonetheless remains an important element of Russia’s strategy in the Caribbean. Moscow has regularly sought to demonstrate its capacity for international projection through naval visits, military exercises, or cooperation initiatives with its regional partners. These actions have a significance that goes beyond their operational dimension. They constitute above all political messages addressed to Washington: Russia wishes to show that it retains the capacity to act in spaces historically considered close to the United States.

However, an essential distinction must be made between symbolic presence and real strategic capability. Unlike the Soviet period, present-day Russia does not have in the Caribbean a military apparatus comparable to that which the Soviet Union possessed during the Cold War. Its economic resources are more limited, its projection capabilities are concentrated on other international priorities, and its military engagement remains constrained by its own geopolitical challenges.

Russia’s influence in the region therefore rests less on material domination than on its ability to exploit existing tensions, maintain political partnerships, and offer a diplomatic alternative to governments wishing to reduce their dependence on Washington.

Russia and Anti-Sanctions Diplomacy: Exploiting Regional Frustrations

One of Russia’s main instruments of influence in the Caribbean is its opposition to U.S. sanctions policies, particularly towards Cuba and Venezuela. Russia regularly presents these measures as instruments of political pressure that limit the economic sovereignty of the states concerned. This discourse finds some echo among several governments and regional actors who consider that international sanctions can have significant social consequences on civilian populations.

In this perspective, Moscow seeks to appear as a defender of an international order based on national sovereignty and non-interference. This strategy allows it to strengthen its relations with certain states that wish to diversify their international partnerships and avoid exclusive dependence on Western powers. However, Russian influence also remains limited by a major economic reality. Unlike China, Moscow does not possess the financial capacity necessary to propose massive investment or development programs in the region. Russia can offer political, security, and diplomatic support, but it does not have the same economic means to durably transform regional structures.

The Limits of Russian Influence in the Caribbean

Despite its strategic return to the region, Russia remains confronted with several important constraints.

• The first is economic. Russian power rests mainly on its energy, military, and diplomatic capabilities. It does not have the same financial weight as China to finance major infrastructure projects or support the economic development of Caribbean states.

• The second limit is diplomatic. The majority of Caribbean countries have deep economic relations with the United States and do not wish to transform the region into a zone of confrontation between great powers.

• The third limit is geopolitical. Moscow’s international priorities are multiple, notably in Europe and other strategic spaces. The Caribbean constitutes an important area of interest, but it does not represent the main center of Russian global strategy.

Thus, Russia can influence certain regional issues, but it does not currently have the means to single-handedly alter the strategic balance of the Caribbean.

The Russo-American Rivalry in the Caribbean: A New Form of Competition

For Washington, Russia’s presence in the Caribbean represents less a direct military threat than a challenge of influence. The American objective is mainly to prevent a rival power from using the region as a political, diplomatic, or strategic platform against American interests. This situation recalls certain elements of the Cold War, but the current context is different. Contemporary competition is less ideological than in the 20th century. It concerns more diplomatic influence, access to resources, economic partnerships, technology, and the ability to influence states’ strategic choices.

The Caribbean thus becomes a space where the great powers seek less to directly control territories than to influence governments’ decisions. For the small Caribbean states, this new reality represents a major challenge. Their objective will be to avoid becoming mere instruments in a rivalry that exceeds their own national interests.

Russia and the 2028 U.S. Election: What Strategic Choice for Washington?

The Russian question could become an important element of the American strategic debate during the 2028 presidential election. Three broad orientations could emerge:

• The first approach would consist of increasing pressure on Moscow’s partners in the region. According to this vision, Cuba and Venezuela must be isolated to limit Russia’s ability to develop its influence in the Western Hemisphere. This strategy would favor economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and support for political forces favorable to a rapprochement with Washington.

• The second approach would advocate a different strategy of influence. According to this perspective, sanctions alone are not enough to reduce Russian influence. The United States should rather propose a more attractive regional alternative based on economic cooperation, investment, energy partnerships, and a renewed diplomatic approach. The objective would be to reduce the political space available to Moscow by strengthening the attractiveness of the American partnership.

• The third question will concern the risk of a new militarization of the Caribbean. Increased confrontation between Washington and Moscow could transform the region into a space of permanent strategic tension. For Caribbean states, the danger would be to become indirect actors in a rivalry between great powers whose consequences could far exceed their own interests.

Russia: A Power Returning, But Not a Dominant Power

Russia has become a visible actor again in the Caribbean, but its influence remains profoundly different from that exerted by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow is not seeking today to rebuild a global ideological bloc comparable to that of the past. Its strategy consists rather of demonstrating that it retains a capacity for international action and that no strategic region can be considered exclusively reserved for a single power.

Its influence rests mainly on a few key partners, notably Cuba and Venezuela, as well as its ability to exploit existing tensions between certain regional governments and Washington. However, Russia neither possesses the economic resources nor the alliance network necessary to become the dominant power in the Caribbean. It nevertheless represents an important strategic factor. Its presence forces the United States to rethink its regional policy and confirms a fundamental transformation: the Caribbean is no longer merely a space of historical American influence, but a theater where the major dynamics of global competition now meet.

Other International Actors in the Caribbean: A Region Becoming a Multipolar Diplomatic Space

Competition in the Caribbean is no longer limited to the face-off between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. Other international actors are now seeking to strengthen their presence in a region whose strategic importance is growing: the European Union, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers. Their objectives are different. Some prioritize trade and development, others energy security, diplomatic cooperation, or access to emerging markets. This multiplication of actors offers new opportunities to Caribbean states. But it also creates a more complex environment, where small states must navigate between several influences without losing their strategic autonomy.

The European Union: The Partner of Development and International Norms

The European Union remains one of the most important historical partners of the Caribbean. Its influence rests less on military power than on three main instruments: economic cooperation, development aid, and trade relations. Through its cooperation programs, Brussels finances projects related to the energy transition, climate adaptation, institutional governance, education, health, and economic resilience. The European Union also shares with several Caribbean states a political proximity based on the defense of multilateralism, human rights, and the rule of law. In the Haitian dossier, it remains a major actor of international support, notably in the humanitarian, institutional, and security fields.

The Limits of Europe

Despite its considerable economic weight, the European Union suffers from a strategic handicap: it does not have the same projection capability as the United States or the same speed of action as China. Its financing procedures are often longer and more complex. In an environment where Beijing quickly proposes visible infrastructure and Washington favors security partnerships, Europe must find a new method to maintain its influence. Its challenge is to transform its economic power into genuine geopolitical influence.

Canada: An Engaged Middle Power

Canada holds a particular place in the Caribbean. Its influence rests mainly on historical ties with English-speaking countries, development cooperation, multilateral diplomacy, and the presence of large Caribbean diasporas. Ottawa also plays an important role in regional security issues, notably in Haiti. Canada is often perceived as a less interventionist actor than the United States, which sometimes allows it to maintain a capacity for dialogue with different governments.

The Canadian Challenge

Canada has a positive image in the region, but its means remain limited. Faced with China’s rise and U.S. weight, Ottawa must define a more ambitious strategy if it wishes to retain significant influence. Its main advantage remains the political trust it inspires among many regional partners.

Brazil: The Return of a Latin American Power

Brazil represents a natural actor of the wider Caribbean due to its demographic, economic, and diplomatic weight. The leading economy in Latin America, it has historically sought to play a role of regional leadership. Its influence rests on South-South cooperation, trade, multilateral diplomacy, and development programs. Brazil also has particular experience in relations with Haiti, notably through its past participation in international stabilization operations.

Brazilian Ambitions

Brasilia seeks to defend a vision of a multipolar world where countries of the Global South have greater autonomy. This approach can bring Brazil closer to certain Caribbean states wishing to reduce their dependence on traditional great powers. However, its investment capabilities remain inferior to those of China or the United States.

Mexico: A Regional Power Under Construction

Mexico holds a strategic position between North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. Its geographic proximity to the United States gives it particular importance in migration, trade, and security matters. Mexico maintains important relations with several Caribbean states and seeks to strengthen its diplomatic role. Its regional priorities notably concern energy cooperation, migration management, the fight against criminal networks, and economic integration.

The Mexican Dilemma

Mexico must constantly balance two realities: its indispensable economic partnership with the United States and its desire to affirm Latin American diplomatic autonomy. This intermediate position sometimes limits its influence, but also gives it a mediation capacity.

India: An Emerging Power Seeking Opportunities

India is beginning to strengthen its presence in the Caribbean. Its strategy rests mainly on trade, digital technologies, energy cooperation, and historical ties with certain communities of Indian origin. New Delhi also seeks to broaden its influence within the framework of its global competition with China. The Caribbean represents for India a space where it can develop a diplomatic presence without direct confrontation with established great powers.

Still Limited Influence

India has significant potential, but its presence remains modest compared to that of China. Its challenge will be to transform its diplomatic relations into concrete economic partnerships.

Turkey: An Expansion Diplomacy

Turkey has developed a more active diplomacy in recent years in regions traditionally dominated by other powers. In the Caribbean, Ankara seeks to develop trade, investment, diplomatic relations, and humanitarian cooperation. This strategy is part of a broader desire to become an independent global actor. However, its regional influence remains limited.

The Gulf Powers: Investments and Strategic Diversification

The Gulf countries, notably the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, are showing growing interest in the Caribbean. Their objectives are primarily economic: infrastructure, energy, tourism, logistics, and financial investments. These states have considerable resources they seek to invest in new markets.

The Gulf Model

Unlike traditional powers, the Gulf monarchies generally favor a pragmatic economic approach. They seek less to export a political model than to establish commercial partnerships. This approach can be attractive to several Caribbean governments seeking investments without strong ideological conditions.

The New Reality: A Multipolar Caribbean

The arrival of new actors is profoundly transforming the region. For a long time, the central question was: What was the relationship between each Caribbean country and the United States? Today, a new question arises: How can each state manage several partnerships simultaneously?

This evolution offers considerable opportunities: diversification of investments, access to new markets, competition among partners, increased bargaining power. But it also carries major risks: creation of multiple dependencies, importation of international rivalries, political instrumentalization, and regional fragmentation.

Caribbean countries must therefore navigate this new environment with a keen awareness of their national interests. A passive diplomacy will expose them to being overwhelmed by the logics of the great powers. An active diplomacy, on the contrary, will allow them to transform international competition into a lever for development.

The Caribbean has entered a new historical period. It is no longer simply a zone of American influence. It has become a space where several powers seek to build economic, diplomatic, and strategic relations. The United States remains the dominant actor, but it must now contend with a more competitive environment. China brings capital and infrastructure. Russia provides limited but symbolic political and security support. Europe and Canada offer cooperation and development. Emerging powers seek new opportunities. For Caribbean countries, the major challenge will be to transform this international competition into a lever for development rather than a new form of dependence. The great battle of the 21st century in the Caribbean will not only be a battle to control the region. It will be a battle to gain influence among peoples who seek above all stability, prosperity, and sovereignty.

Haiti at the Heart of Regional Recomposition: From Vulnerability to Strategy

Among all the states of the Caribbean, Haiti holds a paradoxical position. It is both the most fragile country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most symbolic. Its geographic situation, in the center of the Caribbean and close to U.S. shores, makes it a point of permanent attention for Washington. Its diaspora, one of the most dynamic in the region, constitutes a considerable economic and political asset.

Yet, for decades, this potential importance was not transformed into real power. Chronic political instability, weak institutions, security degradation, and humanitarian dependence have reduced Haiti to the status of an international problem rather than a strategic actor. This situation is not inevitable. It is the result of political choices, historical legacies, and an unfavorable power dynamic that the country can begin to reverse.

Fragility as an Issue of Regional Security

The first reality to understand is that Haitian fragility is no longer a purely national problem. It has become a regional security issue. The insecurity spreading in Port-au-Prince and certain provinces fuels migration flows, transnational trafficking, and diplomatic tensions between neighboring countries. The Dominican Republic, the United States, Canada, and the CARICOM Caribbean states are all directly affected by what happens in Haiti.

This recognition is both a danger and an opportunity. A danger, because it can lead to increased interference by foreign powers. An opportunity, because it gives Haiti a negotiating lever: the international community needs stability in Haiti as much as the country itself. The stabilization of Haiti cannot therefore be solely a humanitarian objective. It must become a shared political, security, and economic project. International actors wishing to maintain their influence in the region have every interest in contributing to this reconstruction. It is up to Haiti to define the conditions for this cooperation.

Refounding the State: A Prerequisite for Any External Strategy

The absence of a state is the main obstacle to the emergence of a coherent Haitian foreign policy. A country whose institutions are paralyzed, whose administration is failing, and whose justice system is incapable of exercising its prerogatives cannot negotiate with the great powers on an equal footing. It can only implore or endure.

The absolute priority must therefore be institutional refoundation:

• Security: Restore a legitimate monopoly on force. This presupposes a profound reform of the police, a justice system capable of judging criminals, and regional security cooperation based on respect for sovereignty.

• Governance: Re-establish a functioning public administration, capable of collecting taxes, managing basic services, and executing development projects.

• Justice: Fight impunity, restore confidence in the judicial system, and offer guarantees to investors and citizens alike.

• Planning: Define a long-term national vision, beyond electoral cycles and humanitarian emergencies.

• These reforms are not merely internal requirements. They are the conditions for any international credibility. A Haiti that controls its territory, protects its citizens, and administers its resources can negotiate with Washington, Beijing, or Brussels. A Haiti that remains in institutional incapacity can only be assisted, never truly associated.

Diaspora and Soft Power: Haiti’s Overlooked Assets

Haiti possesses assets that most analyses neglect. Its diaspora is one of the largest in the region, representing several million people spread across the United States, Canada, France, the Caribbean, and Latin America. This diaspora is a considerable economic reservoir: remittances represent a massive share of Haiti’s GDP. But it is also a political and cultural lever.

Haitian citizens abroad can influence migration policies, defend the country’s interests in foreign capitals, and facilitate access to influence networks. A coherent national strategy must integrate this diaspora as a full-fledged actor, not merely as a source of revenue. Furthermore, Haiti remains a global symbol. The first independent black republic, born from a successful slave revolt, the country carries a historical memory that resonates far beyond its borders. This memory is a diplomatic asset. It can be mobilized to obtain special treatment on the international stage, draw attention to historical injustices, or justify requests for reparations and enhanced cooperation.

Haiti’s Strategic Choices in the Face of the Great Powers

For Haiti, the issue is not choosing a side. It is learning to practice a modern diplomacy of balance, capable of profiting from external rivalries without being trapped by them.

1. The United States: Indispensable Partner, but Not Exclusive

The United States is the historical and geographical principal partner. Their economic, diplomatic, and security influence is considerable. A realistic Haitian strategy cannot ignore this reality. But Washington has often oscillated between indifference and interference. Haiti must learn to manage this relationship: accept support and cooperation, but refuse tutelage. The United States needs a stable Haiti. It is this American vulnerability, paradoxically, that gives Port-au-Prince leverage.

2. China: The Infrastructure Partner

China offers financing and infrastructure. Its projects for roads, ports, energy, or telecommunications can accelerate Haiti’s economic development. Several other Caribbean countries have already made this choice. But China imposes its conditions: cost, limited transparency, Chinese employees, and sometimes disputed debts. Haiti must learn to say yes to China, but by negotiating balanced contracts, protecting its long-term interests, and diversifying its partners.

3. The European Union and Canada: The Governance Allies

These partners offer cooperation based on values, norms, institutional programs, and humanitarian aid. They are often less politically constraining than Washington or Beijing. Their support is essential for institutional reconstruction, justice, and governance. But their aid is sometimes slow, conditional, and less visible. Haiti must learn to mobilize it effectively.

4. CARICOM: The Regional Collective as a Shield

CARICOM offers important diplomatic protection. It allows for defending common positions, weighing collectively in international negotiations, and benefiting from neighborhood solidarity. Haiti must invest in this regional framework and make it a priority coordination space.

Haiti and the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Triangle: A Strategic Solidarity

The three countries of the strategic triangle share common challenges: relative isolation from Washington, institutional and economic crises, and migratory and symbolic importance. Haiti can and must strengthen its relations with Cuba and Venezuela. Not to oppose the United States, but to diversify its alliances, build regional solidarities, and defend common interests. Cuba brings its experience of resilience in the face of sanctions, its model of medical cooperation, and its historical diplomatic influence. Venezuela, despite its crisis, retains energy resources, political weight, and historical ties with Haiti via regional cooperation programs. The reconstruction of an active solidarity between these three countries would strengthen each of them. It would allow them to speak with one voice in negotiations with the great powers.

Avoiding Automatic Alignment, Practicing the Diplomacy of Balance

The great challenge for Haiti, as for other Caribbean states, is to learn to navigate between powers without automatically aligning with any. A diplomacy of balance means: accepting cooperation from all, without depending exclusively on any; negotiating concrete, transparent agreements beneficial to the population; refusing to be instrumentalized in rivalries between great powers; defending its sovereignty without isolating itself diplomatically; using regional organizations to strengthen its collective weight. This approach is demanding. It requires analytical capacity, political stability, and professional institutions. But it is the only one that will allow Haiti to leave the position of object of geopolitics to become an actor in its own future.

Cuba: Between Revolutionary Heritage and the Necessity of Transformation

Cuba holds a unique place in the strategic triangle. Long considered the symbol of anti-American resistance in the hemisphere, the island is today confronted with an existential challenge: how to preserve its political and social model while adapting to new economic, demographic, and geopolitical realities?

The Cuban regime has demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience. It has survived the collapse of the USSR, the persistence of the U.S. embargo, the economic crisis of the 1990s, and the political tensions of the 21st century. But this resilience has a cost. The Cuban economy is drained. Infrastructure is aging. The population faces recurrent shortages and very low purchasing power. Emigration is reaching historic levels, draining the country of its lifeblood.

The Cuban question is therefore not only political. It has become a question of economic and social survival. The Havana regime must find a new balance between political control and economic openness, between its historical alliance with Moscow and Beijing and the need to renew pragmatic ties with Washington.

Scenarios for Cuba After 2028

1. Gradual Adaptation: Havana undertakes limited economic reforms, allows more foreign investment, partially liberalizes certain sectors. The political system remains unchanged, but Cuban society benefits from a gradual improvement in living conditions. This scenario assumes a relaxation of U.S. sanctions and a certain internal political stability. It is the most likely if Washington adopts a pragmatic approach.

2. Controlled Transition: Under pressure from economic and social difficulties, the Cuban regime accepts deeper political reforms. A gradual opening occurs, accompanied by stability guarantees. The United States and the European Union support this process. This scenario requires strong political will on both sides and careful management of tensions. It is possible but difficult.

3. Worsening Crisis: The economy continues to deteriorate, emigration intensifies, social tensions increase. The regime hardens its position, U.S. sanctions strengthen. Cuba enters a phase of prolonged instability. This scenario is the most dangerous for the region. A major Cuban crisis would cause a massive migration wave, tensions in the Caribbean, and increased competition among great powers on the island.

The Cuban Choice

For Cuba, the issue is clear. It is no longer possible to maintain the status quo. The country must choose a path. Either a controlled opening that preserves the essence of the system while adapting it. Or a prolonged crisis that risks destroying what the regime has built. The United States has a role to play in this choice. A policy of maximum pressure could accelerate collapse but also provoke regional instability. A policy of conditional dialogue could offer a way out, provided Havana shows its willingness to reform. Cuba’s future is therefore intimately linked to the 2028 U.S. election. The next president will have to decide whether he wants a stable Cuba or whether he accepts the risk of a major crisis 150 kilometers from the Florida coast.

Venezuela: The Energy Power in Suspense

Venezuela remains one of the most complex cases in contemporary geopolitics. Endowed with the world’s largest oil reserves, it is nonetheless mired in a historic economic and social crisis. A country once the engine of regional integration, it is now diplomatically isolated, but remains a central issue for the great powers.

Venezuelan oil is not disappearing. It awaits. It awaits political and economic conditions allowing a resumption of massive exploitation. This reality gives Venezuela a strategic weight that its current situation seems to contradict. The United States, China, Russia, and even India or Turkey closely monitor the country’s evolution. Whoever can secure access to Venezuelan resources will have a considerable advantage in the decades to come.

Venezuelan Scenarios

1. Negotiated Transition: A political agreement between the government and the opposition allows gradual opening, a partial lifting of sanctions, and the return of foreign investment. Venezuela regains economic growth and reintegrates the international community.

2. Authoritarian Stabilization: The conservative government maintains political control while accepting limited economic reforms to ensure its survival. The situation remains tense but manageable.
3. Prolonged Collapse: The absence of political compromise, maintenance of sanctions, collapse of institutions, and mass emigration. Venezuela becomes a fragile state, a terrain of competition among foreign powers.

The Issue for the Caribbean

A stable Venezuela would reduce migration pressures on neighboring countries, stabilize part of the region’s energy supply, and allow for diplomatic reintegration beneficial to the entire Caribbean. A Venezuela in crisis would amplify regional tensions, fuel insecurity, and reinforce the presence of external actors.

What Strategy for Haiti and the Caribbean Facing the America of Tomorrow?

The previous chapters have shown that the 2028 U.S. presidential election could constitute a moment of rupture for the Western Hemisphere. The Caribbean has become a space of strategic competition where the interests of the United States, China, Russia, and other emerging powers clash. Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela are at the center of this recomposition. Their internal instability, geographic importance, and complex relations with Washington make them territories where power dynamics unfold that far exceed their borders.

But the Caribbean must not be reduced to the role of a battleground between external powers. It has its own capacity for action. Its states can choose their alliances, defend their interests, and build a collective strategy adapted to a world that has become multipolar. This final part explores the possible choices for Haiti and the region: rebuilding states, mobilizing diasporas, diversifying economic partnerships, strengthening regional cooperation, and transforming current vulnerabilities into strategic levers.

Building a Caribbean Strategy for the 21st Century

The Caribbean can no longer simply wait for the great powers to decide its future. It must develop a collective vision and coherent national strategies. This strategy rests on several pillars:

1. Strengthened regional integration: CARICOM and the OECS must be strengthened. Diplomatic coordination, common commercial policy, regional security, crisis management, and defense of collective interests are absolute priorities.

2. Diversification of partnerships: Caribbean countries must multiply their alliances. The United States remains the principal partner, but China, Europe, Canada, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers offer opportunities to seize.
3. Strengthening national institutions: A state that does not control its territory, does not administer justice, does not collect taxes cannot be a strategic actor. Institutional refoundation is the basis of any credible foreign policy.

4. Mobilization of diasporas: Caribbean diasporas are major economic and diplomatic assets. They must be integrated into national strategies as full-fledged partners, not merely as sources of financing.

5. Defense of sovereignty in a multipolar world: Caribbean states must learn to navigate between powers without automatically aligning with any. Sovereignty does not mean isolation. It means the ability to choose one’s partners and negotiate one’s alliances.

Haiti: Transforming a Historical Vulnerability into a Geostrategic Advantage

Haiti is generally described as one of the most fragile states in the international system. This reality is undeniable: security crisis, institutional weakness, massive poverty, political instability, and external dependence. But this reading has a limit. It presents Haiti solely as a problem to be solved, never as an actor capable of weighing on its regional environment. Yet Haiti has several strategic advantages rarely exploited: a central geographic position in the Caribbean, an influential global diaspora, a young population, underutilized economic potential, and a history that gives it unique symbolic importance in the international space.

The challenge is therefore not only to emerge from the crisis. It is to reposition Haiti as a regional actor.

The Diaspora: The Forgotten Strategic Capital

The Haitian diaspora represents one of the country’s main assets. Present mainly in the United States, Canada, France, and several Caribbean countries, it constitutes a considerable economic, intellectual, and diplomatic network. Financial transfers sent by Haitians living abroad have for several years represented an essential source of revenue for the national economy. But reducing the diaspora to its financial role would be a strategic error. It also represents human capital: entrepreneurs, qualified professionals, academics, scientists, investors, and community actors.

A modern national policy towards the diaspora should go beyond the traditional logic of financial solicitation. It should create a genuine strategic partnership: dedicated investment mechanisms, temporary return programs for skills, innovation networks, participation in major national projects, and diplomatic mobilization in host countries. In the United States notably, the Haitian community can become a relay for political, economic, and cultural influence. The diaspora must no longer be considered an external extension of Haiti. It must become one of its main instruments of power.

Geography: Transforming a Position into an Advantage

Haiti occupies an exceptional geographic position at the heart of the Caribbean. Located close to the United States, on one of the main maritime routes of the Western Hemisphere, the country could become a regional commercial, logistical, and digital hub. This position is today largely underutilized. The development of modern infrastructure could transform Haiti into a regional platform: competitive international ports, special economic zones, trade corridors, digital infrastructure, and logistics platforms connecting the Caribbean to the Americas.

Proximity to the Dominican Republic is also a strategic factor. Despite historical tensions, the two countries share a common geographic reality and could develop economic complementarities in energy, transport, agriculture, tourism, and regional production chains. Geography is never a guarantee of power. It becomes an advantage only when accompanied by a political vision and institutions capable of transforming it.

Rebuilding the State: The Prerequisite

No geopolitical strategy is possible without a functioning state. The Haitian crisis is not solely an economic or security crisis. It is above all an institutional crisis. The weakness of the state has created a vacuum progressively occupied by armed groups, criminal networks, and special interests. Reconstruction must therefore begin with three priorities:

1. Restoring security: The fight against gangs cannot be only a one-off police operation. It requires a profound reform of security forces, effective border control, the fight against arms trafficking, and structured international cooperation. Security is the primary condition for any economic reconstruction.

2. Reforming institutions: A modern state requires a professional administration, an independent judiciary, a credible electoral system, and effective anti-corruption mechanisms. Without solid institutions, investments and international programs remain temporary.

3. Re-balancing the territory: The excessive centralization of Port-au-Prince has aggravated national imbalances. Reconstruction must involve genuine decentralization: development of secondary cities, regional investments, strengthened local autonomy, and creation of territorial economic hubs. A strong state is not only a state present in the capital. It is a state present everywhere.

Economic Potential: Emerging from Dependence

Haiti can no longer build its future solely around international aid, traditional agriculture, and diaspora transfers. The country must develop strategic sectors: modern agriculture and agro-industry, cultural and ecological tourism, the digital economy, renewable energies, light industry, and regional financial services. The economic transition must also integrate the new geopolitical reality: global production chains are now seeking to reduce their excessive dependence on certain Asian hubs. Geographic proximity to the United States could allow Haiti to become a proximity partner in certain regional value chains. But this requires a fundamental condition: stability.

Cuba and Venezuela: Between Adaptation and Strategic Repositioning

Cuba and Venezuela hold a particular place in the geopolitical balance of the Caribbean. For decades, these two countries constituted the main points of resistance to U.S. influence in the region. Their political, energy, and diplomatic alliance allowed the Cuban regime to survive after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and Venezuela to maintain regional influence despite its economic collapse. But this model is reaching its limits. The economic crisis, the evolution of the international system, and the rise of a multipolar world force Havana and Caracas to rethink their strategies. Their survival will depend less on their ability to resist external pressures than on their aptitude to transform their own internal structures.

Cuba: Between Economic Opening and Political Transition

Cuba is going through one of the most difficult periods in its recent history. After surviving the end of Soviet support in the 1990s, then several decades of U.S. sanctions, the island faces a multidimensional crisis: energy shortages, food difficulties, demographic aging, mass departure of part of its youth, and loss of confidence of a population facing economic stagnation. The Cuban economic model, based on strong state centralization, is showing its limits. The government has gradually recognized the need for adaptation, authorizing more private initiatives and seeking new foreign investment. But the issue goes beyond mere economic reform.

The Need for a New Economic Architecture

Cuba has several assets: a high level of education, recognized medical expertise, a strategic geographic position, and considerable tourism potential. However, these advantages remain insufficiently exploited due to structural constraints: low productivity, excessive bureaucracy, lack of investment, restrictions on entrepreneurship, and limited access to international markets. A sustainable transformation would require a deeper evolution: development of the national private sector, creation of an environment favorable to foreign investment, agricultural modernization, reform of the energy system, and greater integration into regional trade. The objective would not be to completely abandon the Cuban social model, but to create a more flexible economy capable of meeting the population’s needs.

The American Question: Confrontation or Normalization?

The relationship with Washington remains the most determining external factor for Cuba’s future. For over sixty years, U.S. policy has oscillated between two strategies: maximum pressure to provoke political change and diplomatic engagement to encourage gradual evolution. Historical experience shows that economic isolation did not lead to the collapse of the Cuban regime. It rather contributed to reinforcing certain defensive reflexes of the power and increasing Cuba’s dependence on other partners like Russia and China. A new U.S. approach could therefore favor a gradual economic opening, academic and cultural exchanges, health cooperation, and dialogue on migration and security issues. The Cuban question could become an important issue in the 2028 U.S. presidential election: between those who favor ideological firmness and those who consider U.S. influence passes more through engagement than isolation.

Cuba in a Multipolar Environment

Cuba must also review its external dependencies. For a long time, the island benefited from the support of a dominant partner: the Soviet Union before 1991, Venezuela during the Chávez-Maduro era, and today a more diverse set including China and Russia. But no foreign power can durably replace a national development strategy. Cuban diplomacy will therefore have to seek a balance: preserve its historical relations, attract Western investment, strengthen its regional ties, and avoid excessive dependence on a single partner. Cuba’s future will depend less on the survival of the current system than on its ability to evolve.

Venezuela: Rebuilding After the Crisis

Venezuela represents one of the greatest paradoxes in Latin America. The country has the world’s largest oil reserves, but it has experienced one of the most spectacular economic collapses in contemporary history. The Venezuelan crisis is the result of a combination of factors: excessive dependence on oil, poor economic management, corruption, institutional weakening, political tensions, and international sanctions. The central question is therefore not only the recovery of oil production. It is the reconstruction of a state capable of using its resources for national development.

Oil: An Opportunity to Rebuild

Venezuela has an advantage that few countries possess: its energy resources. But oil can no longer be considered a sole solution. A modern strategy should combine modernization of the oil industry, economic diversification, agricultural development, technological investment, and professional training. Venezuela must emerge from the rent model that made it extremely vulnerable to international fluctuations. Energy revenues should finance an economic transformation, not simply maintain a political system.

Institutional Reconstruction

Venezuela’s stabilization also requires political reconstruction. Without credible institutions, no sustainable investment will be possible. Priorities should include: restoration of electoral confidence, judicial independence, protection of public freedoms, national reconciliation, and the gradual return of international investors. Venezuela still has significant human resources: engineers, entrepreneurs, academics, and a large diaspora. Their mobilization will be essential to rebuild the country.

A New International Positioning

Venezuela will also have to redefine its alliances. In recent years, Caracas has strengthened its ties with Moscow and Beijing to compensate for its Western isolation. This strategy allowed the Venezuelan government to survive, but it also limited its economic options. A more balanced foreign policy could consist of maintaining relations with China and Russia, re-establishing economic ties with the United States and Europe, strengthening cooperation with Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, and participating more in regional mechanisms. Venezuela could become a major actor in the Caribbean and South America again, but only if it transforms its potential into solid institutions.

The Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Triangle: A New Strategic Reading

These three countries are often analyzed separately. Yet, they form a particular geopolitical ensemble. Haiti represents the issue of institutional and security stability. Cuba represents the ideological and diplomatic issue. Venezuela represents the energy issue. Their evolution will directly influence the regional balance. For Washington, Beijing, and Moscow, this triangle remains strategic. For the peoples concerned, it represents above all a fundamental question: how to transform historical vulnerabilities into development opportunities?

Towards a More Coordinated Caribbean Diplomacy?

For a long time, the Caribbean was considered a collection of scattered, vulnerable states dependent on external great powers. This perception has often limited the region’s ability to defend its own interests in major international debates. Yet, the challenges Caribbean countries face are largely common: climate change, transnational crime, migration, energy dependence, economic vulnerability, and competition among powers. Faced with these issues, a new approach becomes necessary: moving from fragmented diplomacy to more coordinated regional diplomacy. The Caribbean will not be able to influence the world order by remaining divided. It will have to build a collective negotiation capacity, capable of dialoguing with Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Brussels, or New Delhi without losing its strategic autonomy.

CARICOM: From Economic Integration to Diplomatic Power

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) remains the most important institutional instrument of regional cooperation. Created to foster economic and political integration, it has gradually expanded its role to include security, climate change, and international diplomacy. But its influence remains limited by several factors: weak institutional resources, divergent interests among member states, differences in economic size, and excessive dependence on external partners.

CARICOM must take a new step. It can no longer be merely a consultation space. It must become a genuine geopolitical actor. This implies more systematic coordination of international positions, common representation in certain strategic negotiations, regional economic diplomacy, and a permanent geopolitical analysis capability. In a world dominated by large blocs, small states can only weigh in by pooling their forces.

Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Moving Beyond the Logic of Confrontation

The relationship between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is one of the most sensitive issues in the Caribbean. The two countries share the same island, a common land border, and important economic interdependencies. Yet their relationship remains marked by historical tensions, notably around migration, trade, and identity issues. This situation cannot be sustainable. The two countries have an interest in building a more pragmatic cooperation framework around several priorities: border security, the fight against criminal networks, orderly migration management, cross-border economic development, energy cooperation, and environmental protection. The stability of the island of Hispaniola will depend on the ability of the two states to move from a relationship dominated by mistrust to one based on common interests. The Dominican Republic cannot have lasting stability with a neighbor constantly in crisis. Haiti cannot rebuild its economy without a constructive relationship with its main geographic partner.

Maritime Security: A Regional Priority

The Caribbean is a strategic maritime space. Its trade routes connect North America, Latin America, and global markets. Its ports play an essential role in international trade. But these same spaces are also exploited by criminal networks. The region faces several threats: drug trafficking, arms trafficking, clandestine migration, illegal fishing, and organized crime. No Caribbean state alone possesses the means to effectively respond to these challenges. A regional strategy should include intelligence sharing, cooperation between navies and coast guards, joint maritime surveillance, technological cooperation, and partnerships with the United States, Canada, and Europe. Maritime security is no longer merely a military issue. It has become a condition for regional economic development.

Economic Diplomacy: Emerging from Dependence

For decades, Caribbean economies have rested on a few vulnerable sectors: tourism, traditional agriculture, diaspora transfers, and limited exports. This dependence exposes the region to external crises. The new geopolitics, however, offers opportunities. The Caribbean can become a space for investment in several areas:

• Renewable Energies: With significant potential in solar, wind, and marine technologies, the region could reduce its energy dependence.

• Digital Economy: Digital infrastructure can enable the development of remote services, technology companies, and new skilled jobs.

• Blue Economy: The oceans represent major potential: sustainable fishing, aquaculture, marine biotechnologies, ecological tourism, and maritime transport.

• Regional Value Chains: The region must also develop more internal economic complementarities. The objective is not to replace external partners, but to negotiate with them from a stronger position.

Diversification of Alliances: A Strategic Necessity

The competition among great powers places Caribbean states before a historic choice. They can become zones of exclusive influence of an external power, or build a diplomacy of balance. The second option seems most suited to their interests. The Caribbean must be able to cooperate simultaneously with the United States on security, trade, and investment; with the European Union on sustainable development and institutional cooperation; with China on infrastructure and certain investments; with India on technology and emerging partnerships; with Canada on regional cooperation; and with Latin American countries to strengthen South-South integration. Diversification is not an absence of loyalty. It is a strategy of sovereignty.

The Climate Challenge: Building Collective Resilience

Climate change likely represents the most important existential threat for small Caribbean states. Sea-level rise, more violent hurricanes, droughts, and agricultural disruptions directly affect populations, infrastructure, economies, and food security. The region must move from a logic of reaction to a logic of anticipation. This requires resilient infrastructure, regional early warning systems, scientific cooperation, international climate finance, and energy transition. Climate vulnerability must become a major diplomatic argument to obtain more international support.

Ten Strategic Priorities for the Caribbean by 2035

1. Restore regional security: Fight gangs, drug trafficking, and transnational criminal networks.

2. Rebuild fragile states: Strengthen institutions, justice, and public governance.

3. Diversify economies: Reduce dependence on vulnerable sectors and develop new growth drivers.

4. Modernize infrastructure: Ports, airports, roads, energy, and digital networks.

5. Strengthen climate resilience: Adapt territories to new environmental realities.

6. Develop the blue economy: Transform maritime resources into engines of sustainable development.

7. Mobilize diasporas: Make overseas communities economic and diplomatic partners.

8. Diversify international partnerships: Avoid excessive dependence on any single power.

9. Build a strong regional diplomacy: Give CARICOM and regional organizations more strategic capacity.

10. Defend democracy and the rule of law: Without credible institutions, no economic or geopolitical strategy is sustainable.

Making History Rather Than Suffering It: 2028, a Strategic Window for the Caribbean

The history of the Caribbean is one of a region that, for several centuries, has found itself at the crossroads of the ambitions of great powers. Colonization, imperial rivalries, struggles for independence, military interventions, ideological confrontations of the Cold War, economic globalization, and now strategic competition among powers: few spaces in the world will have experienced such a succession of upheavals. Yet, despite the crises, natural disasters, often unfinished political transitions, and persistent economic fragilities, the Caribbean peoples have constantly demonstrated a remarkable capacity for resilience. The challenge of the 21st century now consists of moving beyond this culture of survival to enter a logic of construction, projection, and power. It is no longer merely a question of resisting events, but of acquiring the means to influence their course.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election fits precisely into this dynamic. Its importance extends far beyond U.S. borders. The vote will determine the orientations of the world’s leading power on essential issues such as regional security, migration, trade, investment, international cooperation, or competition with China and Russia. The decisions made in Washington will have direct repercussions on the entire Caribbean basin. But reducing the region’s future to the sole outcome of a U.S. election would be an analytical error. The Caribbean’s evolution will depend just as much on the ability of its own states to define a common vision, strengthen their institutions, and defend their interests in an international environment that has become more complex and more competitive.

One of the main lessons of this study is precisely that the Caribbean is no longer a strategic periphery. For a long time, it was perceived as a simple extension of the U.S. sphere of influence, a secondary space whose balances seemed frozen since the end of the Cold War. This reading now belongs to the past. The rise of China, the diplomatic and security return of Russia, the growing engagement of the European Union, Canada, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers have profoundly modified the regional geopolitical configuration. The Caribbean has become a space again where the great rivalries of the 21st century intersect: energy security, control of sea routes, supply chains, climate transition, diplomatic influence, technological competition, and competition between development models.

In this recomposition, Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela hold a singular place. Together, they constitute a strategic triangle whose evolution will durably influence the balances of the Western Hemisphere. Haiti remains the symbol of the institutional challenge. Its future will depend on its ability to rebuild a functioning state, capable of ensuring security, restoring citizens’ trust, and creating a favorable environment for development. Cuba finds itself at a crossroads between economic adaptation, preservation of its political model, and the search for a new diplomatic balance with its traditional partners as well as with the United States. As for Venezuela, it illustrates the paradoxes of an energy power possessing immense natural resources but confronted with a profound political, economic, and social crisis. The future of these three states will extend far beyond their national borders. It will directly influence migration dynamics, energy balances, security strategies, and geopolitical competition throughout the Caribbean.

The analysis also shows that the very nature of the relationship between the United States and the region could evolve over the next decade. For more than a century, U.S. policy in the Caribbean has often relied on a logic of strategic preeminence, sometimes based on political, economic, or military pressure. Current changes, however, invite broader reflection. In an environment where states now have a more diverse range of international partners, lasting influence will likely no longer be able to rest solely on power dynamics. It will depend more on the ability to propose credible partnerships, competitive investments, technological cooperation, innovative financing mechanisms, and dialogue respectful of national sovereignties. International competition will not be won solely through military or economic power; it will also be played out on the quality of trust relationships that great powers can build with their partners.

This evolution opens new perspectives for Caribbean states. For the first time in several decades, they have greater diplomatic maneuvering room. The diversification of partnerships is no longer a simple option; it becomes a strategic necessity. Cooperating with the United States in the areas of security, trade, or investment, developing economic relations with the European Union, attracting some Chinese financing, strengthening exchanges with India, Canada, or emerging powers, while consolidating regional integration, now falls within a diplomacy of balance rather than a logic of alignment. Modern sovereignty no longer consists of choosing a side, but of preserving the freedom to choose one’s partners according to one’s national interests.

For this ambition to become reality, the Caribbean will however have to meet several structural challenges. The consolidation of the rule of law, the modernization of public administrations, the fight against corruption, the strengthening of judicial systems, the improvement of the business climate, the securitization of maritime spaces, adaptation to climate change, the diversification of economies, and the upskilling of human resources will constitute the true foundations of its future influence. No geopolitical strategy can produce lasting effects without solid institutions, without effective governance, and without political stability.

Beyond international power dynamics, this study finally recalls an essential truth: major geopolitical transformations always create periods where national trajectories can be redefined. The Caribbean finds itself today at one of these pivotal moments. The upheavals of the international system, global economic recompositions, energy transitions, technological mutations, and the new strategic priorities of the great powers open a historic window that will not remain open indefinitely. States that anticipate these evolutions will strengthen their autonomy and influence. Those that remain prisoners of their fragilities risk, once again, suffering decisions made elsewhere.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election thus constitutes much more than an electoral appointment. It represents a revealer of the profound transformations reshaping the Western Hemisphere and, more broadly, the international system. The election results will undoubtedly be important. But they will not, on their own, determine the future of the Caribbean. That will depend above all on the ability of the region’s leaders, institutions, economic actors, and civil societies to transform their vulnerabilities into development levers, their constraints into opportunities, and their diversity into collective strength.

At the end of this reflection, one conviction stands out. The Caribbean must no longer be envisaged as a simple space where the great powers project their rivalries. It possesses the human, geographic, economic, and cultural resources necessary to become a geopolitical actor in its own right. Its future will be neither exclusively written in Washington, nor in Beijing, nor in Moscow. It will be determined first by the will of the Caribbean peoples themselves to build stronger states, more competitive economies, and a diplomacy ambitious enough to make their voices heard in the new world order.

This is perhaps the true lesson of this study. Great powers will continue to shape the international environment. But the nations that durably mark history are those that know how to recognize moments when balances are transformed, in order to seize the opportunities they offer. For the Caribbean, 2028 could be one of those decisive moments. More than a U.S. electoral deadline, this year could mark the beginning of a new historical stage: that of a region that finally chooses to stop suffering the world’s recompositions, but to fully take its place in them.

THE VIEW OF CPGNNews

Reading America from the Caribbean, Understanding the World to Come

U.S. presidential elections are among the most observed political events in the world. Their reach extends far beyond the framework of U.S. domestic politics. In an international system where Washington remains the leading military, economic, financial, and technological power, each change in the White House influences diplomatic balances, security strategies, international markets, migration flows, trade policies, and the power dynamics that structure the world order.

For the Caribbean, this reality holds particular importance. Situated a few hundred kilometers from U.S. shores, at the crossroads of the major sea routes linking North America, Latin America, and the Atlantic, the region is in direct contact with the strategic priorities of the United States. Decisions made in Washington regarding security, immigration, regional cooperation, sanctions, investments, or trade policy produce immediate effects on the political, economic, and social trajectories of Caribbean states. Few regions of the world live with such proximity to the consequences of every shift in U.S. foreign policy.

The 2028 presidential election, however, occurs in an unprecedented context. The international system is undergoing a profound recomposition of power dynamics. The affirmation of China as a global actor, the strategic return of Russia, the emergence of new regional powers, the transformations of global value chains, the energy transition, the digital revolution, and competition for control of maritime spaces are gradually redrawing the geopolitical architecture of the 21st century. In this new configuration, the Caribbean ceases to be a simple peripheral space. It becomes a strategic territory again where the interests of the great powers converge and where some of the principal balances of the Western Hemisphere are played out.

It is in this perspective that CaribPulse Global News Network conceived this report. More than an electoral analysis, this study offers a prospective reading of the geopolitical consequences that the 2028 U.S. presidential election could produce. Our ambition is not to anticipate the result of a vote or to comment on a campaign. It is to understand how the strategic choices of the world’s leading power could reshape power dynamics in the Caribbean, influence the trajectories of Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, transform regional balances, and accelerate the recompositions of the new world order.

Our approach rests on a fundamental conviction: U.S. elections do not merely change a government; they can alter the strategic environment of dozens of states when decisions made in Washington concern international security, global trade, migration, investment, military alliances, or multilateral institutions. Understanding the 2028 U.S. election thus means analyzing the dynamics that will shape inter-American relations and the geopolitical balances of the next decade.

This approach reflects the editorial vocation of CPGNNews. Born in the heart of the Caribbean, our media defends a simple conviction: this region is not a periphery of international news. It constitutes one of the spaces where the great mutations of the world produce some of the fastest and most visible effects. Debates on regional security, migration, economic sovereignty, strategic investments, energy transitions, new technologies, or rivalry among great powers are not abstract questions. They directly determine the development prospects, stability, and sovereignty of Caribbean peoples.

Our ambition is therefore neither to reproduce the perspective of major international media, nor to defend an ideological reading of international relations. It is to bring an original contribution, based on analytical rigor, cross-referencing of sources, historical depth, and understanding of the realities specific to the Caribbean. Informing, from this perspective, does not mean merely reporting facts. Informing means giving decision-makers, researchers, diplomats, academics, entrepreneurs, and citizens the keys necessary to understand the transformations reshaping their strategic environment.

Through this report, CPGNNews also defends an essential idea: the Caribbean must no longer be analyzed solely as a space where the rivalries of great powers are exercised. It must be recognized as a geopolitical actor in its own right, capable of building its own strategies, diversifying its partnerships, and participating in the elaboration of new regional balances. The challenges it faces are immense, but the opportunities are equally so for states that will know how to anticipate the changes underway rather than suffer them.

Ultimately, this report does not solely deal with a U.S. presidential election. It questions a broader issue: what will be the place of the Caribbean in the new world order that is taking shape? Behind the choice of the next U.S. president looms a deeper recomposition of power dynamics in the Western Hemisphere. Understanding this transformation today is to allow decision-makers to better prepare for tomorrow’s choices. It is to this reflection that CaribPulse Global News Network intends to contribute, with independence, intellectual rigor, and strategic vision.

Yvon Bonhomme
Editor-in-Chief and Geopolitical Analyst
CaribPulse Global News Network (CPGNNews)
“From the Caribbean, understanding the world’s transformations to better anticipate those of our region.”

CPGNNews – CaribPulse Global News Network
From the Caribbean, thinking about the world with rigor, independence, and strategic vision.

Every great idea begins with a question. Every transformation is born from a dialogue. Behind every analysis published by CPGNNews, there is a deep conviction: knowledge has true value only when it is shared, challenged, enriched, and passed on.

If this Grand Report has struck a chord with you, if a reflection inspires you, if an experience deserves to be told, or if you wish to contribute to a better understanding of the major issues of our time, we would be honored to hear from you.

Researchers, academics, journalists, students, decision-makers, entrepreneurs, members of the diaspora, or simply engaged citizens, your voice matters. The Caribbean needs a space where ideas circulate freely, where analyses meet, where experiences are shared, and where perspectives from around the world cross paths in respect for facts, diversity of opinions, and intellectual rigor.

To foster a truly international dialogue, the main reports, investigations, analyses, and studies published by CPGNNews are released simultaneously in French, English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Portuguese, thus reaching the major linguistic communities of the Caribbean, the Americas, and an increasingly broad international public.

CPGNNews was born from a simple yet demanding ambition: to foster an independent Caribbean strategic thought, open to the world, and deeply committed to rigor, intellectual honesty, humanism, and the pursuit of the common good.

We invite you to send us your research, analyses, opinion pieces, articles, proposals, or reactions. Every serious contribution enriches a collective reflection that transcends borders and contributes to a better understanding of the world.

Because great ideas belong to no one. They grow when they are shared. And because understanding the world is a collective work, every sincere voice can help illuminate the future.

Contact the editorial team

📧 Email: info@cpgnnews.com
☎ Phone: +509 2996-9999
💬 WhatsApp: +509 4025-1313.U.S. ELECTION 2028: The Battle for the Post-Trump Era

The Caribbean at the Heart of the New World Order

How the 2028 U.S. presidential election could redefine power dynamics in the Western Hemisphere, reshape the geopolitical balance of the Caribbean, and open a new strategic chapter for Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and the island states in the face of the rise of China, Russia, and other emerging powers.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC REPORT │ Strategic Foresight • Geopolitics • International Relations • Security • Diplomacy • Strategic Economics

By the editorial staff of CaribPulse Global News Network (CPGNNews).

Why This Report?

The 2028 U.S. presidential election is about far more than the United States. It will influence the political, economic, and strategic dynamics of the entire Western Hemisphere, with direct repercussions for the Caribbean, Latin America, and, more broadly, the international system.

Since 2016, American politics has entered a period of sustained polarization. Successive changes in administration have profoundly altered the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, challenging policy orientations that were long considered stable. Today, each change in administration brings a reassessment of diplomatic priorities, international alliances, and geopolitical power dynamics.

The 2028 election falls within this broader dynamic. Well before the official launch of the campaign, the leading political figures are already preparing for the post-Trump era. Governors are raising their national profile, think tanks are developing new doctrines, major donors are reorganizing their influence networks, and potential candidates are testing their policy positions on key national and international issues.

The objective of this report is not to predict the outcome of the election. Rather, it is to identify trends, analyze power dynamics, and assess the most plausible scenarios based on currently available data. In geopolitics, uncertainty remains a constant. It does not prevent analysis; on the contrary, it is its very reason for being.

Why Is the Caribbean Already Affected?

The Caribbean occupies a strategic position that is often underestimated. Situated at the crossroads of the major maritime routes linking North America, Latin America, and Europe, it constitutes a vital space for regional security, international trade, migration flows, and digital infrastructure.

In recent years, the relative influence of the United States in the region has been progressively challenged by the growing presence of other powers, notably China, Russia, Turkey, India, and several Gulf states. This evolution is reshaping traditional balances and placing the Caribbean at the center of a strategic competition that is likely to intensify.

The future U.S. president will have to define the role this region will play in American foreign policy. Decisions made in Washington will have direct consequences for migration policies, security cooperation, investment, development assistance, and the political stability of Caribbean states.

Why Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela?

Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela occupy a unique place in American strategic thinking. Each represents a distinct challenge, yet their geographic proximity and political significance make them three closely interconnected issues. Cuba remains a major foreign policy challenge, shaped by more than six decades of tensions with Washington. Venezuela continues to be central to the region’s energy, migration, and security concerns. Haiti, meanwhile, remains a persistent humanitarian, political, and security challenge for the United States and its partners.

The evolution of these three issues will be a key indicator of the regional policy of the next U.S. administration. Beyond their respective national situations, they illustrate the strategic choices Washington will have to make in response to the new realities of the Western Hemisphere.

The Key Questions This Report Addresses

This report is structured around several questions that will shape the American strategic debate in the coming years and whose consequences will extend far beyond U.S. borders. The first concerns not so much the identity of the next president as the type of leadership the American political system is now capable of producing. In a landscape marked by polarization, the evolution of party primaries, the growing influence of major donors, and the transformation of the media ecosystem, what kind of political leadership is most likely to emerge by 2028?

The second concerns U.S. foreign policy. Will the next administration prioritize strategic competition with China, refocus on domestic priorities, or make a more assertive return to its immediate neighborhood? The answer will largely determine the diplomatic, economic, and security orientations of the Western Hemisphere.

The third examines the evolution of the triangle formed by Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela. Each of these countries represents a distinct challenge for Washington. Together, they constitute a laboratory for the contradictions of U.S. policy in the Caribbean, where migration, regional security, energy, political influence, and geopolitical rivalries intersect.

The fourth question analyzes the intensification of competition among the major powers in the region. The expansion of Chinese influence, Russia’s renewed presence, and the growing engagement of other actors such as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, India, and Brazil raise fundamental questions about the United States’ ability to preserve its strategic position in a region long regarded as part of its natural sphere of influence.

Finally, this report examines the room for maneuver available to Caribbean states. How can they strengthen their institutional resilience? How can they diversify their partnerships without compromising their strategic interests? How can they move from a position of dependence to a genuine capacity for diplomatic initiative in an increasingly multipolar international environment?

These questions do not claim to provide definitive answers. Rather, they constitute the analytical framework of this report. Its ambition is less to predict the future than to provide the keys to understanding, identify major trends, and shed light on the decisions that public and private actors will have to make in the years ahead.

The United States on the Threshold of a New Political Cycle

Before understanding what 2028 could mean for the Caribbean, it is first necessary to understand what the United States has become. Not the America of simplified representations—the America of skyscrapers, Silicon Valley, or bustling commercial districts—but the real America: a society shaped by deep divisions, persistent contradictions, and quiet political realignments.

The country preparing to enter a new electoral cycle is no longer the one that carried Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, nor even the one that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Today, it is more demographically diverse, older, more politically fragmented, and more distrustful of its institutions. This internal evolution directly influences how the United States defines its role in the world and, consequently, its relationship with its regional environment, particularly the Caribbean.

This first part establishes the general framework for the analysis. It examines the transformation of the two major American political parties, the evolution of American society, and the underlying forces that explain why the 2028 presidential race has already begun long before the official launch of the campaign. Understanding the international implications of this election first requires understanding the domestic dynamics that shape the choices of American voters.

From Reagan to Trump: Forty Years of Transformation in the Republican Party

To understand the Republican Party of 2028, one must return to 1980. That year, Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory over Democrat Jimmy Carter and ushered in a new conservative vision of America. His message rested on a central conviction: the United States is an exceptional nation destined to exercise global leadership, but its potential is weakened by a federal government that has become too large, too costly, and too deeply involved in the nation’s economic and social life.

In his inaugural address, Reagan delivered a phrase that would become one of the most iconic in American political history: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” This statement encapsulated a profound ideological transformation. The Republican Party, already engaged in a conservative shift for several years, gradually became the principal vehicle for challenging the role of Washington. It attracted suburban middle-class voters, Southern evangelicals, Western entrepreneurs, and a segment of the white working class that increasingly felt alienated from the Democratic Party.

This electoral coalition, often identified with the Reagan era, would shape American politics for decades. It led to the election of George H. W. Bush in 1988 and later George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, while serving as a powerful counterweight during the Democratic administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Yet this coalition rested on sometimes conflicting currents. Religious conservatives sought social policies rooted in traditional values. Business leaders advocated tax cuts and deregulation. Foreign policy hawks favored a strong and active American role on the international stage, while another segment of the conservative movement remained committed to a more cautious approach to overseas engagements. For many years, these different tendencies were held together by two powerful forces: opposition to Democratic liberalism and the ideological confrontation with the Soviet Union.

The end of the Cold War in 1989, followed by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, profoundly altered this equilibrium. The disappearance of the Soviet adversary deprived the Republican Party of one of its principal unifying forces, while the war on terror became America’s new strategic priority. Gradually, tensions among the party’s various factions became increasingly visible.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 marked another major turning point. Republicans lost the White House amid a severe economic crisis and witnessed the rise of a new generation of Democratic leaders who embodied a different vision of America: more diverse, more supportive of an expanded role for government in certain sectors, and more focused on social and environmental issues. For a significant portion of the American right, Obama symbolized a cultural transformation that they viewed as a challenge to the nation’s traditional foundations.

The reaction came swiftly. In 2009, the Tea Party movement emerged and gradually reshaped the Republican grassroots. It called for deep spending cuts, lower taxes, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and greater distrust of Washington’s political establishment. Beyond its economic agenda, the Tea Party reflected a broader sense of lost control among many voters confronting rapid demographic, cultural, and social change.

This evolution paved the way for a new phase with the emergence of Donald Trump. In 2015, the New York businessman and former Democrat launched a presidential campaign that upended the traditional norms of the Republican Party. When he declared, “I am your voice,” he presented himself not simply as Ronald Reagan’s political heir but as the representative of Americans who felt forgotten by political elites, disadvantaged by globalization, and marginalized by the country’s cultural transformations.

The break was profound. Whereas Reagan primarily advocated limiting the role of government, Trump proposed using the power of the state to defend American national interests. Whereas the traditional Republican Party strongly supported free trade and an interventionist foreign policy, Trumpism embraced economic nationalism, stronger border security, and a more transactional approach to international relations.

Many observers believed that Trump could not win the 2016 presidential election. Yet his victory fundamentally transformed the Republican Party. More than an electoral realignment, it represented a profound ideological reorientation. Republican leaders who initially opposed him largely ended up aligning themselves with his agenda or accepting his dominance. Conservative institutions gradually adapted their positions, and Trumpism became the party’s new ideological reference point.

As 2028 approaches, the Republican Party appears to have undergone a profound transformation. It is no longer the party of the Cold War, free trade, and military interventionism that dominated much of the second half of the twentieth century. It has become the party of economic nationalism, strengthened national sovereignty, and growing skepticism toward certain international institutions.

Domestically, it promotes a conservative vision of society and opposes progressive policies related to cultural and identity issues. Electorally, it remains deeply rooted in rural America, small towns, and among a significant segment of the white working class, while seeking to expand its appeal among parts of the Latino electorate, particularly Cuban American and Venezuelan American communities that are especially receptive to anti-communist and anti-socialist messages.

Yet this dominance remains fragile because it depends heavily on one exceptional political figure: Donald Trump himself. The question of succession has therefore become central. The Republican challenge is to preserve the electoral energy of Trumpism while preparing a new generation of leaders capable of carrying the movement beyond its founder.

This tension will lie at the heart of the 2028 Republican primary. Candidates will have to demonstrate loyalty to Trump’s political legacy while establishing their own identities. They will also have to navigate a media environment profoundly transformed by social media, political podcasts, and digital platforms, which have increasingly replaced traditional media as the principal channels of electoral mobilization.

Understanding this evolution helps explain the central paradox of the Republican Party in 2028: a powerful political force capable of mobilizing a cohesive electoral coalition built around shared identities and geographic strongholds, yet also vulnerable because much of its contemporary identity remains closely tied to a single political leader.

The following sections examine the leading Republican contenders for the White House, assessing their strengths, weaknesses, and political strategies. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to turn to the other major force in the American political system: the Democratic Party, which is itself undergoing a profound transformation.

From Clinton to Today: How the Democratic Party Has Been Transformed

If the Republican Party has undergone a spectacular transformation under the effect of Trumpism, the Democratic Party has evolved through a more gradual, less visible, but equally profound process. To understand the Democrats of 2028, one must return to another pivotal moment in American political history: the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.

After twelve years of Republican presidencies, Democrats understood they could no longer hope to regain power durably by remaining associated solely with the traditional left, unions, the expansion of social programs, and a historical distrust of the market. Clinton then proposed a new orientation, often called the “Third Way”: a centrist positioning that accepted part of the economic transformations underway since the Reagan era while maintaining a protective role for the state.

This strategy marked an important evolution of the party. Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, despite opposition from part of the labor movement. He reformed the welfare system, declaring he wanted to “end welfare as we know it.” He also adopted a firmer approach on issues of domestic security and crime, choices later criticized by some progressive sectors of the party. Ultimately, Clinton embodied a Democrat capable of governing on several economic and security issues in a spirit close to the American political center, while retaining a progressive identity on social and environmental questions.

This strategy worked electorally. Clinton won two presidential elections and helped reposition the Democratic Party at the center of American political life. After him, Al Gore narrowly lost in 2000, then Barack Obama came to power in 2008 with a promise of generational and political renewal. Obama embodied change, but his time in power was marked by institutional pragmatism. He saved the automobile industry after the financial crisis, passed the Affordable Care Act—known as Obamacare—which constituted a historic advance in health coverage while remaining far from the ambitions of the most radical Democratic left. Internationally, his administration continued several military engagements inherited from previous years, maintained certain contested surveillance practices, and defended trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), despite criticism from parts of his own camp.

During this period, the Democratic Party relied on a broad electoral coalition uniting minorities, younger generations, women, urban voters, graduates, and populations of major metropolitan areas. It gradually became the party of cultural diversity, international openness, trust in institutions, and support for scientific research. However, this coalition remained fragile as it rested on a permanent balance between several sensibilities: a progressive wing desiring a deeper transformation of the economic and social system, and a moderate wing attached to electoral credibility among the middle classes and independent voters.

The 2016 election profoundly disrupted this dynamic. Hillary Clinton’s defeat to Donald Trump was a major shock for Democrats, who were largely convinced of their victory. The explanations were numerous: some highlighted the limitations of the U.S. Electoral College, others denounced Russian interference in the campaign, while others pointed to the weaknesses of Clinton’s candidacy itself. But a more fundamental analysis eventually prevailed: the Democratic Party had gradually lost part of its historical connection to certain segments of the American working class, particularly in the industrial states of the Midwest, where a portion of voters turned to Donald Trump.

This realization opened a strategic debate that still pervades the party in 2028. For the progressive wing, notably represented by Bernie Sanders, the Democratic defeat resulted from abandoning the popular classes in favor of a party that had become too close to economic and financial elites. For the moderate wing, associated with Joe Biden, Democrats lost because they appeared too far removed from the daily concerns of voters and too focused on certain cultural issues at the expense of economic and social ones. This confrontation between two visions of the Democratic future remains one of the party’s main challenges.

Joe Biden’s election in 2020 aimed to address this identity crisis. His project was based on restoring institutions, returning to a more traditional foreign policy, and implementing ambitious but pragmatic economic and social programs. His administration achieved several important results, notably in investments related to infrastructure, industry, and the energy transition, while strengthening certain international alliances. However, it also faced major difficulties: inflation, the migrant crisis at the southern border, the political consequences of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a national polarization that became increasingly difficult to contain. Above all, Biden did not always succeed in embodying a generational vision capable of overcoming partisan divisions.

As 2028 approaches, the Democratic Party thus remains a party in search of balance. It is divided between a progressive wing calling for structural reforms, a more regulated economy, and a less interventionist foreign policy, and a moderate wing seeking to restore the trust of centrist voters on economic, social, and security issues. Between these two currents, a new generation of leaders is emerging who belong neither entirely to the Clinton era nor to the Obama era, and who seek to define a new Democratic identity adapted to the realities of the 21st century.

This rising generation may be the party’s primary opportunity for 2028. Figures like Gavin Newsom, Governor of California; Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan; or Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, represent this desire for renewal. Their challenge will be to demonstrate they can transcend their regional roots and build a national vision capable of uniting a sufficiently broad electoral coalition.

The Democratic Party must also respond to a profound transformation of its electoral base. Its traditional coalition, composed of minorities, young people, and women, remains important but is no longer as automatic as before. A portion of the Latino electorate, notably certain Cuban-American and Venezuelan-American groups, has moved closer to the Republican Party due to particular sensitivity to anti-communist and anti-socialist rhetoric. African American voters remain largely attached to Democrats, but their mobilization is no longer guaranteed without effort. As for younger generations, they manifest growing distrust of political institutions and may turn to alternative candidates or choose abstention.

In this context, the 2028 Democratic primary will be as much a competition among personalities as a debate on the ideological future of the party. Each candidate will have to propose a vision capable of responding to progressive aspirations while reassuring a centrist electorate concerned with economic stability, security, and governance capability. Understanding this evolution allows one to grasp the paradox of the 2028 Democratic Party: a formation weakened by its internal divisions and the loss of some traditional voters, but still possessing considerable assets thanks to a diversified electoral base, potential for generational renewal, and a historical capacity for reinvention.

An American Society Profoundly Reshaped

Political parties are never abstract constructions. They are the product of a society: its demographic evolutions, economic transformations, cultural tensions, and collective aspirations. To understand why the Republicans and Democrats of 2028 defend sometimes profoundly different visions of the American future, one must first understand what American society has become. In recent decades, the country has undergone considerable changes that have gradually redefined relations between generations, territories, social groups, and political institutions.

The America of 2028 is more diverse, more connected, and more open to the world than it was at the end of the 20th century, but it is also more politically and culturally fragmented. Demographic, economic, and technological transformations did not occur separately; they combined to create a society where old political categories have become less stable and electoral behaviors harder to predict.

The first major change concerns demographics. The United States remains a dynamically growing nation demographically, but it is also experiencing a gradual aging of its population. The baby boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964, dominated American political life for over half a century. This generation participated in the great cultural transformations of the 1960s before becoming one of the main pillars of political conservatism during the Reagan era. For a long time, it occupied a central place in the economic, media, and political institutions of the country.

However, as 2028 approaches, its relative weight is diminishing. Some baby boomers are now retired, while others are gradually passing away. Their electoral influence remains significant, but it is no longer sufficient to define the country’s political orientation on its own. In their place, Generations X, Y, and Z are emerging, whose historical experiences and social references differ profoundly from those of their predecessors.

Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, now constitute a major electoral generation. More diverse, more urban, and generally more educated than previous generations, they have however experienced an economic path marked by several crises: the 2008 financial crisis, rising housing costs, student debt, and a more uncertain job market. Their relationship to politics is thus marked by greater distrust of traditional institutions and a demand for deeper changes in the country’s economic and social functioning.

The second major transformation concerns American political geography. The United States has become an increasingly polarized society along territorial lines. Major metropolitan areas and their close suburbs now constitute the main Democratic strongholds, while rural areas and small towns remain largely favorable to the Republican Party. This territorial division sometimes gives the image of two distinct Americas: that of large coastal cities, more multicultural and progressive, and that of rural or industrial interior territories, more attached to conservative values and a traditional vision of national identity.

This geographic opposition remains more complex than it appears, however. The true electoral battlegrounds are often in the intermediate zones, notably the suburbs. Long considered naturally Republican territories, some suburbs have evolved under the effect of social transformations and the rejection by some moderate voters of Donald Trump’s political style. However, this electoral shift is not irreversible. Republicans are now seeking to win back these voters by placing greater emphasis on the economy, security, and the daily concerns of middle-class families. In 2028, suburbs could once again be among the main arbiters of the presidential election.

The third transformation is cultural. The United States has always had significant debates around national identity, religion, race, and social values, but these tensions have taken on a new dimension in recent years. Cultural issues have become factors of political mobilization as powerful as economic issues.

A significant portion of the conservative electorate considers recent cultural transformations a threat to the country’s traditional benchmarks. This perception fuels strong opposition to progressive policies related to identity, gender, or diversity issues, often grouped by their opponents under the term “woke.” Conversely, a portion of the progressive electorate believes the United States must continue its efforts to correct historical injustices and build a more inclusive society. For these voters, resistance to social change represents less a defense of traditions than a refusal to address persistent inequalities.

This opposition now transcends simple partisan differences. It touches on how each side imagines the country’s future. For conservatives, the central question is often the preservation of a national identity perceived as threatened. For progressives, it concerns more the transformation of a society still deemed marked by structural inequalities. This cultural fracture is one of the most visible elements of contemporary American polarization.

The fourth transformation is economic. The United States remains the world’s leading economic power, but this global wealth masks profound changes in the distribution of income and opportunities. Since the 1980s, the gaps between the most favored categories and parts of the middle and working classes have widened considerably. Globalization, automation, and industrial transformations have created winners and losers, fueling a feeling of downward mobility among a portion of the population.

This economic reality has a major political dimension. A significant portion of Americans feels the economic system functions in an unbalanced way, that large corporations and the wealthiest categories wield excessive influence, and that political leaders no longer sufficiently respond to citizens’ daily difficulties. This sentiment of frustration provides fertile ground for the rise of populist discourse, on both the right and the left.

On the right, it fuels criticism of globalization, defense of economic protectionism, and rejection of political and economic elites. On the left, it reinforces demands for increased regulation, redistribution, and reform of American capitalism. In both cases, it reflects the same question: whether the American economic model continues to benefit the entire population fairly.

The fifth transformation concerns the technological revolution. The United States has entered a new phase where digital technologies are profoundly changing how citizens work, communicate, and participate in public life. Social networks have gradually replaced some traditional media as primary sources of political information, creating an environment where opinions circulate faster but divisions can also deepen.

Digital algorithms have fostered the creation of separate informational communities, where citizens are often exposed to content reinforcing their initial beliefs. This fragmentation of the public sphere represents a major challenge for American democracy, as it reduces common spaces for discussion and makes political compromises harder.

Artificial intelligence adds a new dimension to this transformation. It will have significant consequences on employment, economic competitiveness, national security, and the very functioning of electoral campaigns. The 2028 election will likely be the first where artificial intelligence plays a central role in producing political content, electoral analysis, targeted communication, and risks related to disinformation.

Finally, the last major transformation is generational. The young Americans who will be under thirty in 2028 grew up in a historical environment profoundly different from that of their parents. They did not experience the Cold War as a central political reality and did not experience the September 11, 2001 attacks with the same perception as previous generations. Their world view has been shaped by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 financial crisis, debates on climate change, social mobilizations related to racial justice, and the explosion of digital technologies.

This generation has a more critical relationship with traditional institutions, but it is also more open to the world and more attentive to global issues. Its electoral behavior will be decisive in 2028, as it will represent a growing share of the U.S. electorate. It could contribute to accelerating the transformation of the political system by favoring new economic, social, and environmental priorities.

These different changes do not operate independently of each other. They reinforce each other and produce an American society that is more diverse yet more fragmented, richer yet more unequal, more connected yet also more politically isolated. They create a more volatile electorate in its choices, but also more attached to certain cultural, territorial, and generational identities. It is in this profoundly reshaped America that the 2028 presidential battle will unfold. A battle that will not be just about candidates or parties, but about two competing visions for the future of the United States and its place in the world.

Why the 2028 Presidential Campaign Has Already Begun

There is a widely held idea, fostered by some media and political observers, that U.S. presidential elections truly begin in the election year. This perception is nonetheless inaccurate. In the United States, preparation for a presidential election always starts well before the official campaign opening, but this phenomenon has become even more pronounced in the context of 2028. The next presidential battle began the day after the 2024 election, and some of its elements were visible even before.

Behind the apparent calm political period, considerable work is already underway. Potential candidates are assessing their chances, testing their messages with voters, meeting donors, building influence networks, and seeking to identify themes likely to define the next campaign. Think tanks are developing policy proposals, teams of advisors are beginning to take shape, and electoral strategies are often developed subtly before being officially unveiled.

This precocity is first explained by the financial factor. U.S. presidential campaigns are among the most costly political operations in the world. The scale of electoral spending imposes long-term preparation on candidates. Even before officially declaring, a contender must establish a donor network, create fundraising structures, develop support committees, and build an organization capable of operating on a national scale. In a system where fundraising ability often serves as an early indicator of political credibility, time becomes a major strategic advantage.

The second factor is the transformation of the media environment. American politics now operates in a permanent news cycle. Cable news channels, social networks, digital platforms, political podcasts, and specialized media have eliminated the old distinction between electoral and non-electoral periods. Every speech, every appearance, every statement, or every mistake can be instantly analyzed, amplified, or exploited politically.

In this environment, candidates can no longer wait for the official campaign opening to build their public image. They must progressively establish their political identity, develop national name recognition, and convince potential voters they embody a credible response to the country’s challenges. Contemporary American politics has become a permanent competition for public attention.

The third factor concerns the complexity of the primary system. Unlike many political systems where candidates are quickly designated by parties, the United States imposes a long internal selection process. Candidates must face a succession of electoral consultations in states with very different profiles, each with its own political culture, local media, and specific priorities.

The ability to navigate this process successfully requires considerable preparation. One must build a national organization, recruit local teams, establish activist networks, and adapt one’s message to the realities of each territory. A U.S. presidential campaign is therefore not built in a few months; it relies on gradual establishment that often begins several years before the final vote.

The fourth factor is the particular role played by think tanks, universities, and expert networks in shaping U.S. public policy. Unlike other democracies where political parties directly produce much of their doctrine, the United States relies heavily on research institutions that influence economic, social, military, and diplomatic debates.

These organizations produce reports, analyses, and proposals that subsequently feed into candidates’ platforms. Future political leaders thus begin very early to assemble their teams of experts, identify the major orientations of their potential administration, and establish the networks that could support them if they come to power.

The final factor is uncertainty. The 2028 election remains largely open. The Republican and Democratic candidates are not definitively known, the main campaign issues may still evolve, and no one can predict the national or international crises that could shift voters’ priorities. This uncertainty pushes contenders to prepare well ahead of the deadline. They must position themselves early enough to be identified by voters, build a coherent image, and be able to seize political opportunities when the context becomes favorable.

This dynamic is further reinforced by a central question: the legacy of Donald Trump. Regardless of his personal involvement in the 2028 campaign, Trump will likely remain one of the defining figures of the Republican Party. If he seeks to re-enter the presidential race, the Republican primary could be largely dominated by his candidacy, and the general election would then become a judgment on his political record. If he does not run, the Republican battle will take the form of an open succession where several candidates will try to present themselves as the legitimate heirs of the movement he profoundly transformed. In both scenarios, the competition will have begun well before the official opening of the polls.

Understanding this precocity allows one to understand the very nature of the 2028 election. It is not a political event that will suddenly appear at the time of the vote; it is a process already underway, gradually constructed through alliances, ideological repositioning, media strategies, and electoral calculations. It is already influencing the behaviors of American candidates, the expectations of voters, and even the strategies of foreign powers closely observing Washington’s political evolution. The 2028 presidential election has not arrived yet, but it is already shaping the future American political landscape.

The Ten Numbers That Explain the America of 2028

To conclude this first part dedicated to the internal transformations of the United States, ten figures summarize, through a few key indicators, the major demographic, economic, and social forces that will shape the American political landscape as the 2028 presidential election approaches.

1. Approximately 340 million inhabitants:

2. The U.S. population continues to grow, but at a slower pace than in previous decades. This demographic evolution marks a new stage for the United States, simultaneously facing the aging of its population and increasing diversification of its society.

3. Nearly a quarter of the population of Hispanic or Latino origin:

The growth of the Hispanic population is one of the major demographic transformations of the 21st-century United States. This evolution is gradually changing the country’s electoral composition and forcing the two major parties to adapt their strategies towards an electorate that has become essential.

4. Nearly half of voters identifying as independent:

The increase in the number of Americans who refuse to define themselves exclusively as Republicans or Democrats reflects growing distrust of the two major parties. This independent electorate represents a major issue in presidential elections, particularly in states where a few thousand votes can decide the outcome.

5. Approximately $30 trillion in public debt:

The historic level of U.S. federal debt constitutes one of the major economic challenges for future administrations. It will weigh on budgetary choices, social policies, public investments, and the federal government’s ability to respond to future crises.

6. Inflation persistently felt by households:

Even after the slowdown in price increases observed following the inflationary shock of the early 2020s, the cost of living remains one of the primary concerns of American voters. For many families, the central issue is not just the level of inflation, but the erosion of purchasing power accumulated over the years.

7. Tens of millions of Americans born abroad:

Immigration remains one of the country’s major political issues. The United States remains a nation built by successive waves of migration, but the scale and speed of recent migratory movements fuel intense debate over borders, integration, and national identity.

8. Approximately 80% of the population living in urban or peri-urban areas:

Urban concentration has profoundly transformed American political geography. Large cities and their suburbs now constitute the main economic, technological, and cultural centers of the country, but they have also become arenas of major electoral confrontation.

9. Approximately 12% African American population:

The African American community retains essential political weight, notably in several key states and major urban areas. Its level of electoral mobilization remains a determining factor for the Democratic Party, even if its political behavior evolves according to generations and territories.

10. Durably weakened institutional confidence:

A significant portion of Americans express growing distrust of the federal government and national institutions. This crisis of confidence spans both major parties and is one of the engines of contemporary American populism.

11. A majority of Americans believing the country is heading in the wrong direction:

Political pessimism has become one of the characteristic traits of contemporary America. Despite its economic and technological power, a significant portion of the population considers the country is going through a period of uncertainty, marked by social divisions, economic difficulties, and loss of trust in institutions.

These figures are not mere statistical data. They reveal the underlying forces shaping the America of 2028: a nation more diverse but more fragmented, more powerful but more anxious, more innovative but more distrustful of its institutions. It is upon this social, economic, and demographic reality that presidential candidates will build their speeches, strategies, and promises. These figures constitute the political backdrop for the battle ahead.

The Republican Party: Consolidating the Trump Legacy

The first part established the general framework: the America of 2028 is a profoundly transformed society, traversed by demographic, economic, cultural, and institutional fractures that are redefining its political landscape. In this new reality, the Republican Party occupies a particular position. After having been for several decades the party of Reagan, then that of institutional conservatism dominated by economic and diplomatic elites, it has become the political vehicle of a new movement embodied by Donald Trump.

This transformation constitutes one of the most significant political events in recent U.S. history. Trumpism has not only modified the discourse of the Republican Party; it has changed its priorities, social alliances, and vision of America’s role in the world. The central question of 2028 is therefore not only whether Republicans will retain power, but whether they will be capable of transforming a movement built around an exceptional personality into a lasting political doctrine.

The strength of the Republican Party today rests on a profoundly restructured electoral coalition: rural areas, part of the white working class, religious conservatives, but also a growing fraction of Latino voters sensitive to themes of order, immigration, and opposition to socialism. This coalition allowed Trump to reshape the party, but it also carries a fundamental fragility: its cohesion remains largely tied to the president’s personal legacy.

The major challenge of the period ahead is therefore that of succession. How can the political energy of Trumpism be preserved without Donald Trump? How can the loyalty of its base be maintained while expanding the Republican electorate towards independents and suburban middle classes? How can a revolt against the establishment be transformed into a sustainable governing vision?

This second part analyzes this historic mutation. It examines Trumpism as a political phenomenon, the particular role of Donald Trump in the balance of the Republican Party, and then the figures who could claim his succession. Beyond personalities, the objective is to understand which ideological orientation could define the American right in the coming years and what consequences this evolution could have on U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Caribbean space.

Trumpism: Electoral Phenomenon or Durable Political Doctrine?

The question of the nature of Trumpism has become one of the great political debates of 21st-century America. Is it a temporary movement built around an exceptional personality, destined to disappear with Donald Trump? Or does it represent a deeper transformation of American conservatism, comparable in its historical influence to the Reaganism of the 1980s?

The answer probably lies between these two analyses. Trumpism was born around a man, but it also responds to social and political evolutions that existed before him. It is the expression of accumulated discontent: a feeling of economic decline in certain regions of the country, distrust of institutions, rejection of a globalization perceived as unfair, anxieties about cultural transformations, and the sense that political elites no longer represent a significant portion of the population.

Observers use several concepts to define this current: populist nationalism, identity conservatism, economic sovereigntism, strategic isolationism, or anti-establishment reaction. Each of these definitions describes part of the phenomenon, but none alone suffices. The heart of Trumpism rests on a simpler idea: America must be protected.

This promise of protection is probably its most powerful element. Trump offered voters a direct response to several simultaneous anxieties: protecting American jobs from the effects of globalization, protecting borders from illegal immigration, protecting traditional values from rapid cultural changes, protecting American sovereignty from international institutions deemed constraining. For a segment of the electorate, this promise represented less a detailed political program than a recognition of their frustrations and anxieties.

Trumpism also rests on a particular political method: permanent rupture with established norms. Unlike traditional conservative leaders who generally sought to respect institutional codes, Trump built his relationship with voters around confrontation. His direct style, his attacks on the media, his criticisms of judicial institutions, and his rejection of classical political conventions were interpreted differently by each camp.

For his opponents, this approach represents a threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law. For his supporters, it constitutes precisely proof of his authenticity. Trump was perceived not as a traditional politician seeking to preserve the system, but as an outsider capable of defying a system considered closed and inefficient. Beyond the method, Trumpism also carries a particular vision of the world. Internationally, it questions several principles that had structured U.S. foreign policy since World War II: automatic support for multilateral alliances, the promotion of an international order based on institutions, and the idea that American leadership rests on permanent global engagement.

Against this approach, Trump opposed a more transactional conception of international relations. Alliances must, according to this logic, be evaluated based on the direct benefits they bring to the United States. Trade agreements must better protect American industry. International organizations must not limit national sovereignty. Foreign partners must contribute more to funding their own security. This vision has deeply worried many traditional U.S. allies, particularly in Europe and Asia. It has created a fundamental question about the reliability of U.S. engagement in the world. This question remains open in 2028: even after subsequent years, doubt about the permanence of the United States’ international role remains one of the most significant legacies of the Trump era.

The great question of 2028 is therefore the survival of Trumpism after Trump. Its disappearance is possible, as the movement remains strongly associated with a unique personality. Donald Trump never built a structured political doctrine comparable to Reaganism; he rather embodied a political intuition, a leadership style, and a direct relationship with his electorate. But its complete disappearance also seems unlikely, as he has durably transformed the expectations of the Republican base. His successors will now have to contend with voters who consider immigration, economic sovereignty, criticism of elites, and priority given to American interests as central elements of conservative identity.

The future of the Republican Party will therefore depend on its ability to institutionalize this legacy. Three paths are possible: complete fidelity to the Trump model, adaptation intended to make the movement more acceptable to the centrist electorate, or an attempt at synthesis between traditional conservatism and nationalist populism. It is precisely this battle of interpretation that will define the 2028 Republican primary. All candidates will be, in one way or another, heirs of Trump. But they will have to answer a fundamental question: should the movement be continued as it exists, or should its legacy be transformed to build the next generation of American conservatism?

Donald Trump: President, Arbiter, or Kingmaker?

Even after leaving the White House, Donald Trump remains the dominant figure of the Republican Party. His influence far exceeds that of a traditional former president. Where other former U.S. heads of state have gradually taken an institutional distance from their party, Trump continues to occupy a central position in defining Republican priorities, choosing candidates, and the ideological orientation of the conservative movement.

In 2028, the real question is therefore not only who will be the Republican candidate for president, but what role Donald Trump will choose to play in this new political battle. Will he himself be a candidate for another term? Will he become the arbiter of a succession among several heirs? Or will he seek to become the true “kingmaker” of the Republican Party, capable of imposing his successor while retaining decisive influence over the direction of the movement?

This uncertainty constitutes one of Trump’s main political strengths. By keeping open the possibility of a new candidacy, he retains considerable strategic power over potential contenders. As long as his intention remains ambiguous, Republican candidates must calculate their positions carefully. They seek the support of his electoral base without appearing as adversaries, they claim his legacy without giving the impression of being mere copies, and they try to prepare for the future while remaining loyal to the one who redefined the party.

Trump’s real power today rests less on an institutional function than on a personal political relationship with tens of millions of voters. This relationship is one of the major transformations of the contemporary American party system. A segment of his electorate no longer defines itself primarily by its affiliation with the Republican Party, but by its attachment to Trump himself and what he represents: opposition to political elites, an assertive defense of national sovereignty, and a willingness to break with the established order.

This personal loyalty gives Trump an exceptional capacity for influence. A candidate publicly endorsed by him can benefit from a considerable advantage in a Republican primary. Conversely, a candidate who directly confronts him risks losing a significant portion of the conservative base. This reality explains why most contenders for succession seek less to break with Trump than to present themselves as the true heirs of his movement.

However, this influence also has limits. Politics also relies on generational renewal, and no political figure can maintain the same level of dominance indefinitely. Age, electoral fatigue, media wear and tear, and accumulated controversies are factors that could gradually reduce Trump’s ability to impose his will.

The Trump paradox is therefore as follows: he remains indispensable to the Republican Party, but he also represents a question the party will have to answer sooner or later. Can a political movement survive durably when built around such a dominant personality? The answer will largely determine the future of American conservatism.

Succession thus represents the main strategic challenge for the Republican Party. If Trump chooses not to run again, he will have to decide which candidate can preserve his legacy while being capable of broadening the electoral coalition. This decision will be difficult, as the criteria may conflict. The most loyal successor is not necessarily the one with the best electoral capacity. The candidate most competent to win a national election is not necessarily the one who will most reassure the Trumpist base.

Several profiles could then emerge. Some will seek to extend the movement directly, taking up the central themes of Trumpism with a new generation of leaders. Others will attempt a strategic evolution: retaining the populist and sovereigntist energy of the movement while adopting a more institutional tone capable of attracting independent voters and moderate suburbs.

In all scenarios, Donald Trump will remain a major player in the 2028 presidential election. Even without being a candidate, he will influence debates, alliances, and internal power dynamics. His legacy will likely surpass the question of his own political career, as he will have profoundly changed how a significant portion of Americans perceive the role of government, the relationship between the people and elites, and the place of the United States in the world.

Internationally, this influence will also remain significant. Trump’s vision on China, military alliances, multilateral institutions, and foreign political regimes will continue to weigh on the American strategic debate. For U.S. partners, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, understanding the future of the Republican Party necessarily involves understanding the role Trump will continue to play, whether in the forefront or behind the scenes. In 2028, Donald Trump may no longer be the U.S. president, but he could remain the man who still defines the contours of the American right.

The Republican Contenders: The Battle for the Trump Legacy

The Republican Party of 2028 faces a historic paradox. It is more ideologically powerful than it has been for several decades, but it must resolve a fundamental question: how to transform a movement built around an exceptional leader into a political force capable of lasting beyond its founder? The next Republican primary will therefore not just be a competition among ambitious personalities. It will be a battle of interpretation over the Trump legacy. All candidates will have to answer the same question: should Trumpism be extended in its current form, modernized, or surpassed?

The difficulty is considerable. The Republican electoral base expects its leaders to demonstrate loyalty to the themes that enabled the party’s transformation: national sovereignty, immigration control, priority to American economic interests, criticism of progressive elites, and a more transactional foreign policy. But a national victory also requires convincing independent voters, suburban middle classes, and a portion of moderate voters who remain wary of the most divisive aspects of the movement.

The 2028 Republican primary will therefore be a search for balance between fidelity and renewal. The best-positioned candidates will not necessarily be those who imitate Trump the most, but those who understand how to transform his legacy into a new stage of American conservatism. Among the figures likely to play a major role in this competition, several profiles stand out:

J.D. Vance
The Intellectual Heir of Trumpism?

J.D. Vance represents one of the most visible attempts to transform Trumpism into a structured political doctrine. His trajectory symbolizes an important evolution of the American right: a conservatism that is no longer limited to reducing the state or traditional social issues, but places economic sovereignty, protection of the working class, and criticism of globalization at its center. Originally from Ohio, an industrial state that has become a symbol of the political shift of the white working class towards the Republican Party, Vance has a profile particularly suited to the political narrative of the new conservatism. His book Hillbilly Elegy gave him national visibility by describing the social and economic difficulties of a part of peripheral America, which constituted one of the main electoral supports for Donald Trump.

His political journey is also revealing of the Republican Party’s transformation. Initially critical of Trump, Vance became one of his most convinced defenders. This evolution allowed him to gain the trust of part of the Republican base, which sees in him a representative of a new generation capable of continuing the movement after Trump. His strengths are significant. He is young, media-savvy, capable of defending a coherent ideological vision, and has roots in a politically strategic state. He also benefits from a growing network of supporters in conservative and technological circles, notably among actors seeking to influence the country’s economic and regulatory future.

But his vulnerabilities also exist. His conversion to Trumpism remains a source of criticism among some traditional conservatives who accuse him of changing positions for electoral reasons. His Democratic opponents will likely seek to present his trajectory as political opportunism rather than a sincere ideological evolution. His other challenge will be national. A presidential candidacy requires going beyond the traditional Republican base. Vance will have to demonstrate he can attract independents, suburban voters, and social categories still hesitant about economic and cultural populism.

Internationally, J.D. Vance embodies a particularly important trend of the new Republican Party: a strategic nationalism more concerned with domestic U.S. priorities than with the permanent management of global affairs. He criticizes traditional military interventionism, wants to reduce certain foreign engagements, and considers competition with China to be the primary strategic priority for the United States.

Regarding the Caribbean, notably Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his likely approach would be more based on direct U.S. interests, regional security, and control of migration flows than on a traditional policy of democratic promotion or humanitarian intervention. His positioning could therefore represent a significant evolution in the relationship between Washington and its regional neighborhood. J.D. Vance thus appears as one of the candidates most representative of the 2028 Republican dilemma: he embodies the continuity of Trumpism, but he must still demonstrate he can become more than an heir—a genuine national leader.

Ron DeSantis

Institutional Conservatism After Trump?

Ron DeSantis represents another possible path for the future of the Republican Party: a conservatism strongly inspired by the Trump era on cultural and identity issues, but more structured around a classic governmental experience. Unlike some heirs of the movement, DeSantis does not present himself as a mere continuator of Trump; he rather seeks to demonstrate he can achieve Trumpism’s objectives with a more disciplined and more institutional approach.

Governor of Florida, a state that has become one of the most important bastions of the modern Republican Party, DeSantis built his national reputation around several themes: opposition to progressive policies in public institutions, defense of conservative values, immigration control, and affirmation of a strong executive. His political strategy rests on the idea that the American right can retain the cultural energy of Trumpism while reducing dependence on a unique personality.

His main advantage lies in his executive experience. Unlike several potential contenders, he has a concrete governmental record to present to voters. He can defend the idea that he has already administered a large American state, managed public crises, and implemented a coherent conservative program. This experience could be an important argument for voters who want ideological continuity but with a different leadership style. However, DeSantis also has a major weakness: his relationship with Donald Trump. When he tried to establish himself as an alternative to the outgoing president, he did not succeed in surpassing Trump’s personal influence with the Republican base. A portion of conservative voters perceived him not as a natural heir, but as a rival who had tried to replace the movement’s founder too quickly.

In 2028, his challenge will therefore be to convince that he is neither an adversary of Trump nor a mere copy of Trump. He will have to demonstrate he represents a new generation capable of continuing certain priorities of the movement while bringing superior governmental efficiency. Ideologically, DeSantis belongs to a more organized and more institutional right than original Trumpism. He attaches great importance to cultural issues, the sovereignty of federal states, and confrontation with what he considers the excessive influence of progressive elites in universities, media, and large corporations.

Economically, he generally defends a pro-business approach, combining deregulation and support for national industrial policies. He shares with Trump the criticism of certain effects of globalization, but his approach is more oriented towards American competitiveness than permanent rupture. In foreign policy, DeSantis represents an intermediate position. He is less isolationist than some heirs of Trumpism, but less interventionist than traditional post-Cold War Republicans. He considers China the main strategic challenge for the United States and advocates for a strengthening of American power, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

Regarding the Western Hemisphere, his approach would likely be marked by particular attention to regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests, notably Cuba and Venezuela. His policy towards Haiti could be more centered on regional security, migration, and institutional stability, with an approach less focused on traditional development aid programs.

DeSantis’s potential thus rests on a promise: retaining Trump’s political energy without depending entirely on Trump. But this very position constitutes his main challenge. He will have to convince an electoral base that still greatly appreciates the former president that a new generation can carry the movement without betraying it.

Nikki Haley

The Attempt at Reconciliation with Moderate America

Nikki Haley represents a different trajectory within the Republican Party. Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she embodies more of the party’s traditional internationalist conservative tradition: a Republicanism favorable to an active America in the world, attached to alliances, and closer to the diplomatic legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Her profile constitutes a possible response to the question many Republicans ask: how to broaden the party’s coalition beyond the Trumpist base? Haley seeks to present a more institutional right, capable of retaining certain conservative priorities while reassuring independent voters and U.S. international partners. Her diplomatic experience is her main asset. Unlike candidates whose international approach rests essentially on economic competition or national sovereignty, Haley defends a vision where American leadership abroad remains an essential instrument of power.

She notably insists on the need to maintain alliances, support U.S. strategic partners, and firmly respond to regimes considered adversaries of Washington. This position could appeal to Republican voters who desire a return to a more traditional foreign policy. But her main difficulty remains her relationship with the Trumpist base. Her past criticisms of Donald Trump could limit her acceptance among a segment of the Republican electorate. To succeed in a primary dominated by the Trump legacy, she will have to demonstrate she understands the frustrations that fueled the movement while offering a credible alternative. On the international stage, Haley likely represents the Republican current most favorable to active U.S. engagement. Her vision could lead to a more coordinated policy with allies and more attentive to democratic issues in the Western Hemisphere.

For Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this approach could mean a return to more classical diplomacy: pressure on authoritarian regimes, cooperation with regional partners, and use of American diplomatic instruments as tools of influence. The Haley candidacy would thus pose a fundamental question to the Republican Party: should the movement’s future remain centered on populist rupture, or regain an international dimension closer to traditional conservatism?

Marco Rubio

The Bridge Between Trumpism and the Republican Internationalist Tradition

Marco Rubio likely represents one of the most complex profiles in the Republican succession. Senator from Florida, former presidential candidate, and a major figure in conservative foreign policy, he embodies an attempt at synthesis between several currents of the Republican Party: traditional conservatism, the new populist right, and the strategic vision centered on competition with China.

His career is particularly interesting because it reflects the very evolution of the Republican Party over the past fifteen years. At the beginning of his national career, Rubio was considered one of the faces of the new conservative generation, favorable to free trade, international alliances, and an active U.S. foreign policy. But Donald Trump’s arrival profoundly changed the political environment in which he operated. Like several Republican officials, he had to adapt his positioning to remain connected to an electoral base that had become more distrustful of the traditional establishment.

This evolution is both his strength and his weakness. His strength, because he has significant experience of how Washington works, in-depth knowledge of international issues, and an ability to dialogue with several sensibilities within the party. His weakness, because he must convince two electorates sometimes hard to reconcile: Trumpist voters seeking loyalty and traditional conservative voters who value experience and institutional competence.

Originally from Florida, a strategic state for Republicans, Rubio also benefits from a particular advantage in Latin American politics. His political heritage and roots in a community highly mobilized on Cuba and Venezuela give him specific credibility on Western Hemisphere affairs. Ideologically, Rubio could represent an evolution of Trumpism towards a more structured doctrine. He shares with Trump several priorities: competition with China, criticism of certain economic dependencies, defense of American interests, and a firmer approach towards regimes considered adversaries. But he remains more attached to international alliances and the strategic use of American diplomacy. In a Rubio administration, foreign policy might therefore seek a balance between the relative withdrawal advocated by some Trump heirs and the traditional interventionism of post-Cold War Republicans.

Regarding Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be influenced by three factors: regional security, the migration issue, and the fight against the influence of rival powers in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba and Venezuela would likely occupy a central place due to their proximity to U.S. interests and their ties with Russia or China. Haiti, for its part, would be more addressed from the angle of regional stability, governance, and control of migration flows. Rubio’s challenge will therefore be to convince that he can be the candidate of a transformed Republican Party without being a prisoner of its contradictions. He must appear sufficiently close to the Trump legacy to gain the support of the base, while offering a presidential stature capable of reassuring the entire country and the United States’ international partners.

Vivek Ramaswamy

The New Technological and Generational Right

Vivek Ramaswamy embodies a different dimension of the Republican transformation: the emergence of a new generation right, stemming from the entrepreneurial and technological world, seeking to combine economic nationalism, criticism of traditional institutions, and intensive use of new media. An entrepreneur before becoming a politician, Ramaswamy made a name for himself through a particularly offensive discourse against what he considers the excessive influence of major cultural, economic, and academic institutions. His positioning echoes several themes of Trumpism: criticism of elites, opposition to cultural progressivism, defense of national sovereignty, and a willingness to break with traditional political norms.

His main advantage lies in his generational profile. Unlike a large part of the American political class coming from classical institutions, he represents a new generation of leaders who built their influence outside traditional structures. His mastery of digital platforms and his ability to communicate directly with voters correspond to the evolution of contemporary American politics. However, his lack of governmental experience also constitutes a major limitation. A presidential election requires not only an ability to mobilize an electoral base, but also credibility in state management, national security, and foreign policy.

Internationally, Ramaswamy shares several positions with the most sovereigntist wing of the Republican Party. He considers that the United States must reduce engagements deemed secondary and concentrate resources on national priorities, notably competition with China. His approach could therefore lead to a more selective foreign policy, where Washington would intervene less in peripheral crises but would seek to strengthen its economic and strategic influence in regions deemed essential.

In the Caribbean, this vision could mean prioritizing security, trade, immigration, and geopolitical competition with China. Haiti could be analyzed primarily through the prism of regional stability and migration consequences for the United States. Ramaswamy thus represents an important question for the Republican future: is the American conservative movement transitioning from a political generation dominated by former leaders towards a generation stemming from the digital economy and new forms of communication?

Kristi Noem

Territorial Conservatism and Rural America

Kristi Noem represents another important component of the modern Republican coalition: that of rural America, sparsely populated states, and voters attached to a traditional conception of public authority, individual liberty, and national identity. Governor of South Dakota, she fits the profile of a political leader capable of speaking directly to conservative voters in regions far from major urban centers. Her political image rests on defending individual liberties, reducing the role of the federal government, and valuing local communities. Her main asset is her proximity to an electoral base that still constitutes the heart of the Republican Party. She represents a cultural continuity with the electorate that brought Trump to power: rurality, social conservatism, distrust of Washington, and attachment to traditional values.

Her main difficulty, however, will be her national visibility. Unlike some other contenders with strong media or international recognition, she will have to demonstrate she possesses a stature capable of transcending her regional roots. Internationally, her approach would likely be close to pragmatic conservatism: priority to American interests, border control, and particular attention to the domestic consequences of international decisions. She could represent a more traditional wing of Trumpism, less ideological on the world stage but deeply attached to themes of sovereignty, order, and national identity.

The America of 2028 and the World: What Role for the World’s Leading Power?

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will not merely be a clash between two parties or two visions of American society. It will also be a decisive moment for the international order. Since 1945, the United States has held a unique place in the global system: dominant military power, leading technological economy, major financial center, and indispensable actor in major international institutions. Yet this position is now contested from within and without.

The fundamental question running through the 2028 campaign will therefore be this: which America do voters want to project into the world? A more cautious America, focused on its immediate national interests, wary of foreign commitments? Or an America that still considers its global influence an essential instrument of its security and prosperity? This question extends far beyond U.S. borders. It concerns Europe facing Russia, Asia facing China, the Middle East facing new power rivalries, but also the Western Hemisphere, where the Caribbean remains directly influenced by Washington’s strategic choices.

For the countries of the region, and particularly for Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Central American states, the 2028 U.S. election will therefore not be a mere foreign political event. It will be a determining factor in the migration, security, economic, and diplomatic policies that will shape the next decade.

After the Trump Era: The Redefinition of American Leadership

For nearly eight decades, U.S. foreign policy has rested on a fundamental conviction: America’s power depends on its ability to organize and influence the international order. After World War II, Washington built a system based on military alliances, economic institutions, and permanent global presence. This strategy, often called American liberal internationalism, survived political alternations. Democratic and Republican presidents could diverge on methods, but they generally shared the same idea: American withdrawal creates a vacuum that other powers immediately seek to fill.

Donald Trump’s arrival profoundly disrupted this consensus. For the first time in several generations, a U.S. president openly challenged the idea that the United States should bear the primary responsibility for world order. His “America First” doctrine asserted that international engagements should be evaluated not by their contribution to global stability, but by their direct benefit to American interests.

This rupture did not only concern international institutions. It also transformed the perception of alliances. Where previous administrations considered NATO, Asian partnerships, or relations with Western Hemisphere neighbors as power multipliers, Trump often presented them as costly arrangements requiring renegotiation.

In 2028, this transformation remains one of the great strategic debates of the Republican Party. Trump’s heirs are not all agreed on the future direction. Some want to continue the logic of selective withdrawal, considering the United States should avoid engagements that do not directly serve its security. Others believe the country risks losing its influence if it abandons its international responsibilities too quickly. This division reflects a deeper question: are the United States still willing to pay the price of global leadership?

China: The Central Strategic Rival of America

If there is a point of convergence among different American political sensibilities, it is the perception of China as the primary strategic challenge of the 21st century. Unlike debates on Russia, the Middle East, or military interventions, competition with Beijing now enjoys consensus in Washington. China represents a different threat from those encountered by the United States in the previous century. The Soviet Union was primarily a military and ideological power. China is simultaneously an industrial, technological, commercial, financial, and military power. It does not merely seek to challenge U.S. influence in a specific region; it aims to reshape the global balance.

The China question will therefore be at the heart of the 2028 election. Both Republican and Democratic candidates will have to answer several questions: should economic confrontation be prioritized? Strengthen alliances in Asia? Limit industrial dependencies? Continue cooperation on certain issues like climate and global health? For the Caribbean, this rivalry also has a particular dimension. Beijing has strengthened its economic presence in several countries in the region through investments in infrastructure, telecommunications, and trade. Washington watches this development closely, as Sino-American competition is no longer just about Asia: it is also playing out in the Western Hemisphere. The next U.S. administration will therefore have to define a strategy capable of responding to China’s rise without turning every diplomatic space into a permanent battlefield.

Russia, Ukraine, and the End of the Post-Cold War American Order

The relationship between the United States and Russia is one of the issues that most clearly reveals the internal divisions in U.S. foreign policy. Unlike China, which now enjoys relatively broad strategic consensus in Washington, Russia remains a subject of profound disagreement among different American political sensibilities.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has long considered Russia a weakened but nonetheless important power for international stability. Successive administrations have attempted to combine dialogue and firmness, seeking to integrate Moscow into an international order dominated by Western institutions while limiting its regional ambitions.

The 2022 invasion of Ukraine profoundly disrupted this approach. It marked the return of a direct confrontation between Russia and the West and placed the question of European security back at the center of U.S. strategy. For supporters of an interventionist policy, Ukraine represents a major issue: defending an attacked country, preserving the credibility of American alliances, and preventing a great power from changing borders by force.

Conversely, a growing portion of the American right considers that the United States has devoted too many resources to foreign conflicts and that Europe must assume more of its own security. This vision, notably borne by certain currents close to Trumpism, believes that the primary U.S. strategic priority should be competition with China and the reconstruction of domestic power.

This debate will be central in 2028. The Ukraine question will not merely be a foreign policy issue; it will have become a symbol of two opposing visions of the American role in the world. On one side, an America that considers its influence depends on its ability to defend its partners. On the other, an America that believes its primary duty is to protect its own interests before those of other nations.

Beyond Ukraine, this evolution poses a fundamental question: could a gradual American disengagement encourage other powers to test the limits of the international order? Or, conversely, would it allow the United States to concentrate its resources on what it considers priority challenges? The answer to this question will have consequences far beyond Europe. In a world where great powers seek to expand their influence, every region becomes a potential space for competition. The Caribbean itself is not exempt from this new reality.

The Caribbean in the New Power Competition: Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela at the Heart of the Stakes

For a long time, the Caribbean was considered by Washington as a zone of natural, almost exclusive, influence. Geographic proximity, historical ties, migration issues, and security interests made this region a particular strategic space for the United States. But this situation has changed. In the 21st century, the Caribbean is no longer just an American neighborhood. It has become a space where several influences converge: American, Chinese, Russian, European, and Latin American. Ports, digital infrastructure, natural resources, trade routes, and migration issues have transformed the region into a discreet theater of geopolitical competition.

Three countries hold a particular place in this equation: Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti. Each represents a different challenge for Washington.

Cuba remains the historical symbol of the confrontation between the United States and a communist regime located less than two hundred kilometers from American shores. Since the 1959 revolution, the relationship between Washington and Havana has oscillated between periods of confrontation and attempts at rapprochement. The Cuban question remains heavily influenced by U.S. domestic politics, notably by the electoral weight of the Cuban-American community in Florida.

In 2028, the Cuban debate could pit two approaches against each other. The first, inherited from the traditional Republican line, considers that economic and diplomatic pressure remains necessary to foster political change in Havana. The second believes an engagement strategy could better serve U.S. interests by reducing the influence of external actors like China and Russia. Venezuela represents another major issue. The political, economic, and humanitarian crisis that has marked the country for several years has transformed Caracas into a regional flashpoint. U.S. sanctions, the energy question, mass migration, and the growing presence of foreign actors have made Venezuela a strategic file.

For some U.S. officials, Venezuela is primarily a problem of regional security and democratic stability. For others, a more pragmatic approach could serve U.S. energy interests while reducing the influence of rival powers. But it is likely Haiti that represents the most complex challenge for the next U.S. administration. Unlike Cuba and Venezuela, Haiti is not perceived as an ideological adversary of the United States. Rather, it represents a multidimensional challenge combining institutional crisis, insecurity, poverty, migration, state weakness, and the growing influence of criminal networks.

The Haitian question illustrates an important evolution in U.S. policy in the Caribbean: security can no longer be separated from development. Political, economic, and social crises directly produce regional consequences, notably through migration flows and transnational threats.

In 2028, U.S. policy towards Haiti will largely depend on the strategic vision of the next president. A more interventionist administration might favor increased engagement in security and institutional reconstruction. A more nationalist administration might seek to limit direct commitments and favor targeted partnerships. In both cases, Haiti will remain a major test of the American capacity to exercise constructive influence in its immediate environment.

The Republican Contenders: The Battle for the Trump Legacy

The Republican Party of 2028 faces one of the most important questions in its recent history: how to transform Donald Trump’s legacy into a sustainable political force without depending exclusively on his personality? Since 2016, Trump has profoundly altered the party’s identity. He has shifted the Republican center of gravity toward economic nationalism, more restrictive immigration policy, criticism of international institutions, and a challenge to the old Washington consensus. But a question remains open: has Trumpism become a doctrine capable of surviving its founder, or does it remain a political movement attached to a man exceptionally capable of mobilizing an electoral base?

The 2028 Republican primary will therefore be much more than a competition among candidates. It will be a battle to define the ideological future of American conservatism. Several currents will clash.

The first is that of the direct heirs of Trumpism, who consider that the rupture initiated since 2016 must be pursued and deepened. For them, Trump did not merely win an election: he revealed a new political coalition based on the working class, rural voters, workers affected by globalization, and a portion of the middle class anxious about the country’s cultural transformations.

The second current is that of the power Republicans, who accept the populist transformation of the party but wish to preserve a more traditional vision of the American role in the world. They consider that the United States must remain a dominant power, maintain its alliances, and use its diplomatic and military influence to defend its interests.

The third current is that of the conservative renovators, who seek to retain Trump’s electoral gains while developing a discourse more capable of attracting independents, suburbanites, and younger generations.

The 2028 battle will therefore be a confrontation between several visions of America: a sovereigntist America wary of the outside, a conservative but globally engaged America, and an America seeking to move beyond the divisions of the Trump era.

J.D. Vance: The Ideological Heir of Trumpism

J.D. Vance appears as one of the most natural representatives of the new American right. His trajectory symbolizes the transformation of the Republican Party since Donald Trump’s arrival. A former critic of the Republican president, he became one of his most convinced defenders, to the point of embodying a new generation of political leaders who consider Trumpism not as an interlude, but as a historical reorientation of American conservatism. Senator from Ohio, a state emblematic of the Republican reconquest among the industrial working class, Vance has built an image as spokesman for a popular America that feels abandoned by economic, cultural, and political elites. His personal background, popularized by his book Hillbilly Elegy, gives him particular legitimacy with voters who see in his story that of a part of the country hit by deindustrialization, social crisis, and a feeling of decline.

His main advantage is his proximity to Trump’s electoral base. He masters the central themes of the movement: economic sovereignty, border control, criticism of elites, defense of traditional values, and a desire to place American interests at the center of national policy. He also benefits from the support of a new generation of conservative donors, particularly from the tech world, who wish to build a political movement different from the old economic conservatism based solely on tax cuts and deregulation.

But this proximity to the heart of Trumpism also constitutes his main challenge. A presidential election requires a broader coalition than a primary. Vance will have to convince independent voters, urban middle classes, and a portion of moderate voters who might be sensitive to his economic discourse but hesitant about his cultural conservatism. His political transformation is also a subject of debate. His opponents recall he was once a severe critic of Trump before becoming one of his most fervent defenders. His supporters reply that it is not a change of conviction, but an evolution linked to his analysis of American social transformation.

Internationally, J.D. Vance represents the wing closest to the modern isolationism of the Republican Party. He considers that the United States must avoid foreign engagements deemed costly and concentrate resources on its own economic and social priorities. This approach would challenge several decades of U.S. foreign policy based on global leadership.

Regarding the Western Hemisphere, his approach would likely favor a stricter national security logic, a reduction in foreign aid programs, and limited U.S. intervention to situations considered directly related to U.S. strategic interests. For Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this vision could mean a policy more centered on regional stability, migration, and security than on large-scale institutional transformation programs.

Marco Rubio: The Return of Internationalist Republicanism

Marco Rubio represents another possible path for the Republican Party of 2028. An experienced figure in the U.S. Senate and a major personality in Republican foreign policy, he embodies an attempt at synthesis between the economic populism that emerged with Trump and the American tradition of international leadership. His background gives him a considerable advantage. Unlike several younger contenders, Rubio knows U.S. institutions, diplomatic mechanisms, and major geopolitical balances deeply. He possesses international experience rare in a political generation more marked by domestic debates.

His roots in Florida also constitute a major strategic asset. This state has become a political laboratory of contemporary America: strong demographic growth, Latin American influence, considerable economic weight, and a central role in debates concerning Cuba, Venezuela, and the Caribbean. Rubio notably benefits from a privileged relationship with a significant portion of the Cuban-American and Venezuelan electorate, which sees the Republican Party as a bulwark against socialist regimes in the region. However, his main obstacle remains his image. A portion of the Republican base continues to see him as a representative of Washington’s old political system. His campaign will therefore have to demonstrate that he fully belongs to the post-Trump era and that he can defend a new conservative majority without returning to the Republicanism of pre-2016.

On foreign policy, Rubio represents a much more interventionist vision than that of J.D. Vance. He considers that American power rests on a network of alliances, a global presence, and the capacity to influence international events. He defends a hard line against China, traditionally supports Western alliances, and believes America must retain a driving role in the Western Hemisphere.

On Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach is more based on diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions against authoritarian regimes, and support for forces favoring a democratic transition. His vision therefore represents a stronger continuity with classical Republican foreign policy.

Ron DeSantis: The “Trump Without the Chaos”

Ron DeSantis likely represents the most structured attempt to move beyond Donald Trump’s personality while retaining a large part of his political legacy. Governor of Florida, former member of Congress, and rising figure in American conservatism, he has established himself as one of the first Republican leaders capable of transforming Trump’s popularity into a more institutional governmental doctrine. His supporters often present him as the “Trump without the chaos”: a leader who shares the major orientations of the movement—immigration control, defense of conservative values, opposition to progressive policies on cultural issues—but who intends to implement them with greater administrative discipline and institutional predictability.

His main advantage is his executive experience. Unlike several candidates from Congress or the media world, DeSantis can present a governor’s record. He can defend concrete management experience, particularly on economic, educational, and regulatory issues. In a presidential election, this dimension can be an important advantage for voters looking less for a figure of protest than a leader capable of governing. His roots in Florida also represent a strategic asset. The state has become a symbol of the new Republican coalition: traditional conservative voters, retirees, entrepreneurs, Latin American communities, and voters attracted by a discourse of low government intervention in the economy but firmness on cultural issues.

However, his trajectory also reveals several difficulties. His previous presidential candidacy showed the limits of an approach essentially based on competence and organization. Many voters considered him intelligent and prepared, but struggled to establish an emotional connection with him. Yet, the Trump era has profoundly changed the expectations of a segment of the Republican electorate: the ability to mobilize, create a political narrative, and embody a cause has become almost as important as governmental experience.

DeSantis will therefore have to solve a complex equation: remain sufficiently close to Trump to retain the movement’s base, while demonstrating he possesses his own political identity. On foreign policy, he occupies an intermediate position between J.D. Vance’s isolationism and Marco Rubio’s internationalism. He defends a policy centered on American interests, criticizes certain international engagements deemed excessive, but recognizes the importance of strategic competition with China and maintaining U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be dominated by three priorities: regional security, migration control, and protection of U.S. interests in the Caribbean. He might favor targeted cooperation with partner governments rather than a policy of large-scale political or institutional intervention.

Glenn Youngkin: The Moderate and Entrepreneurial Alternative

Glenn Youngkin represents another possibility for the Republican Party of 2028: a return to a more moderate form of conservatism, more oriented towards economic management and winning back independent voters. A former business executive turned Governor of Virginia, Youngkin built his political career by demonstrating that a Republican could still win in a politically competitive state by combining conservative economic discourse, pragmatic governance, and a cultural strategy capable of mobilizing the base without provoking mass rejection among moderate voters.

His success in Virginia attracted the attention of the Republican Party, as it showed a different path from the most confrontational Trumpism. Youngkin seeks less to embody a political revolution than to offer governmental efficiency, improvement of the education system, and a favorable environment for businesses. His main advantage is therefore his potential among voters who could be decisive in 2028: independents, suburban middle classes, educated voters, and entrepreneurs. But this position also constitutes his challenge. In a Republican primary heavily influenced by the Trump legacy, a candidate who is too moderate risks appearing insufficiently committed to the base. Youngkin will have to convince that he can defend conservative priorities without being seen as a return to pre-Trump Republicanism. His lack of national name recognition is also an obstacle. Unlike Trump, Rubio, or DeSantis, he does not yet have comparable political recognition across the country.

Internationally, Youngkin would likely defend a pragmatic approach: maintaining American leadership, supporting alliances when they serve U.S. interests, and seeking a balance between firmness and diplomacy. In the Caribbean, he might favor a policy combining security, economic development, and regional cooperation. Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be less ideological than that of other candidates, seeking more concrete results on stability, migration, and economic opportunities.

Tim Scott: Optimistic and Unifying Conservatism

Tim Scott represents another facet of the contemporary Republican Party. Senator from South Carolina and one of the few African American Republicans at the national level, he embodies a vision of conservatism based on economic opportunity, individual responsibility, and the possibility of social progress through American institutions. His personal story is his main political argument. Coming from a modest background, he presents his trajectory as a demonstration of the American model’s capacity to enable social mobility. His message stands out from the confrontational rhetoric that often dominates contemporary American politics. Scott possesses several assets. He can speak to a segment of the traditional conservative electorate, but also attempt to broaden the Republican coalition among minorities and voters seeking a less conflictual discourse. His political style, marked by optimism and dialogue, could appeal to some independents tired of permanent polarization.

However, his challenge is considerable. In a primary dominated by questions of political identity and loyalty to Trump, he will have to demonstrate he is not merely a moderate alternative, but a true heir capable of mobilizing the Republican base. Some conservatives might also consider his approach too consensual in the face of the major cultural clashes structuring part of the American political debate.

On foreign policy, Scott belongs more to the Republican internationalist tradition. He supports American alliances, considers China a strategic adversary, and defends an active U.S. presence in the Western Hemisphere. For Haiti, he has historically favored an approach combining security, development aid, and institutional cooperation. On Cuba and Venezuela, he supports a line of firmness towards authoritarian governments while recognizing the need for a sustainable diplomatic strategy.

Kristi Noem: The Voice of Rural and Cultural Conservatism

Kristi Noem represents one of the most faithful expressions of the popular conservatism that has transformed the Republican Party since Donald Trump’s arrival. Governor of South Dakota, former member of the House of Representatives, she established herself as a national figure through her opposition to government restrictions, her defense of individual liberties, and her positioning very close to the concerns of the conservative base.

Her main asset is her political identity. In a Republican Party where a significant portion of voters seeks leaders capable of embodying resistance to cultural and institutional elites, Noem appears as a candidate authentically aligned with the philosophy of the Trump movement. She speaks particularly to rural voters, religious conservatives, and those who consider Washington exerts excessive influence on citizens’ daily lives.

She also has a significant symbolic advantage: she could become one of the first women to carry the Trumpist legacy at the presidential level. In a party seeking to broaden its base among female voters while maintaining its conservative coalition, this dimension could play a strategic role. But her profile also presents important limitations. South Dakota remains a sparsely populated state, which limits her national exposure compared to governors from more competitive states. She will have to demonstrate she can transition from a policy adapted to a rural state to a vision capable of meeting the challenges of a global power.

Her other difficulty will be convincing beyond the conservative base. Her very pronounced positioning on cultural issues could strengthen her support among the most engaged Republican voters, but complicate her ability to attract independents and voters from major urban areas. On foreign policy, Kristi Noem belongs to the most cautious wing of the Republican Party. She defends an approach centered on the direct interests of the United States, a reduction of foreign engagements, and greater demands regarding the use of American resources abroad.

Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this philosophy could lead to a more restrictive policy on international aid, favoring security, the fight against irregular migration, and the protection of American interests rather than large-scale institutional assistance programs.

Other Emerging Personalities: A Competition Still Open

Beyond the most visible candidates, the Republican Party has a significant reservoir of personalities likely to alter the dynamics of the 2028 primary. American political history regularly shows that candidates considered secondary can benefit from an unexpected event, a political crisis, or a shift in public opinion to become serious contenders.

Among them is Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He represents a Republican wing very attached to American power, strategic competition with China, and assertive foreign policy. His governmental experience is a major advantage, but his highly ideological image could limit his appeal to a broader electorate.

Nikki Haley represents another path. Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she embodies a more internationalist and more institutional conservatism. Her profile—woman, minority, executive and diplomatic experience—could enable her to attract some moderate voters. However, her difficult relations with Trump and part of his base could be a major obstacle.

Tucker Carlson, for his part, represents a particular evolution of American politics: the rise of media figures capable of transforming a cultural audience into political force. Without electoral experience, he nevertheless has considerable influence among a segment of the conservative electorate. His candidacy would depend on his ability to transform media popularity into political organization.

Josh Hawley belongs to the same generation as J.D. Vance and shares several themes of the new conservative populism: criticism of major tech companies, defense of the working class, and skepticism towards certain foreign interventions. He could represent a more combative alternative within the same ideological family.

Finally, Sarah Huckabee Sanders embodies another possibility: that of an institutionalized Trumpism in feminine form. Former White House Press Secretary under Donald Trump, she benefits from strong recognition among the conservative base and a privileged political relationship with the former president.

These figures show that the Trump succession will not simply be a competition among a few favorites. It will be a battle between several visions of American conservatism.

Money, Networks, and the Invisible Battle of the Primary

A U.S. presidential election is not won on ideas or personality alone. It is also won with organization, networks, and considerable financial resources. The 2028 Republican primary will also be a competition between different political infrastructures. Super PACs, major private donors, conservative religious networks, economic groups, and media platforms will play a determining role in candidates’ ability to reach voters.

The Trump movement has profoundly changed the relationship between money and politics. For a long time, the Republican establishment rested mainly on major donors from finance, industry, and traditional business circles. The new Republican Party functions more as a hybrid coalition associating working class, technology entrepreneurs, alternative media, and activist networks. This transformation opens a new battle: who will control the political apparatus capable of replacing Trump? A candidate with a strong popular base but limited financial organization could be overtaken by a better-structured competitor. Conversely, a candidate with significant resources but unable to mobilize the Trumpist electorate could fail. The 2028 primary will therefore be a confrontation between personalities, but also between political machines.

Strategic Overview: The Six Main Paths of Trumpism’s Succession

Candidate	Political Current	Main Advantage	Main Risk
J.D. Vance	Ideological Trumpism	Loyalty to the base and doctrinal coherence	Difficulty broadening the coalition
Marco Rubio	Internationalist Republicanism	Experience and global credibility	Image of former establishment
Ron DeSantis	Institutional Trumpism	Executive experience and organization	Difficulty creating emotional connection
Glenn Youngkin	Moderate Conservatism	Ability to attract independents	Low national profile
Tim Scott	Unifying Conservatism	Positive image and broadening potential	Risk of being seen as too moderate
Kristi Noem	Rural Populist Conservatism	Strong proximity to the base	Difficulty winning urban electorate

The Battle for the Trump Legacy

Ultimately, the question of Donald Trump’s succession extends far beyond the choice of a candidate. It concerns the very nature of the Republican Party. Trump succeeded in transforming an electoral coalition into a political movement. But a movement built around a personality must always face the moment when that personality disappears or loses its influence. The candidate who wins the 2028 Republican primary will have to accomplish an almost contradictory task: be sufficiently loyal to retain the Trump legacy, but sufficiently different to demonstrate he or she can build the future. The real battle will therefore not only be for the White House. It will be to define what it means to be conservative in 21st-century America.

The Economic Challenges: Americans’ Pocketbooks at the Heart of the 2028 Battle

The economy will likely be the primary arbiter of the 2028 U.S. presidential election. Behind the great ideological confrontations, cultural debates, and international issues, the fundamental question will remain the one voters have always asked: has their standard of living improved or deteriorated? In a democracy where economic perception often plays a determining role in electoral choice, housing prices, food costs, access to healthcare, wage levels, and opportunities for new generations will weigh more heavily than abstract discourse.

The America of 2028 will inherit a decade of profound economic upheavals. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of global supply chains; the war in Ukraine accelerated energy and food tensions; rivalry with China transformed industrial policy into a national security issue; while artificial intelligence is beginning to profoundly alter the organization of work. The American economic debate will therefore not only be about growth or taxation. It will address a much broader question: what strategy will allow the United States to maintain its economic power in a world that has become more competitive, more fragmented, and more technological?

This question will be at the heart of the confrontation between the two major parties. Republicans will seek to convince that the American renaissance lies in domestic production, reducing the weight of the state, lowering taxes, and a more offensive trade policy. Democrats will defend the idea that American competitiveness will depend on public investment, education, infrastructure, the energy transition, and regulation of new strategic sectors. But beyond this partisan opposition, both camps will have to answer the same concern: how to ensure that the benefits of growth truly reach the entire population.

Inflation and the Cost of Living: The Economic Fracture Still Marking Minds

Even if inflation slows before 2028, its political impact will remain lasting. The experience of the 2020s will have profoundly marked American households, because a decrease in the rate of price increases does not mean a return to previous prices. For a large part of the population, especially the middle classes and modest workers, the dominant sentiment will remain one of a loss of purchasing power.

Housing will likely be one of the main sources of frustration. In several major urban areas, homeownership will have become more difficult for younger generations, while rents will continue to represent a significant share of income. Added to this will be healthcare costs, higher education, and essential services, which remain structural concerns of American society.

Republicans will present inflation as the result of an overly spendthrift economic policy and excessive public intervention. Their argument will be that sustainable growth can only come from a favorable environment for businesses, private investment, and domestic production. In this logic, reducing public spending, deregulation, and lowering tax burdens will be presented as necessary instruments to restore economic confidence.

However, the Republican Party of 2028 will no longer be simply the party of traditional economic conservatism. Under the influence of Trumpism, a significant part of the party will defend a more nationalist approach: protection of American industries, tariffs on certain foreign products, fight against offshoring, and priority given to American workers. This evolution represents a significant break with the old Republican consensus favorable to free trade.

Democrats, for their part, will explain that American inflation was largely influenced by international factors: global logistical disruptions, the energy crisis, geopolitical tensions, and rapid economic recovery after the pandemic. Their response will rely more on public investment, support for households, competition against monopolies, and the development of a more inclusive economy.

For the Caribbean, this American economic debate will have direct consequences. The region’s economies depend heavily on imports, international prices, and financial transfers sent by diasporas living in the United States. A stable U.S. economy fosters regional stability; a weakened U.S. economy quickly reverberates across Caribbean societies.

Public Debt: The Invisible Limit of American Power

The second major economic challenge will be public debt. For several decades, American power has rested on an exceptional ability to simultaneously finance defense, innovation, infrastructure, social programs, and its role as the world’s leading power. But the continuous accumulation of debt now raises a fundamental strategic question: how far can the United States pursue its ambitions without undertaking a profound reform of its budgetary model?

As of November 2025, federal debt outstanding had crossed the historic threshold of $38 trillion, or about 124% of GDP, before approaching $39.1 trillion in early 2026. For fiscal year 2026, the deficit is estimated at nearly $1.9 trillion, equivalent to 5.8% of GDP. Debt held by the public now represents more than 101% of GDP and, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, could reach nearly 120% by 2036 and about 175% over the next thirty years if no structural correction is undertaken. More than $8 trillion of this debt is held by foreign investors, including over $800 billion by China, while the overall weight of indebtedness now represents a theoretical burden of over $112,000 per capita.

Republicans will generally view this trajectory as a threat to national competitiveness, financial stability, and future generations. Their response will rest on gradual deficit reduction, limiting the growth of federal spending, and reforming major social programs. A large part of the party will believe American prosperity depends above all on a leaner federal state, more competitive taxation, and a private sector capable of sustainably stimulating investment and growth.

Democrats will defend a different approach. They will argue that debt must be controlled without compromising the investments essential to the United States’ future competitiveness. Their strategy will favor increasing targeted tax revenues on large corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers, while preserving spending on infrastructure, research, education, the energy transition, and cutting-edge technologies.

Beyond national considerations, this debate will have major geopolitical significance. Washington’s budgetary choices will directly determine its capacity to finance its military apparatus, alliance network, international aid, and economic and security cooperation programs. For Caribbean countries, a sustained tightening of U.S. public finances could translate into a reduction in resources allocated to regional security, development, public health, humanitarian assistance, and economic stabilization mechanisms.

Reindustrialization: Rebuilding American Productive Power

The industrial question will be one of the great symbols of American political transformation. For several decades, globalization allowed American consumers to benefit from cheaper products, but it also led to the disappearance of many manufacturing jobs in certain regions of the country. This economic fracture fueled a feeling of abandonment among part of the working class and contributed to the emergence of the economic populism championed by Donald Trump.

In 2028, the question will no longer simply be whether the United States should produce more, but how it should rebuild its industrial power in an environment dominated by competition with China. The populist wing of the Republican Party will defend a policy of economic sovereignty based on tariffs, incentives for industrial repatriation, and protection of strategic sectors. Republicans closer to business circles will, however, seek to avoid overly protectionist policies that could reduce the competitiveness of American companies.

Democrats will advocate a new industrial policy based on public investment, vocational training, modern infrastructure, and clean technologies. Their goal will be to create a new generation of industrial jobs linked to future-oriented sectors. For the Caribbean, this transformation represents both an opportunity and a risk. A U.S. strategy aimed at diversifying supply chains could strengthen partnerships with neighboring countries. But a strongly protectionist trade policy could also limit the access of certain Caribbean economies to the U.S. market.

Artificial Intelligence: The Economic Revolution Redefining Work

Artificial intelligence will likely be the most profound economic challenge of the late 2020s. Unlike previous technological revolutions, it will not only concern industrial or repetitive jobs. It will also affect skilled professions in finance, law, communication, administration, research, and certain medical sectors. The political debate will therefore center on an essential question: how to benefit from the productivity gains linked to artificial intelligence while avoiding a new explosion of inequalities?

Republicans will generally favor an approach favorable to rapid innovation. They will consider the priority must be to allow American companies to stay ahead of their Chinese competitors and avoid excessive regulation that would slow technological progress. Democrats will place greater emphasis on the need to regulate artificial intelligence to protect workers, limit abuses, and ensure better distribution of economic benefits. For them, the question will not only be technological, but social. This battle will extend far beyond U.S. borders. Dominance in artificial intelligence will become a central element of global competition between Washington and Beijing. The United States will seek to maintain its lead in semiconductors, data, digital infrastructure, and AI systems.

For the Caribbean, this transformation represents a considerable challenge. Economies dependent on remittances from diasporas could be affected if certain employment sectors in the United States undergo rapid automation. But it can also create new opportunities in digital services, technological training, and the remote economy.

The Choice Between Two Models of America’s Future

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will therefore be largely structured by a fundamental economic question: what form will American power take in the 21st century? The first model considers that the United States must regain its strength by protecting its industry, reducing external dependence, and prioritizing national interests. The second believes America’s future will depend more on innovation, investment, education, and the ability to lead new technological revolutions.

This confrontation will transcend U.S. borders. Washington’s economic choice will influence the Caribbean, Latin America, and the global economic balance. In 2028, American voters will therefore not only choose a president; they will also choose a vision of America facing the economic transformations of the century.

The Social Issues: America Facing Its Internal Fractures

Beyond economic performance and international rivalries, the 2028 U.S. presidential election will be deeply marked by social issues that touch upon the very identity of the country. Immigration, healthcare, education, justice, public safety: these subjects are not merely technical debates. They represent different visions of America’s future, the role of the state, the function of the national community, and how the United States should respond to the profound transformations of its society.

These issues are all the more important as they cut across traditional partisan lines. They pit Republicans and Democrats against each other, but they also reveal internal divisions within each camp. In 2028, voters will not only choose between two political programs; they will choose between two conceptions of the American model.

For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, these debates will have direct consequences. U.S. immigration policy, cooperation programs, health policies, or security strategies will impact millions of people linked to the United States through migration, investment, or economic exchange.

Immigration: Between Border Control and Humanitarian Responsibility

Immigration will likely remain one of the most sensitive issues of the 2028 presidential election. For several years, the migration question has become a symbol of American political divisions. For a segment of the Republican electorate, it represents a question of national sovereignty and state control. For Democrats, it also constitutes a humanitarian and economic issue requiring comprehensive reform.

In 2028, the southern border will remain at the center of the debate. Migration flows, asylum applications, and pressure on reception infrastructure will fuel criticism of successive migration policies. Republicans will likely defend a security-based approach: strengthening the border, increasing control means, limiting certain immigration pathways, and accelerating the expulsion of undocumented migrants.

Democrats will propose a different approach, more oriented towards system reform: modernizing asylum procedures, creating legal immigration pathways, regularizing certain categories of long-established migrants, and cooperating with countries of origin to reduce the root causes of departures.

For Haiti, this debate will be particularly strategic. Haitian migrants are among the populations most exposed to changes in U.S. migration policy. Many flee a combination of factors: persistent poverty, insecurity, institutional instability, and natural disasters. An exclusively restrictive policy could accentuate the vulnerability of thousands of Haitians and create new social tensions in an already fragile country. Conversely, a policy combining control, humanitarian protection, and support for development could contribute to a more sustainable approach to the migration crisis.

Healthcare: The Debate Over the American Model

The healthcare system will remain one of the great social debates of 2028. The United States has some of the most advanced medical technologies in the world, but its system remains one of the most costly and unequal among major developed economies. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the structural flaws of the American model: disparities in access to care, vulnerability of precarious populations, and dependence on private insurance. Despite progress made since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, several million Americans remain inadequately covered.

Republicans will defend a more market-oriented approach: reducing regulations, competition among insurers, patient choice, and tax incentives for individuals and businesses. Democrats will instead seek to strengthen the role of the state: extending existing coverage, increasing public aid, and possible debate around a public option or a more universal system.

For the Caribbean, the issue transcends U.S. borders. Millions of citizens from the region live in the United States and depend directly on the American healthcare system. Furthermore, several Caribbean countries benefit from U.S. health cooperation programs. A reduction in U.S. engagement could weaken some essential programs, while strengthened cooperation could further support regional health systems.

Education: Preparing the America of Tomorrow

Education will be another major battleground. The United States has some of the world’s most prestigious universities, but its education system faces considerable challenges: inequalities between schools, relative decline in academic performance, high cost of higher education, and the weight of student debt.

The university question will be particularly sensitive among young voters. Student debt, accumulated by millions of Americans, has become a symbol of the economic difficulties faced by a generation confronted with a high cost of living and more difficult access to homeownership. Republicans will generally favor an approach based on individual responsibility, competition between institutions, the development of vocational training, and a reduced federal role in education. Democrats will defend greater public investment, student aid, reducing the cost of higher education, and increased federal intervention.

For Haiti, this debate has a strategic dimension. Rebuilding a country cannot be done without human capital. Access to quality education, technical training, and university development are essential conditions for strengthening the Haitian state. A U.S. policy more oriented towards training and human development could have a lasting effect in the region.

Justice and Crime: Public Safety vs. Institutional Reform

The question of justice and public safety will also remain central in 2028. The United States continues to face complex debates around crime, the role of police, judicial reform, and social tensions related to inequality. Republicans will emphasize state authority: increased police resources, stricter penalties for criminals, and enhanced security in major cities. Democrats will favor an approach combining security and reform: improving police practices, reducing judicial inequalities, crime prevention, and reintegration programs.

This debate will have particular resonance in Haiti. The country is going through a major security crisis marked by the expansion of armed groups, the weakening of judicial institutions, and the loss of control over certain urban areas. Washington’s orientation on international security could directly influence U.S. cooperation with Haiti, notably in the areas of police training, intelligence, and institutional strengthening.

The social issues of 2028 will therefore be much more than a series of internal electoral debates. They will reveal the great question running through contemporary America: how to reconcile a more diverse, more technological, and more globalized society with the expectations of a portion of the population that demands more protection, control, and stability?

For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, this election will be decisive. Decisions made in Washington will directly influence migration, economic cooperation, regional security, and development prospects.

International Challenges: America Facing the New World Order

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will not only be a clash over domestic issues. It will also be a strategic choice on the place of the United States in a profoundly transformed world. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the international order built after World War II has been progressively challenged by the rise of new powers, the return of military rivalries, economic fragmentation, and the emergence of new fields of confrontation like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and space. The next U.S. president will have to respond to several simultaneous challenges: competition with China, the relationship with Russia, the future of Ukraine, stability in the Middle East, the role of NATO, security in the Indo-Pacific, and the transformation of global trade.

Behind these major issues lies a fundamental question: should the United States continue to play the role of the leading power of the international system, or should it favor a strategy of restraint, more centered on its immediate national interests? This question deeply divides the Republican Party. It pits a more nationalist and cautious tendency, embodied by some heirs of the “America First” current, against a more interventionist tradition attached to historical American alliances. Democrats, for their part, remain broadly favorable to active international engagement, even if debates also exist within their ranks.

For the Caribbean, this evolution will be strategic. An America more focused on major geopolitical confrontations could reduce its attention to its immediate neighborhood. Conversely, a policy that recognizes the importance of the Western Hemisphere could open a new phase of regional cooperation.

China: The Great Competition of the 21st Century

The rivalry between the United States and China will likely be the main international issue of the 2028 presidential election. This competition extends far beyond the military domain. It concerns the economy, advanced technologies, supply chains, artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and diplomatic influence.

China has considerably strengthened its global presence over recent decades. Through its investments in infrastructure, ports, technology, and natural resources, Beijing has developed growing influence in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Republicans will likely defend a firmer approach: limiting economic dependencies, controlling Chinese investments in strategic sectors, technological restrictions, and strengthening military alliances in the Indo-Pacific. Democrats will seek more of a balance between competition and cooperation. They will consider China a strategic rival, but will continue to defend the need for international coordination on certain issues like climate, global financial stability, or technological regulation.

For the Caribbean, this Sino-American duel represents a major issue. Several countries in the region have benefited from Chinese investments in infrastructure, telecommunications, or energy. Increased confrontation between Washington and Beijing could transform the Caribbean into a new space for geopolitical competition. States will then have to find a balance between their development needs and the preservation of their strategic autonomy.

For Haiti, this competition could also create opportunities, provided the country is capable of presenting a clear international partnership strategy based on its national interests.

Russia: Between Confrontation and Geopolitical Reshaping

Russia will remain another major challenge for U.S. foreign policy. The war in Ukraine has profoundly altered relations between Moscow and Washington, reviving a confrontation many thought belonged to the past. Russia remains a major nuclear power, with significant military capability and a network of influence that extends beyond its regional environment. It also seeks to strengthen its relations with several countries opposed to U.S. influence, notably in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Within the Republican Party, the Russian question is a significant fault line. A portion of the party believes the United States should limit its foreign engagements and concentrate its resources on national priorities. Another tendency considers Washington must continue to defend its alliances and prevent the expansion of rival powers. Democrats remain broadly favorable to a policy of firmness towards Moscow, considering that the defense of Ukraine contributes to preserving the international order based on certain rules.

For the Caribbean, the Russian question has a particular dimension. Moscow’s diplomatic and military presence in certain countries of the region, notably Cuba and Venezuela, reminds us that the rivalries of great powers can also reach the Caribbean space.

Ukraine: The Debate on American Engagement

The future of Ukraine will be a major test for U.S. foreign policy. After several years of war, the question will no longer be just about immediate military support, but about the overall strategy of the United States facing international conflicts. Republicans will be divided between two visions. The first considers Washington should reduce its financial involvement and encourage a diplomatic solution. The second believes abandoning Ukraine would weaken U.S. credibility with its allies. Democrats will likely continue to defend significant support for Kyiv, believing European stability and the defense of democracies depend on America’s ability to respond to foreign aggression.

For the Caribbean, the impact of this war is primarily economic. Disruptions related to energy, grains, and international markets have affected the region’s vulnerable economies. A durable resolution of the conflict could contribute to global economic stabilization, but it could also accelerate a new redistribution of international alliances.

The Middle East: Influence, Energy Security, and Regional Balance

The Middle East will remain another major dossier of U.S. foreign policy. Despite the rise of China and concerns related to the Indo-Pacific, the region remains strategic due to its energy importance, persistent conflicts, and geopolitical influence. Republicans will remain broadly favorable to strong support for Israel, a policy of firmness towards Iran, and a U.S. presence capable of containing rival powers. Democrats will seek more of a balance between support for traditional allies, defense of human rights, and pursuit of diplomatic solutions.

For the Caribbean, the Middle East may seem distant, but its consequences are real. Energy fluctuations directly affect island economies dependent on imports. Furthermore, investments from Gulf countries represent a potential source of financing for certain regional projects.

NATO and the Indo-Pacific: The Future of American Alliances

The question of alliances will be at the heart of the 2028 international debate. Since its creation, NATO has represented the main collective security instrument led by the United States. But its future is now the subject of significant discussions within the Republican Party. Some consider European allies must assume a greater share of their own defense and that the United States must reduce its permanent commitments. Others believe an American withdrawal would weaken the entire Western system and give more strategic space to Russia and China. In the Indo-Pacific, the American consensus is broader: China’s rise is pushing Washington to strengthen its partnerships with Japan, Australia, India, and other regional actors.

For the Caribbean, this strategic focus on Europe and Asia poses an essential question: will Washington continue to consider its own neighborhood a priority? A decrease in U.S. attention could leave more space to other external powers.

Global Trade, Technology, and Cybersecurity: The New Battlefields

Economic and technological issues will complement the major international debates of 2028. Global trade has entered a new phase marked by the return of protectionism, the securitization of supply chains, and competition for strategic technologies. Republicans will likely favor an approach privileging U.S. economic sovereignty: tariffs, control of foreign investments, and protection of national industries. Democrats will seek more to maintain an open trade framework governed by international rules and social protections.

Simultaneously, cybersecurity will become a central issue of national security. Cyberattacks on infrastructure, businesses, and public institutions now represent a threat comparable to traditional conflicts. For the Caribbean, these transformations present both risks and opportunities. The region’s economies depend heavily on international trade and remain vulnerable to external crises. But digital development can also offer new growth levers, notably in services, education, and innovation.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will therefore also be a referendum on the place of the United States in the world. Behind the debates on China, Russia, Ukraine, or the Middle East lies a fundamental question: should America continue to lead the international order or redefine its role around a more national approach? This decision will have consequences far beyond U.S. borders. For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, the issue will be whether Washington will still consider this region a strategic space or merely a periphery.

In a world marked by great power competition, small states can no longer simply wait for others’ decisions. They must develop their own strategies, strengthen their institutions, and transform their geographic position into a diplomatic advantage.

The Electoral Weight of the Caribbean Diaspora in 2028

The Caribbean diaspora in the United States constitutes one of the most underestimated electoral factors in contemporary American politics. For a long time, electoral analyses focused on traditional large groups—white voters in rural areas, suburbs, African Americans, unions, or urban youth—neglecting the growing role of communities from the Caribbean. Yet, these populations now represent a political force capable of influencing decisive states, particularly when electoral margins are counted in a few thousand votes.

This reality is particularly visible in Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Georgia, where significant Cuban, Haitian, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Jamaican, Dominican, and Trinidadian communities are concentrated. These groups do not form a homogeneous political bloc. Their historical trajectories, migration experiences, and concerns differ profoundly. Some remain attached to Democrats due to their history with the party’s social and migration policies. Others have moved closer to Republicans due to their opposition to socialism, security concerns, or a desire for more conservative economic policy.

The 2028 presidential election could therefore confirm a major transformation: U.S. Caribbean policy will no longer be determined solely by Washington’s strategic interests in the region, but also by the electoral weight of Caribbean communities established on U.S. soil. Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela thus become issues with a double dimension: foreign policy issues, but also subjects of domestic electoral mobilization.

Florida: The Political Center of Gravity of the American Caribbean

Florida remains the state where the electoral dimension of the Caribbean is most visible. With its thirty electoral votes, it has for decades represented a strategic territory for any presidential campaign. Its large and politically active Caribbean population makes it a veritable laboratory of American electoral transformations.

Cuban Americans have historically been the most influential Caribbean group in Florida. Concentrated mainly in Miami-Dade County, they have long been associated with the Republican Party due to their opposition to the Cuban regime and their distrust of socialist policies. This political identity, built around the experience of exile and the fight against Castroism, has deeply marked Florida politics.

However, this community is evolving. New generations born in the United States sometimes have a different relationship with the Cuban question. For a portion of young Cuban Americans, economic issues, housing, education, healthcare, and the cost of living now occupy a place as important as foreign policy towards Havana. This evolution could make their vote more competitive in 2028, even if Republicans retain a significant lead among this community.

Haitian Americans represent another essential component of the Florida electoral landscape. Settled mainly in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties, they constitute a community deeply linked to migration, humanitarian, and security issues concerning Haiti. Historically close to the Democratic Party, many Haitian Americans have mobilized around the defense of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), the question of deportations, and the political situation in their country of origin.

However, this community is not politically static. A growing portion of Haitian-American voters express concerns similar to those of other immigrant groups: security, entrepreneurship, taxation, access to housing, and economic opportunities. Candidates who manage to articulate a credible policy both on Haiti and on the daily concerns of immigrant families could alter traditional balances.

Venezuelans in Florida also represent an expanding electoral group. Their experience of the political and economic crisis in Venezuela has brought them closer to the Republican Party, notably due to the anti-socialist discourse carried by several conservative leaders. For them, U.S. policy towards Caracas is not an abstract question: it directly touches their family history, their security, and their perception of the American political model.

Finally, the Puerto Rican community occupies a particular place in this electoral recomposition. Long associated with the Democratic Party, it has experienced political evolution in recent years, notably among voters settled in Florida after the economic crises and natural disasters that affected Puerto Rico. Economic issues, the reconstruction of the island, political recognition, and family values are becoming important factors in their electoral behavior.

Thus, in 2028, Florida could be one of the states where the presidential battle is played out as much on national themes—inflation, immigration, security—as on the candidates’ ability to understand the specific realities of Caribbean communities.

New York: The Historical Heart of the Haitian Community

If Florida represents the political center of the American Caribbean, New York remains its historical and cultural heart. The metropolis is home to one of the largest Haitian communities in the United States, concentrated notably in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and certain areas of New York State.

The New York Haitian community has a long tradition of political engagement. It has played a major role in defending interests related to Haiti, mobilizing around migration issues, and the emergence of several local political leaders. Its electoral orientation remains largely Democratic, but its political behavior is more complex than simple partisan alignment. The concerns of this community extend far beyond traditional ideological boundaries. The protection of TPS, Haiti’s stability, the security of relatives back home, remittances, access to healthcare, housing, and the economic success of new generations are determining issues.

This evolution opens a political space for both parties. Democrats have a historical advantage due to their position on immigration and social programs. But Republicans could seek to gain ground by developing a discourse more centered on entrepreneurship, security, and the reconstruction of Haiti. The issue extends beyond the presidential election alone. In a state like New York, traditionally Democratic, the mobilization of the Caribbean diaspora also influences local elections, primaries, and political representation in Congress.

Massachusetts and Georgia: The New Mobilization Territories

Massachusetts constitutes another important hub of the Caribbean diaspora. The Boston area has hosted a significant Haitian community for decades, as well as Jamaican, Trinidadian, and Dominican populations. As in New York, these communities remain predominantly Democratic, but their priorities are evolving with new generations.

The economic question is progressively becoming central. The cost of housing in major American cities, access to higher education, business creation, and social mobility are now as important as traditional migration issues. Georgia represents a more recent phenomenon. Atlanta has become one of the preferred destinations for Caribbean populations, attracted by its economic dynamism, job market, and relatively more accessible cost of living. In a state that has become highly competitive since 2020, even a relatively limited electoral community can play a decisive role when results are decided by a narrow margin.

Democrats have invested heavily in mobilizing urban and immigrant minorities in Georgia. Republicans, for their part, seek to broaden their coalition by emphasizing the economy, security, and family values. The Caribbean diaspora could therefore become one of the groups courted by both camps in this new electoral battle.

Puerto Rico: An American Political Singularity

Puerto Rico holds a unique place in the relationship between the United States and the Caribbean. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but those residing on the island do not directly participate in the U.S. presidential election. However, Puerto Ricans settled on the mainland can vote and particularly influence states where their presence is significant, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, or New York.

This situation creates a democratic contradiction often debated: U.S. citizens fully participate in national political life when they live on the mainland, but do not have the same electoral power when they reside on the island. The question of Puerto Rico’s political status—U.S. statehood, independence, or maintenance of the current status—could become an issue in the 2028 campaign. Democrats are generally favorable to a clarification of status through a democratic process. Republicans are divided between those who support potential statehood and those who prefer to maintain the status quo.

For presidential candidates, Puerto Rico therefore represents both an institutional and an electoral question. How they address this issue could influence the Puerto Rican vote in several decisive states.

The American Caribbean diaspora no longer constitutes a mere cultural extension of the Caribbean region. It has become a political actor in its own right. Its influence rests not only on its numbers, but on its geographic concentration in states where every vote can count.

In 2028, presidential candidates will therefore have to understand a new reality: talking about the Caribbean no longer means only talking about diplomacy, security, or international aid. It also means talking to millions of American voters whose family histories, identities, and concerns cross borders.

For Haiti in particular, this evolution is strategic. The Haitian-American community could become a major intermediary between Washington and Port-au-Prince, provided its concerns are integrated into a broader vision of partnership, security, and development. The 2028 American electoral battle will therefore also be, in part, a battle to understand and mobilize the American Caribbean.

The Caribbean Becomes a Major Geostrategic Space Again

For several decades, the Caribbean occupied a marginal place in the United States’ international strategy. Caught in a vision inherited from the Cold War, often reduced to an American “backyard,” the region was progressively relegated behind other priorities: Middle Eastern wars, China’s rise in Asia, European tensions with Russia, or major global economic challenges. This relative strategic indifference nonetheless created a vacuum that other powers gradually sought to fill. China developed a growing economic presence through investments in infrastructure, ports, telecommunications, and energy. Russia strengthened its diplomatic and military relations with certain governments in the region. Other actors, like Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or India, also identified the Caribbean as a space of economic opportunities and influence.

The transformation of the international environment now compels Washington to review its approach. The Caribbean is no longer just a zone of geographic proximity; it has become a space where several major 21st-century issues intersect: migration, maritime security, the fight against transnational criminal networks, energy transition, climate change, and great power rivalry. This evolution is particularly important as the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches. The future occupant of the White House will have to answer a fundamental question: does the United States still consider the Caribbean a strategic periphery, or an essential component of its national security and global influence?

The answer to this question will have direct consequences for the countries of the region, notably Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, three states that occupy a central place in Washington’s geopolitical calculations. It will also determine how the United States manages its relations with other Caribbean partners, like the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Barbados, or Guyana.

Why Washington Is Rediscovering Its Caribbean Neighborhood

The return of the Caribbean to American priorities is not the result of a simple shift in political perception. It stems from a profound transformation of the regional and international environment. Several dynamics, long considered separate, now converge and place the region at the center of American strategic concerns.

Migration, organized crime, competition with China, energy security, and the consequences of climate change no longer constitute isolated issues. They form an interdependent whole that directly affects U.S. internal security and the stability of the Western Hemisphere.

Migration Pressure: A Domestic Issue That Has Become Strategic

The first reason for the Caribbean’s return to Washington’s agenda is migration. For several years, migratory movements from the region have taken on major political significance in the United States. Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans, Dominicans, and nationals of other Caribbean countries participate in complex migratory flows that combine economic factors, political crises, natural disasters, and insecurity.

For Washington, this issue now goes beyond simple border management. It touches on the American state’s ability to control its borders, define its immigration policy, and respond to the expectations of an electorate deeply divided on this issue. The Haitian crisis illustrates this evolution. The rapid deterioration of the security, economic, and institutional situation has pushed thousands of Haitian citizens to seek alternatives abroad. Some take dangerous sea routes, others cross several Latin American countries before reaching the U.S. border. This dynamic transforms a national crisis into a regional issue.

Republicans generally approach this issue from the angle of national security and border control. Their approach favors strengthening surveillance means, limiting irregular immigration, and a stricter deportation policy. Democrats place greater emphasis on the root causes of migration: poverty, political instability, climate change, and institutional weakness. They defend an approach combining border control, creation of legal migration pathways, and cooperation with countries of origin. Beyond the partisan debate, one reality remains: U.S. migration policy will increasingly depend on the stability of its Caribbean environment. As long as economic and institutional crises persist in several countries of the region, migration pressure will remain a major issue in American policy.

Drug Trafficking: A Transnational Threat

The second factor explaining renewed American interest in the Caribbean is the rise of transnational criminal networks. The region has long been a transit zone for traffics originating in South America and destined for North American and European markets. The Caribbean geography—with its thousands of islands, maritime spaces difficult to control, and proximity to major consumer markets—offers criminal organizations significant logistical possibilities. Sea routes are used for transporting narcotics, weapons, illicit capital, and, in some cases, human trafficking.

This criminality directly weakens the states concerned. It fuels corruption, weakens public institutions, and contributes to the establishment of lawless zones. Haiti today represents one of the most worrying examples of this dynamic, with armed groups capable of challenging state authority and controlling strategic territories.

For the United States, this situation represents a threat at several levels. It affects their internal security, fuels criminal networks present on their territory, and threatens the political stability of their immediate neighborhood. Republicans generally favor a more security-oriented approach: military cooperation, reinforced maritime operations, sanctions against criminal organizations, and increased support for security forces. Democrats defend a more global approach combining the fight against organized crime, institutional strengthening, economic development, and social prevention. The central debate for 2028 will therefore be less about whether to act, but rather how to act: through a primarily coercive approach or through a strategy combining security, development, and institutional reconstruction.

Sea Routes: The New Battle of Strategic Spaces

The third reason for the Caribbean’s return to American calculations concerns the maritime dimension. The region is located at the crossroads of several essential trade routes linking North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia.

The Panama Canal holds a particular place in this architecture. A veritable artery of global trade, it allows for considerably reducing distances between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Its strategic value extends far beyond the purely economic domain: it represents an essential passage point for trade, supply chains, and maritime projection.

The rise of Chinese influence around port and commercial infrastructure in the region has heightened American concerns. Washington now considers that the economic presence of a rival power in its immediate environment can have security implications. The question is therefore no longer solely commercial. It concerns control of critical infrastructure, security of logistics chains, and the balance of influences in the Western Hemisphere.

For Caribbean countries, this competition represents both an opportunity and a risk. Foreign investments can contribute to economic development, but they can also create new strategic dependencies.

Cuba: Between Revolutionary Heritage and Geopolitical Realignment

Cuba remains one of the most persistent paradoxes of the Western Hemisphere. Less than 150 kilometers from U.S. shores, the island remains both a living legacy of the Cold War and a contemporary issue of geopolitical competition. For over six decades, Washington and Havana have maintained a relationship dominated by confrontation: economic embargo, diplomatic ruptures, migration crises, and ideological clashes. Yet, behind this historical opposition lies a more complex reality: Cuba is a regional actor whose stability, or instability, directly influences Caribbean security.

In 2026, the island is going through one of the most difficult periods since the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The combination of the internal economic crisis, the decline in Venezuelan support, the tightening of U.S. sanctions, and rising social tensions places the regime before its greatest challenge in several decades. The Cuban question is therefore no longer just about the survival of a political system. It has become about its evolution in a profoundly transformed international environment.

An Economy on the Brink

The Cuban economy is going through a structural crisis. For several decades, the country benefited from Venezuelan energy support, which provided a significant portion of its oil needs. But the Venezuelan economic collapse progressively reduced this assistance, worsening the island’s energy difficulties. The decrease in fuel supplies triggered a succession of crises: power outages, partial transport paralysis, industrial slowdown, and increased difficulties for agricultural and tourism sectors.

To this internal fragility were added U.S. sanctions reinforced in recent years. Washington claims these measures aim to exert pressure on the Cuban government to obtain political and economic reforms. Cuban authorities, in turn, consider the embargo a major factor in the economic crisis. The reality is more complex. Cuba’s difficulties result from a combination of factors: inefficiency of the economic model, low productivity, excessive import dependence, demographic aging, lack of foreign investment, and constraints related to U.S. sanctions.

The social consequences are visible. Food shortages, difficulties accessing medicines, frequent power interruptions, and massive emigration have profoundly affected Cuban society. Faced with this situation, the government has begun to introduce certain economic reforms. The stated objective is to attract more investment, broaden the role of the private sector, and modernize certain economic mechanisms inherited from the traditional socialist model. But these changes remain limited. The central question remains: how far is the regime willing to go without challenging the political foundations of the system?

A Regime Facing a New Generation of Protest

The economic crisis has progressively transformed the relationship between the Cuban state and its population. For a long time, the regime was able to maintain a certain stability thanks to several factors: the memory of the revolution, the institutional organization of the Communist Party, political control, and the ability to provide certain essential social services. But this historical legitimacy has gradually eroded. A new generation of Cubans, born after the Cold War, has a different relationship with power. It judges the regime less on its revolutionary heritage than on its ability to offer economic prospects, freedom of expression, and improved living conditions.

The protests of recent years have illustrated this evolution. Demands are no longer solely ideological. They also concern daily life: access to electricity, food, wages, mobility, and economic future. The Cuban government continues to attribute a large part of the national difficulties to U.S. sanctions. But this explanation no longer suffices to meet the expectations of a population facing a prolonged crisis.

The question of political succession also remains central. Since Raúl Castro’s departure, Miguel Díaz-Canel embodies a different generation of Cuban leaders. However, his power remains limited by the weight of the Party’s historical structures and the security apparatus. Havana’s challenge is now twofold: preserve political stability while responding to a society progressively demanding more openness.

Washington Facing the Cuban Dilemma: Pressure or Engagement?

For six decades, U.S. policy towards Cuba has oscillated between two major visions. The first considers that economic and diplomatic pressure is the best means of obtaining political change. This approach, historically supported by a significant portion of the Republican current, believes any opening without Cuban concessions would strengthen the regime.

The second favors diplomatic engagement. Its defenders consider isolation has not succeeded in provoking political transformation and that a more open relationship could foster internal evolution. The Trump administration favored the first approach: reinforced sanctions, limited exchanges, and increased diplomatic pressure.

This strategy has nonetheless produced a paradoxical result. If it limited certain economic capabilities of the Cuban government, it did not lead to its collapse. It also created a diplomatic space from which other actors, notably China and Russia, have benefited. A future Democratic administration might seek to resume an opening policy similar to the one initiated under Barack Obama starting in 2014: restoration of diplomatic dialogue, relaxation of certain restrictions, and encouragement of economic reforms. But the context of 2028 will be different. Strategic competition with Beijing and Moscow will weigh more heavily in American calculations.

Cuba in the Caribbean Strategic Triangle: Historical Heritage, Internal Crisis, and New Power Balance

Cuba remains one of the most singular actors in Caribbean geopolitics. Few states in the region concentrate such historical, symbolic, and strategic weight. Since the 1959 revolution, the island has held a particular place in the international political imagination: for some, it represents one of the last vestiges of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere; for others, it constitutes an example of resistance to U.S. influence. But beyond ideological perceptions, Cuba today represents a major geopolitical issue in a Caribbean that has become a space of competition among great powers.

Within the framework of this report, Cuba constitutes one of the three vertices of the Caribbean strategic triangle formed with Haiti and Venezuela. This triangle rests not only on geographic proximity. It reflects a deeper reality: these three states hold a particular position in the political, economic, and security dynamics of the region. Cuba through its historical weight and diplomatic influence, Venezuela through its energy resources and role in international rivalries, Haiti through its demographic, migratory, and humanitarian importance.

Cuba’s position is also determined by its complex relationship with the United States. A few hundred kilometers from U.S. shores, the island remains an issue where historical memory, American electoral considerations, and regional strategic issues meet. For several decades, U.S. policy towards Havana has oscillated between two approaches: that of maximum pressure aimed at provoking internal political transformation, and that of diplomatic engagement aimed at fostering a gradual evolution of Cuban society.

As the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches, the Cuban question could enter a new phase. The issue will probably no longer be solely how to contain the influence of the Cuban government, but also how to prevent a strategic space at the heart of the Caribbean from becoming more accessible to rival powers like China and Russia.

Cuba and Venezuela: A Historical Alliance Weakened by Regional Transformations

The relationship between Cuba and Venezuela constitutes one of the major axes of contemporary Caribbean geopolitics. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Caracas and Havana have built a partnership based on political convergence, energy cooperation, and diplomatic solidarity.

Under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela became an essential economic supporter for Cuba, notably through energy agreements allowing the island to obtain oil on preferential terms. In exchange, Cuba provided significant cooperation in several sectors, notably health, education, and professional services. This relationship deeply marked the regional balance. It allowed Cuba to reduce its international isolation after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and offered Venezuela a network of ideological and diplomatic influence in several Latin American countries.

However, the Venezuelan economic crisis has considerably weakened this model. The decline in Caracas’s financial capabilities, the fall in oil production, and U.S. sanctions have reduced Venezuela’s ability to maintain the same level of economic support for Cuba. This evolution has forced Havana to seek new economic partners and diversify its international relations. China, Russia, and several European actors now occupy a growing place in Cuba’s economic survival strategy.

Cuba and Haiti: A Historical Relationship Beyond Regional Politics

The relationship between Cuba and Haiti has a particular dimension in Caribbean history. The two nations share geographic proximity, a history marked by colonial and revolutionary upheavals, and common belonging to a complex Caribbean cultural space.

In recent decades, Cuban medical cooperation has constituted one of the main elements of this relationship. Cuban doctors and professionals have participated in several health programs in Haiti, notably in community care, medical training, and the fight against certain epidemics. Beyond this cooperation, Cuba and Haiti illustrate two different trajectories in facing the challenges of postcolonial development. Cuba has maintained a strongly centralized state with significant capabilities in certain social sectors, notably health and education, while Haiti has experienced deep institutional fragility.

In the new strategic configuration of the Caribbean, the relationship between Port-au-Prince and Havana could evolve. The stabilization of Haiti, migration issues, regional security, and new U.S. policies towards the region could create space for renewed cooperation between the two countries.

The Cuban Crisis: Between System Resistance and Social Pressure

Despite its historical resilience, Cuba is today going through one of the most difficult economic periods in several decades. The combined effects of the global economic crisis, trade restrictions, the decline in tourism revenues after the pandemic, and internal structural difficulties have caused a significant deterioration in living conditions.

Shortages of essential products, energy difficulties, massive emigration, and demographic aging now constitute major challenges for the country’s future. The Cuban question cannot, however, be analyzed solely through an economic lens. The Cuban political system retains institutional mechanisms capable of maintaining a certain stability, but it faces growing pressure from a population more connected to the outside world and confronted with new economic expectations. The great question for the coming years will therefore be whether Cuba can proceed with a gradual adaptation of its model without provoking a major political rupture.

The Three Possible Trajectories for Cuba After 2028

Several scenarios can be envisioned regarding Cuba’s future. The first scenario would be one of gradual adaptation. In this hypothesis, the Cuban government would pursue certain limited economic reforms, further encourage foreign investment, and seek to improve economic efficiency without deep political transformation. This path would allow for controlled evolution of the system.

The second scenario would be one of a gradual transition. The combination of economic difficulties, generational changes, and social pressures could lead to a more significant political evolution. Such a transition could open a period of international rapprochement and economic reconstruction, but it would require extremely careful management to avoid institutional instability.

The third scenario would be one of a worsening crisis. Prolonged economic deterioration could accelerate emigration, strengthen social tensions, and create a period of political uncertainty. In this scenario, the Cuban question would become not only a domestic problem, but also a major regional issue.

Cuba and the Future of U.S. Strategy in the Caribbean

Cuba’s evolution will be an important test for the next U.S. administration. The traditional policy of confrontation has maintained pressure on the Cuban government, but it has not prevented the emergence of other international actors in the Caribbean space. China considers Cuba a strategic partner due to its geographic position and economic needs. Russia, for its part, sees in Havana a historical symbol of its ability to maintain a presence in a region long considered the American strategic space.

For Washington, the issue will therefore be to define a new approach capable of combining national security, diplomatic influence, and economic cooperation. The 21st-century Cuban question will probably no longer be only: how to limit Havana’s influence? It will also become: how to prevent a strategic vacuum at the heart of the Caribbean from being durably occupied by rival powers?

Venezuela: Oil, Political Crisis, and Great Power Rivalry in the Western Hemisphere

Venezuela holds a unique place in the geopolitics of Latin America and the Caribbean. Few countries illustrate the contradictions of the contemporary world with such force: a territory possessing the largest known oil reserves in the world, but facing one of the deepest economic and social crises in the region’s recent history; a state located strategically close to the United States, which has become a symbol of political confrontation; a country where the interests of Washington, Beijing, and Moscow now intersect.

As the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches, Venezuela will remain one of the major dossiers of U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. Its importance extends far beyond national borders. The Venezuelan situation simultaneously touches several strategic issues for Washington: energy security, regional stability, migration, competition with external powers, and the future of the Latin American political order.

For more than a decade, Venezuela has been going through a multidimensional crisis characterized by economic collapse, political polarization, institutional weakening, international sanctions, and massive human exodus. Several million Venezuelans have left their country in recent years, causing one of the most significant migration crises in the recent history of Latin America and exerting considerable pressure on neighboring countries as well as on the United States.

Venezuela therefore represents a strategic paradox. For some U.S. officials, it embodies a political challenge related to governance, democracy, and the influence of rival powers. For other analysts, it also constitutes an example of the limits of a policy based primarily on economic pressure and diplomatic isolation. The central question for Washington after 2028 will therefore be: how to favor political and economic evolution in Venezuela without provoking a new period of instability that could affect the entire Caribbean?

The Venezuelan Paradox: A Weakened Energy Power

Venezuela’s recent history is one of the most striking examples of dependence on natural resources. For several decades, oil revenues allowed the country to finance ambitious social programs, develop significant regional influence, and play a major role in Latin American politics. Under Hugo Chávez, and then Nicolás Maduro, oil became much more than an economic resource. It was used as an instrument of domestic policy, regional diplomacy, and international projection. Thanks to its energy revenues, Caracas was able to establish political alliances, support certain regional partners, and increase its influence within several Latin American organizations.

However, this excessive dependence on hydrocarbons also created great vulnerability. The fall in international oil prices, difficulties in managing the energy industry, corruption, loss of technical skills, and internal political tensions gradually weakened the national oil sector. The state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), once considered one of the world’s most important energy companies, experienced a considerable decline in its operational capabilities. Oil production fell sharply, reducing the country’s main source of revenue. This economic degradation led to major social consequences. Inflation, the decline in purchasing power, difficulties accessing essential products, infrastructure degradation, and energy supply problems have profoundly affected the population.

The Venezuelan crisis thus illustrates a reality common in states heavily dependent on natural resources: abundant wealth does not automatically guarantee sustainable development. Without solid institutions and economic diversification, resources can become a source of fragility rather than a strategic advantage.

U.S. Sanctions: Political Pressure or Factor of Economic Weakening?

U.S. policy towards Caracas is one of the most controversial subjects of Washington’s regional strategy. For several years, the United States has adopted an approach based on economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to obtain political changes in Venezuela.

Washington claims these measures aim to encourage respect for democratic processes, promote transparent elections, and exert pressure on officials accused of institutional violations or human rights abuses. Venezuelan authorities and their international partners present a different reading. They consider sanctions a form of economic pressure intended to provoke regime change and accuse Washington of using its financial influence to weaken the Venezuelan state.

The geopolitical reality is more complex. Sanctions have indeed reduced the Venezuelan government’s financial capabilities and limited its access to international markets. They have also contributed to isolating Caracas diplomatically. However, their effects on the national economy are the subject of significant debate. Several analyses emphasize that these measures have also limited foreign investment, complicated the modernization of the energy sector, and worsened certain economic difficulties directly affecting the population. This question should remain at the heart of the U.S. political debate during the 2028 presidential campaign.

Two visions will likely continue to oppose each other:

• The first will favor a policy of maximum pressure, considering any opening would weaken the U.S. ability to obtain political concessions.

• The second will defend a more pragmatic approach, believing that a strategy of economic and diplomatic engagement could reduce the influence of rival powers and favor gradual stabilization.

• Behind this debate lies a broader question: is isolation or influence the best way to defend U.S. interests in the region?

The Venezuelan Political Transition: Reconstruction or Risk of Instability?

Venezuela’s political future remains deeply uncertain. The country is still marked by a lasting confrontation between the Chavista government and a fragmented political opposition. Electoral institutions, justice, security forces, and economic structures remain at the center of this power struggle. A political transition could open a new historical period. It could favor the return of international investment, economic reconstruction, improved diplomatic relations, and Venezuela’s gradual reintegration into regional mechanisms.

A controlled political change could also have positive consequences for the migration crisis. The economic and institutional stabilization of the country would likely reduce pressure on neighboring countries and on the United States. But an ill-prepared transition would also carry considerable risks.

Venezuela has fragile institutions, a powerful security apparatus, and economic actors whose interests are linked to the current system. An abrupt rupture could provoke a struggle for control of the state, institutional fragmentation, or a new migration wave. For Washington, the strategic challenge is therefore particularly complex: encouraging political evolution without provoking the collapse of a state located at the heart of the American regional environment.

Venezuela at the Center of the Washington-Beijing-Moscow Competition

The Venezuelan crisis has transformed the country into a secondary space for global rivalry among great powers. For the United States, the Chinese and Russian presence in Venezuela represents an extension of strategic competition into the Western Hemisphere. After several decades during which Washington considered Latin America and the Caribbean its privileged sphere of influence, the arrival of new actors is progressively modifying regional balances.

China has developed an important economic relationship with Caracas, mainly around the energy sector. Beijing primarily seeks to secure its economic interests, maintain commercial partnerships, and preserve its energy supplies. Russia, for its part, has developed a more political and security-oriented relationship. Moscow has supported Caracas diplomatically and strengthened its military cooperation with the Venezuelan government. However, this foreign presence must be analyzed with nuance. China and Russia do not have the same capabilities or objectives in the region. Beijing primarily favors economics and infrastructure, while Moscow uses political and security cooperation more as an instrument of influence.

Venezuela thus illustrates a major transformation: the Caribbean and Latin America no longer constitute solely a space of American influence, but are gradually becoming a theater where several powers seek to defend their interests.

Venezuela in the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Strategic Triangle

In the new Caribbean geopolitics, Venezuela constitutes the third vertex of the strategic triangle with Cuba and Haiti. With Cuba, Caracas shares an alliance built around energy, political, and diplomatic cooperation since the beginning of the 21st century. This relationship remains one of the symbols of regional political recomposition. With Haiti, historical relations rest more on regional cooperation, Latin-Caribbean mechanisms, and diplomatic ties developed over recent decades. Even if these relations have been less structuring than those between Cuba and Venezuela, Caracas’s evolution can indirectly influence Haiti’s strategic environment.

With the United States, Venezuela represents an issue where energy, security, migration, and international competition intersect. Caracas’s evolution will therefore have significant regional consequences. Stabilization could contribute to reducing migration tensions, strengthening regional economic integration, and opening a new phase in inter-American relations. Conversely, a prolonged new crisis could increase instability and offer more space to external powers.

What Future for Caracas After 2028?

Three main scenarios can be envisioned.

• The first scenario would be a negotiated transition. A political agreement would allow gradual opening, accompanied by an improvement in international relations, a partial lifting of sanctions, and a progressive return of foreign investment.

• The second scenario would be authoritarian stabilization. The power would retain political control while implementing certain limited economic reforms to ensure the system’s survival.

• The third scenario would be a prolonged crisis. The absence of political compromise would maintain a fragile economy, prolong migration pressure, and reinforce competition among foreign powers around Venezuela.

Regardless of the scenario, one conclusion is clear: Venezuela will not be merely a Latin American issue. It will be a major test of the American ability to manage its own strategic environment. The Caribbean, long considered peripheral, has become a central space where some of the great transformations of the 21st century are unfolding.

Other Strategic Actors in the Caribbean: A Region Between Sovereignty, Vulnerabilities, and Global Competition

The Caribbean cannot be understood solely through the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela strategic triangle. While these three countries hold a central place in current geopolitical dynamics due to their history, geographic position, and particular relationship with the great powers, the Caribbean space remains a much vaster and more complex reality. The region is composed of a mosaic of states and territories whose economic, diplomatic, and security trajectories directly influence the regional balance. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Puerto Rico, as well as regional organizations like CARICOM and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), each play a specific role in this new strategic configuration. These actors share several common challenges: vulnerability to climate change, external economic dependence, migration pressure, transnational crime, energy security, and the need to preserve their autonomy in an environment marked by the return of great power competition.

The 21st-century Caribbean is therefore no longer merely a peripheral zone between North America and Latin America. It is gradually becoming a strategic space where several global dynamics converge: Sino-American rivalry, Russian repositioning, energy transition, new trade routes, and transforming diplomatic balances. In this context, every Caribbean state, regardless of size, becomes an actor whose choices can contribute to modifying the regional balance.

The Dominican Republic: Haiti’s Indispensable Neighbor and a Strategic Partner for Washington

The Dominican Republic today holds a particular place in Caribbean geopolitics. Located on the same island as Haiti, it represents both a major economic actor in the region and a central element of U.S. security concerns in the Caribbean. With a population exceeding eleven million, an economy among the most dynamic in the region, and growth sustained by tourism, industrial free zones, infrastructure, and foreign investment, Santo Domingo has become one of the most important economic hubs in the Caribbean space.

This evolution contrasts sharply with the multidimensional crisis in Haiti. The coexistence of two radically different trajectories on the same island creates a deeply asymmetric bilateral relationship, marked both by economic interdependence and recurrent political tensions. The migration issue remains the main point of friction between the two countries. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians live or work in the Dominican Republic, contributing to several essential sectors of its economy, notably agriculture, construction, and services. However, Dominican migration policies towards Haitian workers and people of Haitian descent regularly draw international criticism regarding human rights and deportation conditions.

For the United States and regional organizations, the stability of the island of Hispaniola depends largely on the ability of the two states to build a more predictable relationship, based on cooperation, border security, and shared development. The Dominican Republic thus represents an important strategic partner for Washington. Its economic stability, diplomatic positioning, and regional role make it an actor whose decisions will have a direct influence on Haiti’s future and the overall balance of the Caribbean.

Jamaica: The Diplomatic Voice of the Anglophone Caribbean

Jamaica remains one of the most influential countries in the Anglophone Caribbean. Its importance rests not only on its population or economy, but also on its historical heritage, cultural influence, and regional diplomatic role. A major member of CARICOM, Kingston has traditionally played a mediating role in regional affairs. The country maintains close relations with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, while seeking to preserve a margin of diplomatic autonomy.

Its economy relies primarily on tourism, services, mining exports (notably bauxite), as well as financial transfers from its diaspora. However, like several Caribbean countries, Jamaica faces significant challenges. Organized crime, violence linked to criminal networks, social inequalities, and climate vulnerability are major obstacles to its sustainable development. Regional security has become a growing priority for Kingston. The circulation of arms, drug trafficking, and the expansion of transnational criminal networks now represent threats that extend far beyond national borders.

Jamaica also plays an important role in the Haitian question. Its involvement in regional stabilization initiatives reflects a desire to preserve the collective security of the Caribbean while maintaining a balanced approach between regional solidarity and strategic interests. In a region where small states seek to strengthen their collective influence vis-à-vis the great powers, Jamaica should continue to play a major diplomatic role.

Guyana: The New Energy Power of the Wider Caribbean

Guyana likely represents one of the most spectacular geopolitical changes in the region in the 21st century. Long considered one of the poorest countries in South America, this English-speaking state is now undergoing a historic transformation thanks to its immense offshore oil discoveries.

The exploitation of these resources has profoundly modified its economic prospects. Guyana has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, attracting the attention of the United States, China, Europe, and major international investors. This new energy wealth offers the country an exceptional development opportunity. It could allow for the modernization of infrastructure, improvement of public services, and deep economic transformation.

However, international experience also recalls the risks associated with excessive dependence on natural resources. Georgetown’s challenge will be to avoid the “resource curse” by transforming its oil revenues into sustainable development. To this economic dimension is added a major geopolitical issue: the territorial dispute with Venezuela over Essequibo, a resource-rich region claimed by Caracas.

This conflict now goes beyond the simple border issue. It has become a strategic dossier directly involving the great powers. The United States has strengthened its cooperation with Georgetown, while Venezuela seeks to maintain its historical claims. Guyana has thus become a new space where energy, regional security, and international competition intersect.

Suriname: Between Energy Potential and the Need for Economic Diversification

Located between Guyana and French Guiana, Suriname holds a particular position in the geopolitics of the wider Caribbean. A small multicultural state of about 600,000 inhabitants, it possesses significant natural resources, notably in the mining and energy sectors, which could profoundly transform its economic future.

Like neighboring Guyana, offshore oil discoveries are opening new development prospects. They could allow the country to attract more foreign investment, modernize its infrastructure, and increase its regional economic weight. However, the experience of other producer countries reminds us that the discovery of natural resources is not automatically a guarantee of development. The real challenge for Paramaribo will be to transform this potential wealth into sustainable growth, improved living standards, and strengthened institutional capacities.

Suriname must also avoid excessive dependence on hydrocarbons. In a global context marked by the energy transition, producer countries must now prepare for the future beyond oil and gas. Economic diversification, education, infrastructure, and technological innovation will become essential factors of national sovereignty. Diplomatically, Suriname seeks to maintain a balance between its traditional partners and the new powers showing growing interest in the region. Like several small Caribbean states, it attempts to benefit from international competition while preserving its strategic autonomy.

Trinidad and Tobago: The Energy Giant of the Caribbean

Trinidad and Tobago holds a particularly strategic place in the Caribbean space. Thanks to its natural gas resources, developed petrochemical industry, and level of industrialization above the regional average, the country has for decades been one of the main economic engines of the Caribbean. Its geographic proximity to Venezuela also reinforces its strategic importance. Located at the crossroads of South America and the insular Caribbean, the archipelago has particular value in energy, commercial, and security matters.

Port of Spain plays an important role within CARICOM and traditionally seeks to maintain regional influence based on its economic and diplomatic weight. The country also participates in discussions concerning regional energy security, notably in a context where global markets are undergoing profound transformations. However, like several hydrocarbon-producing economies, Trinidad and Tobago faces a major challenge: preparing for the post-oil era. The global energy transition, the evolution of international markets, and the rise of renewable energies compel the country to accelerate its economic diversification. Its future will depend on its ability to transform its current energy revenues into investments in future-oriented sectors: technology, modern industry, the digital economy, and human capital. In the new Caribbean geopolitical competition, Trinidad and Tobago thus represents an essential actor both as an energy power and as a potential strategic partner for the great powers.

Puerto Rico: The American Exception at the Heart of the Caribbean

Puerto Rico holds a unique position in the regional geopolitical balance. A U.S. territory since 1898, the island represents a particular institutional situation: its inhabitants possess U.S. citizenship, but Puerto Rico residents do not participate in the U.S. presidential election through popular vote and do not have representatives with full voting rights in Congress. This situation has been a major political debate for several decades around three main options: maintaining the current status, attaining U.S. statehood, or independence.

The Puerto Rican question could regain particular importance in the context of the 2028 U.S. election, notably due to the growing weight of the Puerto Rican community in several strategic American states, including Florida. But beyond U.S. domestic politics, Puerto Rico has major geopolitical importance. Its geographic position in the center of the Caribbean makes it an important element of the U.S. economic, military, and diplomatic apparatus in the region.

The island also represents a privileged observation point for regional transformations: migration, maritime security, transnational trafficking, relations with Cuba and Venezuela, as well as competition among great powers. Thus, Puerto Rico illustrates a fundamental reality of the contemporary Caribbean: political boundaries do not always correspond to strategic realities. Although legally linked to the United States, its future remains deeply connected to Caribbean regional dynamics.

CARICOM and the OECS: Towards a Collective Diplomacy of Small States

Faced with the rise of international rivalries, Caribbean states are seeking to strengthen their collective capacity for action. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) today constitutes the central political and economic organization of the region. It represents an essential coordination mechanism in the areas of trade, diplomacy, security, and development.

The importance of CARICOM now goes beyond mere economic cooperation. In an international environment marked by competition among great powers, it becomes an instrument allowing small states to collectively defend their interests. The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) plays a similar role for the small island states of the Eastern Caribbean. These countries, often particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and economic constraints, seek to strengthen their collective voice on the international stage.

Their common priorities are now clearly identified: climate adaptation, access to international finance, regional security, sustainable development, energy transition, and reform of international institutions. The Haitian crisis has also reinforced the diplomatic importance of these organizations. Haiti’s stability has gradually become a collective issue for the entire Caribbean, as its instability affects migration, maritime security, economic exchanges, and the regional political balance. However, Caribbean organizations still face a major difficulty: transforming their collective weight into genuine strategic capacity. Their influence will depend on their ability to overcome national divisions and build a common vision in the face of the great powers.

Panama: The Strategic Corridor Between Two Oceans

Although not an insular Caribbean state, Panama holds an essential place in the geopolitics of the wider Caribbean. Its canal is one of the world’s most important maritime infrastructures. Connecting the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, it plays a major role in international trade and the organization of global logistics chains. Approximately 5% of world maritime trade transits through this strategic infrastructure, which explains the particular attention given to it by the great powers.

But the Panama Canal faces several challenges today. Climate change is a growing threat, notably due to drought periods that reduce the water reserves necessary for lock operation. Simultaneously, the canal has become a symbol of competition between Washington and Beijing. China’s economic presence in certain Panamanian port infrastructures is observed closely by the United States, which considers this area essential to its economic and strategic security.

For Beijing, Panama represents an important point in global trade networks. For Washington, it remains a historical space where the question of external influence is of particular importance. Panama thus illustrates a major transformation of contemporary geopolitics: civil infrastructure is no longer only an economic tool. It is also becoming an instrument of power.

A Caribbean That Has Become a Global Strategic Space

The 21st-century Caribbean can no longer be considered a simple collection of islands dependent on the great powers. It has become a strategic space where several major dynamics converge: competition between Washington and Beijing, Moscow’s political return, energy transition, new trade routes, migration issues, and climate challenges. The diversity of national trajectories shows, however, that the regional future will not be determined solely by the great powers. It will also depend on the ability of Caribbean states to transform their resources, geographic positions, and alliances into genuine national strategies.

The new strategic question for the Caribbean is therefore no longer only which power will exert the greatest influence. It is rather to determine whether the states of the region will know how to use current international competition to strengthen their collective sovereignty, accelerate their development, and become themselves actors capable of weighing in on the emerging world order. The Caribbean is no longer a periphery of the international system. It is progressively becoming one of the spaces where a significant part of the geopolitical recomposition of the 21st century is playing out.

China in the Caribbean: The Economic Power Transforming the Regional Order

The rise of China in the Caribbean constitutes one of the most significant geopolitical changes of the early 21st century. For a large part of the previous century, the region was considered a space falling almost exclusively within the strategic influence of the United States. Geographic proximity, economic ties, migratory relations, and the historical legacy of the Monroe Doctrine had helped maintain a dominant American presence in regional affairs.

This reality has, however, begun to evolve with the emergence of China as a global power. Unlike Russia, whose presence in the Caribbean rests mainly on political, military, and symbolic considerations, Beijing is developing a much broader strategy, based on economic investment, trade, infrastructure, technology, diplomacy, and institutional cooperation. China is not necessarily seeking to establish a direct confrontation with Washington in the Western Hemisphere. Its strategy relies more on a logic of progressive influence: creating economic dependencies, strengthening diplomatic partnerships, and participating in the strategic sectors that will determine the region’s economic future.

The Caribbean represents for Beijing a limited space economically, but considerable geopolitically. Its position at the heart of the American hemisphere, close to the world’s major trade and energy routes, gives it particular strategic value in the global competition among great powers.

The Chinese Strategic Logic in the Caribbean

China’s presence in the region responds to several complementary objectives:

• The first objective is economic. China seeks to develop new markets for its companies, secure its supply chains, and participate in major infrastructure projects necessary for the development of Caribbean economies. In several countries of the region, infrastructure needs remain considerable: port modernization, energy networks, telecommunications, transport, housing, and public facilities.

• The second objective is diplomatic. The Caribbean has particular importance in international institutions due to the number of sovereign states it represents at the United Nations. Beijing therefore seeks to strengthen its relations with these countries to increase its diplomatic influence and progressively reduce the international space still occupied by Taiwan with certain Caribbean states.

• The third objective is strategic. China’s presence in a region historically considered the United States’ privileged sphere of influence is also a means of affirming the global dimension of Chinese power. Even without seeking a military presence comparable to Washington’s, Beijing wishes to demonstrate that no region of the world can henceforth be considered as belonging exclusively to a single power.

Infrastructure: The New Instrument of Power

One of the central elements of Chinese strategy relies on infrastructure. In several Caribbean countries, difficulties in accessing international financing have created a space favorable to Chinese investment. Beijing often offers rapid, visible projects directly linked to the immediate economic needs of partner governments. This approach appeals to several states seeking concrete solutions to improve their infrastructure and accelerate their development.

However, this presence also raises strategic questions. Modern infrastructure is no longer merely an economic tool. Ports, digital networks, power plants, or communication systems can also become instruments of political and strategic influence. It is precisely this dimension that concerns Washington. U.S. officials consider that certain Chinese investments could, in the long term, offer Beijing an additional capacity for economic, technological, or informational influence in a region located in the immediate vicinity of U.S. territory.

However, a balanced analysis also requires recognizing that China’s expansion partly responds to a reality created by the unmet needs of Caribbean states. When traditional partners do not offer sufficient investment or suitable solutions, regional governments naturally seek other alternatives.

The Panama Canal: An Infrastructure at the Heart of Global Competition

Panama holds a particular place in this new geopolitical competition. The Panama Canal remains one of the world’s most important maritime infrastructures. Connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, it constitutes an essential passage for international trade and a major element of global logistics chains. China’s economic presence around Panamanian port infrastructure has therefore acquired significant strategic importance. For Beijing, participating in Panama’s logistical development represents an opportunity for further integration into major international trade networks.

For Washington, this presence is much more sensitive. The canal has particular historical and strategic value in American memory. The United States built it at the beginning of the 20th century and administered it for several decades before its final transfer to Panama in 1999. The central question is therefore not solely economic. It also touches on the ability of a rival power to develop influence around an infrastructure considered essential to U.S. economic and strategic security.

The Panama Canal thus illustrates a major transformation of the 21st century: civil infrastructure is progressively becoming an instrument of geopolitical power.

China, Cuba, and Venezuela: A Strategy with States Under U.S. Pressure

China has also strengthened its relations with certain Caribbean states that have faced tensions with Washington for several decades, notably Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba represents a symbolically important partner. Since the 1959 Cuban revolution, the island remains one of the most sensitive issues in relations between the United States and the Caribbean. Faced with U.S. economic restrictions, Havana has long sought to diversify its international partners.

China has progressively developed cooperation with Cuba in several sectors, notably trade, energy, telecommunications, and certain infrastructures. For Havana, this relationship constitutes a source of economic support and a means of reducing its international isolation. For Beijing, Cuba also has particular political value. Its geographic proximity to the United States and its diplomatic history make it a partner whose importance extends far beyond the economic dimension.

Venezuela represents another major pillar of Chinese strategy. Before the worsening of its economic crisis, Caracas had become one of Beijing’s main energy partners in Latin America. China had granted significant financing to Venezuela and developed deep cooperation in the oil sector. After the imposition of U.S. sanctions, Beijing became an essential actor allowing Venezuela to maintain certain international economic relations. This situation illustrates an important characteristic of Chinese strategy: taking advantage of periods of crisis to gradually strengthen its influence.

The Technological Battle: Telecommunications, Digital Sovereignty, and the New Infrastructure Competition

Beyond physical investments, the competition between China and the United States in the Caribbean is progressively moving towards another strategic field: technology. The digital transformation of Caribbean economies creates new needs in connectivity, cybersecurity, data storage, and digital infrastructure. Chinese companies have sought to participate in this transformation by offering solutions in telecommunications, digital networks, and technological equipment. For several Caribbean states, these partnerships represent an opportunity to accelerate their digital modernization in a context where national financial resources remain limited.

But this technological dimension extends far beyond the commercial question. In a world where data, communication networks, and digital infrastructure become essential elements of national sovereignty, the choice of a technology provider also constitutes a strategic decision. Washington thus considers that the presence of Chinese companies in certain sensitive sectors could have implications for security, data protection, and the capacity for external influence. The question is therefore no longer only who builds digital infrastructure, but also who controls the technologies that will enable Caribbean societies to function in the 21st-century economy.

This technological competition should become one of the main axes of indirect confrontation between Beijing and Washington in the coming years. For Caribbean states, the challenge will be to benefit from the opportunities offered by the digital transformation while preserving their strategic autonomy.

The Limits of China’s Strategy in the Caribbean

Despite its rapid expansion, China’s influence in the Caribbean remains confronted with several important limits. The first limit concerns the historical depth of relations. The United States has a structural advantage in the region related to its geographic proximity, economic ties, diasporic communities, and cultural influence. This historical presence cannot be rapidly replaced by an external power.

The second limit concerns local perception. While Chinese investments are often welcomed by governments seeking alternative financing, certain questions also arise regarding contract transparency, project financial conditions, local labor participation, and risks of excessive debt.

The third limit lies in the desire of Caribbean states to preserve their autonomy. The majority of governments in the region do not wish to substitute American dependence for Chinese dependence. Their objective is rather to benefit from competition among great powers to obtain more investment, partnerships, and diplomatic space. The new Caribbean geopolitical reality therefore rests less on replacing one influence with another than on the emergence of a multipolar environment in which small states seek to maximize their interests.

China and the 2028 U.S. Election: What New Influence Model for Washington?

The rise of Chinese influence in the Caribbean should become an important subject of the American strategic debate during the 2028 presidential election. The fundamental question for Washington will be: how to preserve its historical influence in the region without pushing Caribbean states further towards alternative partners?

A policy based solely on confrontation could strengthen China’s attractiveness to governments wishing to diversify their international relations. Conversely, a purely defensive approach could allow Beijing to gradually consolidate its economic and diplomatic positions. The real challenge for the United States will therefore be to propose a more ambitious regional strategy, combining security, economic development, energy cooperation, digital transition, and support for democratic institutions.

The competition with China will likely not be won solely through diplomatic or military pressure. It will also depend on America’s ability to demonstrate that its partnership with the Caribbean remains more advantageous, more sustainable, and more respectful of the aspirations of local populations.

China, an Indispensable Power in the New Caribbean

China has become an indispensable actor in Caribbean geopolitics. Its power rests not primarily on a military presence, but on its ability to finance, build, invest, and develop long-term political relations. Its objective is not necessarily to provoke a direct confrontation with the United States in the Western Hemisphere. Its strategy consists rather of gradually transforming a space historically dominated by Washington into a region where several powers can now exercise influence.

For Caribbean states, this evolution represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The arrival of new partners can offer more economic possibilities, but it also exposes the region to the strategic rivalries of the great powers. The central question for the coming years will therefore not simply be which power will dominate the Caribbean, but rather whether the states of the region will be capable of using this new competition to strengthen their sovereignty, development, and collective decision-making capacity.

Russia in the Caribbean: The Return of a Strategic Power in the American Space

Unlike China, whose influence rests mainly on economic power, Russia’s presence in the Caribbean remains essentially political, diplomatic, and security-oriented. Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow had considerably reduced its engagement in the region, gradually allowing the United States to regain a dominant position in its immediate strategic environment.

This period of relative withdrawal has, however, begun to evolve in recent years. Russia has progressively reactivated its relations with several historical partners, mainly Cuba and Venezuela, in a logic that combines Soviet heritage, international projection, and a desire to demonstrate that Moscow retains a capacity for action beyond its immediate regional environment.

Russia’s presence in the Caribbean obviously does not represent a threat comparable to that posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow does not have the same economic resources or the same global alliance network. However, its influence has important symbolic value: it reminds us that the Caribbean is no longer a space exclusively controlled by Washington. For the United States, the Russian question in the region therefore concerns not only Moscow’s military capability. It also touches on diplomatic competition, American international credibility, and Washington’s ability to maintain its influence in its own strategic environment.

The Soviet Legacy: Cuba and the Memory of the Cold War

The relationship between Moscow and Havana remains the historical symbol of Russia’s presence in the Caribbean. After the 1959 Cuban revolution, the Soviet Union became Cuba’s main economic, military, and political partner. For several decades, the island held an exceptional place in Soviet strategy due to its geographic proximity to the United States. The 1962 missile crisis represented the most spectacular moment of this confrontation. For the first time in modern history, the rivalry between two superpowers risked provoking a direct nuclear confrontation.

After the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the Russo-Cuban relationship lost some of its intensity. However, it never completely disappeared. The gradual rapprochement between Moscow and Havana in recent years fits into a historical logic: maintaining a political presence in a region that retains strong symbolic value vis-à-vis the United States. For Cuba, Russia represents a partner allowing it to diversify its international relations. For Moscow, Cuba remains a strategic actor whose importance extends far beyond its geographic size.

Venezuela: Russia’s Main Strategic Partner in the Caribbean

Venezuela today constitutes the second pillar of Russia’s presence in the Caribbean, after Cuba. Since Hugo Chávez came to power in the early 2000s, Caracas and Moscow have progressively built a relationship based on military cooperation, energy exchanges, economic partnerships, and diplomatic rapprochement marked by common opposition to U.S. influence.

This relationship developed in a context of rising tensions between Venezuela and the United States. For Caracas, the partnership with Moscow represented a way to diversify its international alliances and reduce its historical dependence on Washington in strategic and security areas. For Russia, Venezuela constituted an opportunity to maintain a political presence in the Western Hemisphere and demonstrate that Moscow retained a capacity for action in a region traditionally considered to fall under U.S. influence.

Military cooperation has been one of the most visible aspects of this relationship. Russia has provided Venezuela with various defense equipment, including military aircraft, air defense systems, and surveillance technologies. These exchanges have strengthened Venezuelan military capabilities while giving Moscow an additional means of maintaining a strategic relationship with Caracas.

However, this cooperation must be analyzed with nuance. Venezuela has not become a Russian military base comparable to U.S. installations present in different regions of the world. The Russo-Venezuelan relationship rests more on political cooperation, diplomacy, and strategic symbolism than on a permanent military capability.

A Military Presence with High Symbolic Value

The military dimension nonetheless remains an important element of Russia’s strategy in the Caribbean. Moscow has regularly sought to demonstrate its capacity for international projection through naval visits, military exercises, or cooperation initiatives with its regional partners. These actions have a significance that goes beyond their operational dimension. They constitute above all political messages addressed to Washington: Russia wishes to show that it retains the capacity to act in spaces historically considered close to the United States.

However, an essential distinction must be made between symbolic presence and real strategic capability. Unlike the Soviet period, present-day Russia does not have in the Caribbean a military apparatus comparable to that which the Soviet Union possessed during the Cold War. Its economic resources are more limited, its projection capabilities are concentrated on other international priorities, and its military engagement remains constrained by its own geopolitical challenges.

Russia’s influence in the region therefore rests less on material domination than on its ability to exploit existing tensions, maintain political partnerships, and offer a diplomatic alternative to governments wishing to reduce their dependence on Washington.

Russia and Anti-Sanctions Diplomacy: Exploiting Regional Frustrations

One of Russia’s main instruments of influence in the Caribbean is its opposition to U.S. sanctions policies, particularly towards Cuba and Venezuela. Russia regularly presents these measures as instruments of political pressure that limit the economic sovereignty of the states concerned. This discourse finds some echo among several governments and regional actors who consider that international sanctions can have significant social consequences on civilian populations.

In this perspective, Moscow seeks to appear as a defender of an international order based on national sovereignty and non-interference. This strategy allows it to strengthen its relations with certain states that wish to diversify their international partnerships and avoid exclusive dependence on Western powers. However, Russian influence also remains limited by a major economic reality. Unlike China, Moscow does not possess the financial capacity necessary to propose massive investment or development programs in the region. Russia can offer political, security, and diplomatic support, but it does not have the same economic means to durably transform regional structures.

The Limits of Russian Influence in the Caribbean

Despite its strategic return to the region, Russia remains confronted with several important constraints.

• The first is economic. Russian power rests mainly on its energy, military, and diplomatic capabilities. It does not have the same financial weight as China to finance major infrastructure projects or support the economic development of Caribbean states.

• The second limit is diplomatic. The majority of Caribbean countries have deep economic relations with the United States and do not wish to transform the region into a zone of confrontation between great powers.

• The third limit is geopolitical. Moscow’s international priorities are multiple, notably in Europe and other strategic spaces. The Caribbean constitutes an important area of interest, but it does not represent the main center of Russian global strategy.

Thus, Russia can influence certain regional issues, but it does not currently have the means to single-handedly alter the strategic balance of the Caribbean.

The Russo-American Rivalry in the Caribbean: A New Form of Competition

For Washington, Russia’s presence in the Caribbean represents less a direct military threat than a challenge of influence. The American objective is mainly to prevent a rival power from using the region as a political, diplomatic, or strategic platform against American interests. This situation recalls certain elements of the Cold War, but the current context is different. Contemporary competition is less ideological than in the 20th century. It concerns more diplomatic influence, access to resources, economic partnerships, technology, and the ability to influence states’ strategic choices.

The Caribbean thus becomes a space where the great powers seek less to directly control territories than to influence governments’ decisions. For the small Caribbean states, this new reality represents a major challenge. Their objective will be to avoid becoming mere instruments in a rivalry that exceeds their own national interests.

Russia and the 2028 U.S. Election: What Strategic Choice for Washington?

The Russian question could become an important element of the American strategic debate during the 2028 presidential election. Three broad orientations could emerge:

• The first approach would consist of increasing pressure on Moscow’s partners in the region. According to this vision, Cuba and Venezuela must be isolated to limit Russia’s ability to develop its influence in the Western Hemisphere. This strategy would favor economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and support for political forces favorable to a rapprochement with Washington.

• The second approach would advocate a different strategy of influence. According to this perspective, sanctions alone are not enough to reduce Russian influence. The United States should rather propose a more attractive regional alternative based on economic cooperation, investment, energy partnerships, and a renewed diplomatic approach. The objective would be to reduce the political space available to Moscow by strengthening the attractiveness of the American partnership.

• The third question will concern the risk of a new militarization of the Caribbean. Increased confrontation between Washington and Moscow could transform the region into a space of permanent strategic tension. For Caribbean states, the danger would be to become indirect actors in a rivalry between great powers whose consequences could far exceed their own interests.

Russia: A Power Returning, But Not a Dominant Power

Russia has become a visible actor again in the Caribbean, but its influence remains profoundly different from that exerted by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow is not seeking today to rebuild a global ideological bloc comparable to that of the past. Its strategy consists rather of demonstrating that it retains a capacity for international action and that no strategic region can be considered exclusively reserved for a single power.

Its influence rests mainly on a few key partners, notably Cuba and Venezuela, as well as its ability to exploit existing tensions between certain regional governments and Washington. However, Russia neither possesses the economic resources nor the alliance network necessary to become the dominant power in the Caribbean. It nevertheless represents an important strategic factor. Its presence forces the United States to rethink its regional policy and confirms a fundamental transformation: the Caribbean is no longer merely a space of historical American influence, but a theater where the major dynamics of global competition now meet.

Other International Actors in the Caribbean: A Region Becoming a Multipolar Diplomatic Space

Competition in the Caribbean is no longer limited to the face-off between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. Other international actors are now seeking to strengthen their presence in a region whose strategic importance is growing: the European Union, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers. Their objectives are different. Some prioritize trade and development, others energy security, diplomatic cooperation, or access to emerging markets. This multiplication of actors offers new opportunities to Caribbean states. But it also creates a more complex environment, where small states must navigate between several influences without losing their strategic autonomy.

The European Union: The Partner of Development and International Norms

The European Union remains one of the most important historical partners of the Caribbean. Its influence rests less on military power than on three main instruments: economic cooperation, development aid, and trade relations. Through its cooperation programs, Brussels finances projects related to the energy transition, climate adaptation, institutional governance, education, health, and economic resilience. The European Union also shares with several Caribbean states a political proximity based on the defense of multilateralism, human rights, and the rule of law. In the Haitian dossier, it remains a major actor of international support, notably in the humanitarian, institutional, and security fields.

The Limits of Europe

Despite its considerable economic weight, the European Union suffers from a strategic handicap: it does not have the same projection capability as the United States or the same speed of action as China. Its financing procedures are often longer and more complex. In an environment where Beijing quickly proposes visible infrastructure and Washington favors security partnerships, Europe must find a new method to maintain its influence. Its challenge is to transform its economic power into genuine geopolitical influence.

Canada: An Engaged Middle Power

Canada holds a particular place in the Caribbean. Its influence rests mainly on historical ties with English-speaking countries, development cooperation, multilateral diplomacy, and the presence of large Caribbean diasporas. Ottawa also plays an important role in regional security issues, notably in Haiti. Canada is often perceived as a less interventionist actor than the United States, which sometimes allows it to maintain a capacity for dialogue with different governments.

The Canadian Challenge

Canada has a positive image in the region, but its means remain limited. Faced with China’s rise and U.S. weight, Ottawa must define a more ambitious strategy if it wishes to retain significant influence. Its main advantage remains the political trust it inspires among many regional partners.

Brazil: The Return of a Latin American Power

Brazil represents a natural actor of the wider Caribbean due to its demographic, economic, and diplomatic weight. The leading economy in Latin America, it has historically sought to play a role of regional leadership. Its influence rests on South-South cooperation, trade, multilateral diplomacy, and development programs. Brazil also has particular experience in relations with Haiti, notably through its past participation in international stabilization operations.

Brazilian Ambitions

Brasilia seeks to defend a vision of a multipolar world where countries of the Global South have greater autonomy. This approach can bring Brazil closer to certain Caribbean states wishing to reduce their dependence on traditional great powers. However, its investment capabilities remain inferior to those of China or the United States.

Mexico: A Regional Power Under Construction

Mexico holds a strategic position between North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. Its geographic proximity to the United States gives it particular importance in migration, trade, and security matters. Mexico maintains important relations with several Caribbean states and seeks to strengthen its diplomatic role. Its regional priorities notably concern energy cooperation, migration management, the fight against criminal networks, and economic integration.

The Mexican Dilemma

Mexico must constantly balance two realities: its indispensable economic partnership with the United States and its desire to affirm Latin American diplomatic autonomy. This intermediate position sometimes limits its influence, but also gives it a mediation capacity.

India: An Emerging Power Seeking Opportunities

India is beginning to strengthen its presence in the Caribbean. Its strategy rests mainly on trade, digital technologies, energy cooperation, and historical ties with certain communities of Indian origin. New Delhi also seeks to broaden its influence within the framework of its global competition with China. The Caribbean represents for India a space where it can develop a diplomatic presence without direct confrontation with established great powers.

Still Limited Influence

India has significant potential, but its presence remains modest compared to that of China. Its challenge will be to transform its diplomatic relations into concrete economic partnerships.

Turkey: An Expansion Diplomacy

Turkey has developed a more active diplomacy in recent years in regions traditionally dominated by other powers. In the Caribbean, Ankara seeks to develop trade, investment, diplomatic relations, and humanitarian cooperation. This strategy is part of a broader desire to become an independent global actor. However, its regional influence remains limited.

The Gulf Powers: Investments and Strategic Diversification

The Gulf countries, notably the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, are showing growing interest in the Caribbean. Their objectives are primarily economic: infrastructure, energy, tourism, logistics, and financial investments. These states have considerable resources they seek to invest in new markets.

The Gulf Model

Unlike traditional powers, the Gulf monarchies generally favor a pragmatic economic approach. They seek less to export a political model than to establish commercial partnerships. This approach can be attractive to several Caribbean governments seeking investments without strong ideological conditions.

The New Reality: A Multipolar Caribbean

The arrival of new actors is profoundly transforming the region. For a long time, the central question was: What was the relationship between each Caribbean country and the United States? Today, a new question arises: How can each state manage several partnerships simultaneously?

This evolution offers considerable opportunities: diversification of investments, access to new markets, competition among partners, increased bargaining power. But it also carries major risks: creation of multiple dependencies, importation of international rivalries, political instrumentalization, and regional fragmentation.

Caribbean countries must therefore navigate this new environment with a keen awareness of their national interests. A passive diplomacy will expose them to being overwhelmed by the logics of the great powers. An active diplomacy, on the contrary, will allow them to transform international competition into a lever for development.

The Caribbean has entered a new historical period. It is no longer simply a zone of American influence. It has become a space where several powers seek to build economic, diplomatic, and strategic relations. The United States remains the dominant actor, but it must now contend with a more competitive environment. China brings capital and infrastructure. Russia provides limited but symbolic political and security support. Europe and Canada offer cooperation and development. Emerging powers seek new opportunities. For Caribbean countries, the major challenge will be to transform this international competition into a lever for development rather than a new form of dependence. The great battle of the 21st century in the Caribbean will not only be a battle to control the region. It will be a battle to gain influence among peoples who seek above all stability, prosperity, and sovereignty.

Haiti at the Heart of Regional Recomposition: From Vulnerability to Strategy

Among all the states of the Caribbean, Haiti holds a paradoxical position. It is both the most fragile country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most symbolic. Its geographic situation, in the center of the Caribbean and close to U.S. shores, makes it a point of permanent attention for Washington. Its diaspora, one of the most dynamic in the region, constitutes a considerable economic and political asset.

Yet, for decades, this potential importance was not transformed into real power. Chronic political instability, weak institutions, security degradation, and humanitarian dependence have reduced Haiti to the status of an international problem rather than a strategic actor. This situation is not inevitable. It is the result of political choices, historical legacies, and an unfavorable power dynamic that the country can begin to reverse.

Fragility as an Issue of Regional Security

The first reality to understand is that Haitian fragility is no longer a purely national problem. It has become a regional security issue. The insecurity spreading in Port-au-Prince and certain provinces fuels migration flows, transnational trafficking, and diplomatic tensions between neighboring countries. The Dominican Republic, the United States, Canada, and the CARICOM Caribbean states are all directly affected by what happens in Haiti.

This recognition is both a danger and an opportunity. A danger, because it can lead to increased interference by foreign powers. An opportunity, because it gives Haiti a negotiating lever: the international community needs stability in Haiti as much as the country itself. The stabilization of Haiti cannot therefore be solely a humanitarian objective. It must become a shared political, security, and economic project. International actors wishing to maintain their influence in the region have every interest in contributing to this reconstruction. It is up to Haiti to define the conditions for this cooperation.

Refounding the State: A Prerequisite for Any External Strategy

The absence of a state is the main obstacle to the emergence of a coherent Haitian foreign policy. A country whose institutions are paralyzed, whose administration is failing, and whose justice system is incapable of exercising its prerogatives cannot negotiate with the great powers on an equal footing. It can only implore or endure.

The absolute priority must therefore be institutional refoundation:

• Security: Restore a legitimate monopoly on force. This presupposes a profound reform of the police, a justice system capable of judging criminals, and regional security cooperation based on respect for sovereignty.

• Governance: Re-establish a functioning public administration, capable of collecting taxes, managing basic services, and executing development projects.

• Justice: Fight impunity, restore confidence in the judicial system, and offer guarantees to investors and citizens alike.

• Planning: Define a long-term national vision, beyond electoral cycles and humanitarian emergencies.

• These reforms are not merely internal requirements. They are the conditions for any international credibility. A Haiti that controls its territory, protects its citizens, and administers its resources can negotiate with Washington, Beijing, or Brussels. A Haiti that remains in institutional incapacity can only be assisted, never truly associated.

Diaspora and Soft Power: Haiti’s Overlooked Assets

Haiti possesses assets that most analyses neglect. Its diaspora is one of the largest in the region, representing several million people spread across the United States, Canada, France, the Caribbean, and Latin America. This diaspora is a considerable economic reservoir: remittances represent a massive share of Haiti’s GDP. But it is also a political and cultural lever.

Haitian citizens abroad can influence migration policies, defend the country’s interests in foreign capitals, and facilitate access to influence networks. A coherent national strategy must integrate this diaspora as a full-fledged actor, not merely as a source of revenue. Furthermore, Haiti remains a global symbol. The first independent black republic, born from a successful slave revolt, the country carries a historical memory that resonates far beyond its borders. This memory is a diplomatic asset. It can be mobilized to obtain special treatment on the international stage, draw attention to historical injustices, or justify requests for reparations and enhanced cooperation.

Haiti’s Strategic Choices in the Face of the Great Powers

For Haiti, the issue is not choosing a side. It is learning to practice a modern diplomacy of balance, capable of profiting from external rivalries without being trapped by them.

1. The United States: Indispensable Partner, but Not Exclusive

The United States is the historical and geographical principal partner. Their economic, diplomatic, and security influence is considerable. A realistic Haitian strategy cannot ignore this reality. But Washington has often oscillated between indifference and interference. Haiti must learn to manage this relationship: accept support and cooperation, but refuse tutelage. The United States needs a stable Haiti. It is this American vulnerability, paradoxically, that gives Port-au-Prince leverage.

2. China: The Infrastructure Partner

China offers financing and infrastructure. Its projects for roads, ports, energy, or telecommunications can accelerate Haiti’s economic development. Several other Caribbean countries have already made this choice. But China imposes its conditions: cost, limited transparency, Chinese employees, and sometimes disputed debts. Haiti must learn to say yes to China, but by negotiating balanced contracts, protecting its long-term interests, and diversifying its partners.

3. The European Union and Canada: The Governance Allies

These partners offer cooperation based on values, norms, institutional programs, and humanitarian aid. They are often less politically constraining than Washington or Beijing. Their support is essential for institutional reconstruction, justice, and governance. But their aid is sometimes slow, conditional, and less visible. Haiti must learn to mobilize it effectively.

4. CARICOM: The Regional Collective as a Shield

CARICOM offers important diplomatic protection. It allows for defending common positions, weighing collectively in international negotiations, and benefiting from neighborhood solidarity. Haiti must invest in this regional framework and make it a priority coordination space.

Haiti and the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Triangle: A Strategic Solidarity

The three countries of the strategic triangle share common challenges: relative isolation from Washington, institutional and economic crises, and migratory and symbolic importance. Haiti can and must strengthen its relations with Cuba and Venezuela. Not to oppose the United States, but to diversify its alliances, build regional solidarities, and defend common interests. Cuba brings its experience of resilience in the face of sanctions, its model of medical cooperation, and its historical diplomatic influence. Venezuela, despite its crisis, retains energy resources, political weight, and historical ties with Haiti via regional cooperation programs. The reconstruction of an active solidarity between these three countries would strengthen each of them. It would allow them to speak with one voice in negotiations with the great powers.

Avoiding Automatic Alignment, Practicing the Diplomacy of Balance

The great challenge for Haiti, as for other Caribbean states, is to learn to navigate between powers without automatically aligning with any. A diplomacy of balance means: accepting cooperation from all, without depending exclusively on any; negotiating concrete, transparent agreements beneficial to the population; refusing to be instrumentalized in rivalries between great powers; defending its sovereignty without isolating itself diplomatically; using regional organizations to strengthen its collective weight. This approach is demanding. It requires analytical capacity, political stability, and professional institutions. But it is the only one that will allow Haiti to leave the position of object of geopolitics to become an actor in its own future.

Cuba: Between Revolutionary Heritage and the Necessity of Transformation

Cuba holds a unique place in the strategic triangle. Long considered the symbol of anti-American resistance in the hemisphere, the island is today confronted with an existential challenge: how to preserve its political and social model while adapting to new economic, demographic, and geopolitical realities?

The Cuban regime has demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience. It has survived the collapse of the USSR, the persistence of the U.S. embargo, the economic crisis of the 1990s, and the political tensions of the 21st century. But this resilience has a cost. The Cuban economy is drained. Infrastructure is aging. The population faces recurrent shortages and very low purchasing power. Emigration is reaching historic levels, draining the country of its lifeblood.

The Cuban question is therefore not only political. It has become a question of economic and social survival. The Havana regime must find a new balance between political control and economic openness, between its historical alliance with Moscow and Beijing and the need to renew pragmatic ties with Washington.

Scenarios for Cuba After 2028

1. Gradual Adaptation: Havana undertakes limited economic reforms, allows more foreign investment, partially liberalizes certain sectors. The political system remains unchanged, but Cuban society benefits from a gradual improvement in living conditions. This scenario assumes a relaxation of U.S. sanctions and a certain internal political stability. It is the most likely if Washington adopts a pragmatic approach.

2. Controlled Transition: Under pressure from economic and social difficulties, the Cuban regime accepts deeper political reforms. A gradual opening occurs, accompanied by stability guarantees. The United States and the European Union support this process. This scenario requires strong political will on both sides and careful management of tensions. It is possible but difficult.

3. Worsening Crisis: The economy continues to deteriorate, emigration intensifies, social tensions increase. The regime hardens its position, U.S. sanctions strengthen. Cuba enters a phase of prolonged instability. This scenario is the most dangerous for the region. A major Cuban crisis would cause a massive migration wave, tensions in the Caribbean, and increased competition among great powers on the island.

The Cuban Choice

For Cuba, the issue is clear. It is no longer possible to maintain the status quo. The country must choose a path. Either a controlled opening that preserves the essence of the system while adapting it. Or a prolonged crisis that risks destroying what the regime has built. The United States has a role to play in this choice. A policy of maximum pressure could accelerate collapse but also provoke regional instability. A policy of conditional dialogue could offer a way out, provided Havana shows its willingness to reform. Cuba’s future is therefore intimately linked to the 2028 U.S. election. The next president will have to decide whether he wants a stable Cuba or whether he accepts the risk of a major crisis 150 kilometers from the Florida coast.

Venezuela: The Energy Power in Suspense

Venezuela remains one of the most complex cases in contemporary geopolitics. Endowed with the world’s largest oil reserves, it is nonetheless mired in a historic economic and social crisis. A country once the engine of regional integration, it is now diplomatically isolated, but remains a central issue for the great powers.

Venezuelan oil is not disappearing. It awaits. It awaits political and economic conditions allowing a resumption of massive exploitation. This reality gives Venezuela a strategic weight that its current situation seems to contradict. The United States, China, Russia, and even India or Turkey closely monitor the country’s evolution. Whoever can secure access to Venezuelan resources will have a considerable advantage in the decades to come.

Venezuelan Scenarios

1. Negotiated Transition: A political agreement between the government and the opposition allows gradual opening, a partial lifting of sanctions, and the return of foreign investment. Venezuela regains economic growth and reintegrates the international community.

2. Authoritarian Stabilization: The conservative government maintains political control while accepting limited economic reforms to ensure its survival. The situation remains tense but manageable.
3. Prolonged Collapse: The absence of political compromise, maintenance of sanctions, collapse of institutions, and mass emigration. Venezuela becomes a fragile state, a terrain of competition among foreign powers.

The Issue for the Caribbean

A stable Venezuela would reduce migration pressures on neighboring countries, stabilize part of the region’s energy supply, and allow for diplomatic reintegration beneficial to the entire Caribbean. A Venezuela in crisis would amplify regional tensions, fuel insecurity, and reinforce the presence of external actors.

What Strategy for Haiti and the Caribbean Facing the America of Tomorrow?

The previous chapters have shown that the 2028 U.S. presidential election could constitute a moment of rupture for the Western Hemisphere. The Caribbean has become a space of strategic competition where the interests of the United States, China, Russia, and other emerging powers clash. Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela are at the center of this recomposition. Their internal instability, geographic importance, and complex relations with Washington make them territories where power dynamics unfold that far exceed their borders.

But the Caribbean must not be reduced to the role of a battleground between external powers. It has its own capacity for action. Its states can choose their alliances, defend their interests, and build a collective strategy adapted to a world that has become multipolar. This final part explores the possible choices for Haiti and the region: rebuilding states, mobilizing diasporas, diversifying economic partnerships, strengthening regional cooperation, and transforming current vulnerabilities into strategic levers.

Building a Caribbean Strategy for the 21st Century

The Caribbean can no longer simply wait for the great powers to decide its future. It must develop a collective vision and coherent national strategies. This strategy rests on several pillars:

1. Strengthened regional integration: CARICOM and the OECS must be strengthened. Diplomatic coordination, common commercial policy, regional security, crisis management, and defense of collective interests are absolute priorities.

2. Diversification of partnerships: Caribbean countries must multiply their alliances. The United States remains the principal partner, but China, Europe, Canada, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers offer opportunities to seize.
3. Strengthening national institutions: A state that does not control its territory, does not administer justice, does not collect taxes cannot be a strategic actor. Institutional refoundation is the basis of any credible foreign policy.

4. Mobilization of diasporas: Caribbean diasporas are major economic and diplomatic assets. They must be integrated into national strategies as full-fledged partners, not merely as sources of financing.

5. Defense of sovereignty in a multipolar world: Caribbean states must learn to navigate between powers without automatically aligning with any. Sovereignty does not mean isolation. It means the ability to choose one’s partners and negotiate one’s alliances.

Haiti: Transforming a Historical Vulnerability into a Geostrategic Advantage

Haiti is generally described as one of the most fragile states in the international system. This reality is undeniable: security crisis, institutional weakness, massive poverty, political instability, and external dependence. But this reading has a limit. It presents Haiti solely as a problem to be solved, never as an actor capable of weighing on its regional environment. Yet Haiti has several strategic advantages rarely exploited: a central geographic position in the Caribbean, an influential global diaspora, a young population, underutilized economic potential, and a history that gives it unique symbolic importance in the international space.

The challenge is therefore not only to emerge from the crisis. It is to reposition Haiti as a regional actor.

The Diaspora: The Forgotten Strategic Capital

The Haitian diaspora represents one of the country’s main assets. Present mainly in the United States, Canada, France, and several Caribbean countries, it constitutes a considerable economic, intellectual, and diplomatic network. Financial transfers sent by Haitians living abroad have for several years represented an essential source of revenue for the national economy. But reducing the diaspora to its financial role would be a strategic error. It also represents human capital: entrepreneurs, qualified professionals, academics, scientists, investors, and community actors.

A modern national policy towards the diaspora should go beyond the traditional logic of financial solicitation. It should create a genuine strategic partnership: dedicated investment mechanisms, temporary return programs for skills, innovation networks, participation in major national projects, and diplomatic mobilization in host countries. In the United States notably, the Haitian community can become a relay for political, economic, and cultural influence. The diaspora must no longer be considered an external extension of Haiti. It must become one of its main instruments of power.

Geography: Transforming a Position into an Advantage

Haiti occupies an exceptional geographic position at the heart of the Caribbean. Located close to the United States, on one of the main maritime routes of the Western Hemisphere, the country could become a regional commercial, logistical, and digital hub. This position is today largely underutilized. The development of modern infrastructure could transform Haiti into a regional platform: competitive international ports, special economic zones, trade corridors, digital infrastructure, and logistics platforms connecting the Caribbean to the Americas.

Proximity to the Dominican Republic is also a strategic factor. Despite historical tensions, the two countries share a common geographic reality and could develop economic complementarities in energy, transport, agriculture, tourism, and regional production chains. Geography is never a guarantee of power. It becomes an advantage only when accompanied by a political vision and institutions capable of transforming it.

Rebuilding the State: The Prerequisite

No geopolitical strategy is possible without a functioning state. The Haitian crisis is not solely an economic or security crisis. It is above all an institutional crisis. The weakness of the state has created a vacuum progressively occupied by armed groups, criminal networks, and special interests. Reconstruction must therefore begin with three priorities:

1. Restoring security: The fight against gangs cannot be only a one-off police operation. It requires a profound reform of security forces, effective border control, the fight against arms trafficking, and structured international cooperation. Security is the primary condition for any economic reconstruction.

2. Reforming institutions: A modern state requires a professional administration, an independent judiciary, a credible electoral system, and effective anti-corruption mechanisms. Without solid institutions, investments and international programs remain temporary.

3. Re-balancing the territory: The excessive centralization of Port-au-Prince has aggravated national imbalances. Reconstruction must involve genuine decentralization: development of secondary cities, regional investments, strengthened local autonomy, and creation of territorial economic hubs. A strong state is not only a state present in the capital. It is a state present everywhere.

Economic Potential: Emerging from Dependence

Haiti can no longer build its future solely around international aid, traditional agriculture, and diaspora transfers. The country must develop strategic sectors: modern agriculture and agro-industry, cultural and ecological tourism, the digital economy, renewable energies, light industry, and regional financial services. The economic transition must also integrate the new geopolitical reality: global production chains are now seeking to reduce their excessive dependence on certain Asian hubs. Geographic proximity to the United States could allow Haiti to become a proximity partner in certain regional value chains. But this requires a fundamental condition: stability.

Cuba and Venezuela: Between Adaptation and Strategic Repositioning

Cuba and Venezuela hold a particular place in the geopolitical balance of the Caribbean. For decades, these two countries constituted the main points of resistance to U.S. influence in the region. Their political, energy, and diplomatic alliance allowed the Cuban regime to survive after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and Venezuela to maintain regional influence despite its economic collapse. But this model is reaching its limits. The economic crisis, the evolution of the international system, and the rise of a multipolar world force Havana and Caracas to rethink their strategies. Their survival will depend less on their ability to resist external pressures than on their aptitude to transform their own internal structures.

Cuba: Between Economic Opening and Political Transition

Cuba is going through one of the most difficult periods in its recent history. After surviving the end of Soviet support in the 1990s, then several decades of U.S. sanctions, the island faces a multidimensional crisis: energy shortages, food difficulties, demographic aging, mass departure of part of its youth, and loss of confidence of a population facing economic stagnation. The Cuban economic model, based on strong state centralization, is showing its limits. The government has gradually recognized the need for adaptation, authorizing more private initiatives and seeking new foreign investment. But the issue goes beyond mere economic reform.

The Need for a New Economic Architecture

Cuba has several assets: a high level of education, recognized medical expertise, a strategic geographic position, and considerable tourism potential. However, these advantages remain insufficiently exploited due to structural constraints: low productivity, excessive bureaucracy, lack of investment, restrictions on entrepreneurship, and limited access to international markets. A sustainable transformation would require a deeper evolution: development of the national private sector, creation of an environment favorable to foreign investment, agricultural modernization, reform of the energy system, and greater integration into regional trade. The objective would not be to completely abandon the Cuban social model, but to create a more flexible economy capable of meeting the population’s needs.

The American Question: Confrontation or Normalization?

The relationship with Washington remains the most determining external factor for Cuba’s future. For over sixty years, U.S. policy has oscillated between two strategies: maximum pressure to provoke political change and diplomatic engagement to encourage gradual evolution. Historical experience shows that economic isolation did not lead to the collapse of the Cuban regime. It rather contributed to reinforcing certain defensive reflexes of the power and increasing Cuba’s dependence on other partners like Russia and China. A new U.S. approach could therefore favor a gradual economic opening, academic and cultural exchanges, health cooperation, and dialogue on migration and security issues. The Cuban question could become an important issue in the 2028 U.S. presidential election: between those who favor ideological firmness and those who consider U.S. influence passes more through engagement than isolation.

Cuba in a Multipolar Environment

Cuba must also review its external dependencies. For a long time, the island benefited from the support of a dominant partner: the Soviet Union before 1991, Venezuela during the Chávez-Maduro era, and today a more diverse set including China and Russia. But no foreign power can durably replace a national development strategy. Cuban diplomacy will therefore have to seek a balance: preserve its historical relations, attract Western investment, strengthen its regional ties, and avoid excessive dependence on a single partner. Cuba’s future will depend less on the survival of the current system than on its ability to evolve.

Venezuela: Rebuilding After the Crisis

Venezuela represents one of the greatest paradoxes in Latin America. The country has the world’s largest oil reserves, but it has experienced one of the most spectacular economic collapses in contemporary history. The Venezuelan crisis is the result of a combination of factors: excessive dependence on oil, poor economic management, corruption, institutional weakening, political tensions, and international sanctions. The central question is therefore not only the recovery of oil production. It is the reconstruction of a state capable of using its resources for national development.

Oil: An Opportunity to Rebuild

Venezuela has an advantage that few countries possess: its energy resources. But oil can no longer be considered a sole solution. A modern strategy should combine modernization of the oil industry, economic diversification, agricultural development, technological investment, and professional training. Venezuela must emerge from the rent model that made it extremely vulnerable to international fluctuations. Energy revenues should finance an economic transformation, not simply maintain a political system.

Institutional Reconstruction

Venezuela’s stabilization also requires political reconstruction. Without credible institutions, no sustainable investment will be possible. Priorities should include: restoration of electoral confidence, judicial independence, protection of public freedoms, national reconciliation, and the gradual return of international investors. Venezuela still has significant human resources: engineers, entrepreneurs, academics, and a large diaspora. Their mobilization will be essential to rebuild the country.

A New International Positioning

Venezuela will also have to redefine its alliances. In recent years, Caracas has strengthened its ties with Moscow and Beijing to compensate for its Western isolation. This strategy allowed the Venezuelan government to survive, but it also limited its economic options. A more balanced foreign policy could consist of maintaining relations with China and Russia, re-establishing economic ties with the United States and Europe, strengthening cooperation with Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, and participating more in regional mechanisms. Venezuela could become a major actor in the Caribbean and South America again, but only if it transforms its potential into solid institutions.

The Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Triangle: A New Strategic Reading

These three countries are often analyzed separately. Yet, they form a particular geopolitical ensemble. Haiti represents the issue of institutional and security stability. Cuba represents the ideological and diplomatic issue. Venezuela represents the energy issue. Their evolution will directly influence the regional balance. For Washington, Beijing, and Moscow, this triangle remains strategic. For the peoples concerned, it represents above all a fundamental question: how to transform historical vulnerabilities into development opportunities?

Towards a More Coordinated Caribbean Diplomacy?

For a long time, the Caribbean was considered a collection of scattered, vulnerable states dependent on external great powers. This perception has often limited the region’s ability to defend its own interests in major international debates. Yet, the challenges Caribbean countries face are largely common: climate change, transnational crime, migration, energy dependence, economic vulnerability, and competition among powers. Faced with these issues, a new approach becomes necessary: moving from fragmented diplomacy to more coordinated regional diplomacy. The Caribbean will not be able to influence the world order by remaining divided. It will have to build a collective negotiation capacity, capable of dialoguing with Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Brussels, or New Delhi without losing its strategic autonomy.

CARICOM: From Economic Integration to Diplomatic Power

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) remains the most important institutional instrument of regional cooperation. Created to foster economic and political integration, it has gradually expanded its role to include security, climate change, and international diplomacy. But its influence remains limited by several factors: weak institutional resources, divergent interests among member states, differences in economic size, and excessive dependence on external partners.

CARICOM must take a new step. It can no longer be merely a consultation space. It must become a genuine geopolitical actor. This implies more systematic coordination of international positions, common representation in certain strategic negotiations, regional economic diplomacy, and a permanent geopolitical analysis capability. In a world dominated by large blocs, small states can only weigh in by pooling their forces.

Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Moving Beyond the Logic of Confrontation

The relationship between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is one of the most sensitive issues in the Caribbean. The two countries share the same island, a common land border, and important economic interdependencies. Yet their relationship remains marked by historical tensions, notably around migration, trade, and identity issues. This situation cannot be sustainable. The two countries have an interest in building a more pragmatic cooperation framework around several priorities: border security, the fight against criminal networks, orderly migration management, cross-border economic development, energy cooperation, and environmental protection. The stability of the island of Hispaniola will depend on the ability of the two states to move from a relationship dominated by mistrust to one based on common interests. The Dominican Republic cannot have lasting stability with a neighbor constantly in crisis. Haiti cannot rebuild its economy without a constructive relationship with its main geographic partner.

Maritime Security: A Regional Priority

The Caribbean is a strategic maritime space. Its trade routes connect North America, Latin America, and global markets. Its ports play an essential role in international trade. But these same spaces are also exploited by criminal networks. The region faces several threats: drug trafficking, arms trafficking, clandestine migration, illegal fishing, and organized crime. No Caribbean state alone possesses the means to effectively respond to these challenges. A regional strategy should include intelligence sharing, cooperation between navies and coast guards, joint maritime surveillance, technological cooperation, and partnerships with the United States, Canada, and Europe. Maritime security is no longer merely a military issue. It has become a condition for regional economic development.

Economic Diplomacy: Emerging from Dependence

For decades, Caribbean economies have rested on a few vulnerable sectors: tourism, traditional agriculture, diaspora transfers, and limited exports. This dependence exposes the region to external crises. The new geopolitics, however, offers opportunities. The Caribbean can become a space for investment in several areas:

• Renewable Energies: With significant potential in solar, wind, and marine technologies, the region could reduce its energy dependence.

• Digital Economy: Digital infrastructure can enable the development of remote services, technology companies, and new skilled jobs.

• Blue Economy: The oceans represent major potential: sustainable fishing, aquaculture, marine biotechnologies, ecological tourism, and maritime transport.

• Regional Value Chains: The region must also develop more internal economic complementarities. The objective is not to replace external partners, but to negotiate with them from a stronger position.

Diversification of Alliances: A Strategic Necessity

The competition among great powers places Caribbean states before a historic choice. They can become zones of exclusive influence of an external power, or build a diplomacy of balance. The second option seems most suited to their interests. The Caribbean must be able to cooperate simultaneously with the United States on security, trade, and investment; with the European Union on sustainable development and institutional cooperation; with China on infrastructure and certain investments; with India on technology and emerging partnerships; with Canada on regional cooperation; and with Latin American countries to strengthen South-South integration. Diversification is not an absence of loyalty. It is a strategy of sovereignty.

The Climate Challenge: Building Collective Resilience

Climate change likely represents the most important existential threat for small Caribbean states. Sea-level rise, more violent hurricanes, droughts, and agricultural disruptions directly affect populations, infrastructure, economies, and food security. The region must move from a logic of reaction to a logic of anticipation. This requires resilient infrastructure, regional early warning systems, scientific cooperation, international climate finance, and energy transition. Climate vulnerability must become a major diplomatic argument to obtain more international support.

Ten Strategic Priorities for the Caribbean by 2035

1. Restore regional security: Fight gangs, drug trafficking, and transnational criminal networks.

2. Rebuild fragile states: Strengthen institutions, justice, and public governance.

3. Diversify economies: Reduce dependence on vulnerable sectors and develop new growth drivers.

4. Modernize infrastructure: Ports, airports, roads, energy, and digital networks.

5. Strengthen climate resilience: Adapt territories to new environmental realities.

6. Develop the blue economy: Transform maritime resources into engines of sustainable development.

7. Mobilize diasporas: Make overseas communities economic and diplomatic partners.

8. Diversify international partnerships: Avoid excessive dependence on any single power.

9. Build a strong regional diplomacy: Give CARICOM and regional organizations more strategic capacity.

10. Defend democracy and the rule of law: Without credible institutions, no economic or geopolitical strategy is sustainable.

Making History Rather Than Suffering It: 2028, a Strategic Window for the Caribbean

The history of the Caribbean is one of a region that, for several centuries, has found itself at the crossroads of the ambitions of great powers. Colonization, imperial rivalries, struggles for independence, military interventions, ideological confrontations of the Cold War, economic globalization, and now strategic competition among powers: few spaces in the world will have experienced such a succession of upheavals. Yet, despite the crises, natural disasters, often unfinished political transitions, and persistent economic fragilities, the Caribbean peoples have constantly demonstrated a remarkable capacity for resilience. The challenge of the 21st century now consists of moving beyond this culture of survival to enter a logic of construction, projection, and power. It is no longer merely a question of resisting events, but of acquiring the means to influence their course.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election fits precisely into this dynamic. Its importance extends far beyond U.S. borders. The vote will determine the orientations of the world’s leading power on essential issues such as regional security, migration, trade, investment, international cooperation, or competition with China and Russia. The decisions made in Washington will have direct repercussions on the entire Caribbean basin. But reducing the region’s future to the sole outcome of a U.S. election would be an analytical error. The Caribbean’s evolution will depend just as much on the ability of its own states to define a common vision, strengthen their institutions, and defend their interests in an international environment that has become more complex and more competitive.

One of the main lessons of this study is precisely that the Caribbean is no longer a strategic periphery. For a long time, it was perceived as a simple extension of the U.S. sphere of influence, a secondary space whose balances seemed frozen since the end of the Cold War. This reading now belongs to the past. The rise of China, the diplomatic and security return of Russia, the growing engagement of the European Union, Canada, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers have profoundly modified the regional geopolitical configuration. The Caribbean has become a space again where the great rivalries of the 21st century intersect: energy security, control of sea routes, supply chains, climate transition, diplomatic influence, technological competition, and competition between development models.

In this recomposition, Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela hold a singular place. Together, they constitute a strategic triangle whose evolution will durably influence the balances of the Western Hemisphere. Haiti remains the symbol of the institutional challenge. Its future will depend on its ability to rebuild a functioning state, capable of ensuring security, restoring citizens’ trust, and creating a favorable environment for development. Cuba finds itself at a crossroads between economic adaptation, preservation of its political model, and the search for a new diplomatic balance with its traditional partners as well as with the United States. As for Venezuela, it illustrates the paradoxes of an energy power possessing immense natural resources but confronted with a profound political, economic, and social crisis. The future of these three states will extend far beyond their national borders. It will directly influence migration dynamics, energy balances, security strategies, and geopolitical competition throughout the Caribbean.

The analysis also shows that the very nature of the relationship between the United States and the region could evolve over the next decade. For more than a century, U.S. policy in the Caribbean has often relied on a logic of strategic preeminence, sometimes based on political, economic, or military pressure. Current changes, however, invite broader reflection. In an environment where states now have a more diverse range of international partners, lasting influence will likely no longer be able to rest solely on power dynamics. It will depend more on the ability to propose credible partnerships, competitive investments, technological cooperation, innovative financing mechanisms, and dialogue respectful of national sovereignties. International competition will not be won solely through military or economic power; it will also be played out on the quality of trust relationships that great powers can build with their partners.

This evolution opens new perspectives for Caribbean states. For the first time in several decades, they have greater diplomatic maneuvering room. The diversification of partnerships is no longer a simple option; it becomes a strategic necessity. Cooperating with the United States in the areas of security, trade, or investment, developing economic relations with the European Union, attracting some Chinese financing, strengthening exchanges with India, Canada, or emerging powers, while consolidating regional integration, now falls within a diplomacy of balance rather than a logic of alignment. Modern sovereignty no longer consists of choosing a side, but of preserving the freedom to choose one’s partners according to one’s national interests.

For this ambition to become reality, the Caribbean will however have to meet several structural challenges. The consolidation of the rule of law, the modernization of public administrations, the fight against corruption, the strengthening of judicial systems, the improvement of the business climate, the securitization of maritime spaces, adaptation to climate change, the diversification of economies, and the upskilling of human resources will constitute the true foundations of its future influence. No geopolitical strategy can produce lasting effects without solid institutions, without effective governance, and without political stability.

Beyond international power dynamics, this study finally recalls an essential truth: major geopolitical transformations always create periods where national trajectories can be redefined. The Caribbean finds itself today at one of these pivotal moments. The upheavals of the international system, global economic recompositions, energy transitions, technological mutations, and the new strategic priorities of the great powers open a historic window that will not remain open indefinitely. States that anticipate these evolutions will strengthen their autonomy and influence. Those that remain prisoners of their fragilities risk, once again, suffering decisions made elsewhere.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election thus constitutes much more than an electoral appointment. It represents a revealer of the profound transformations reshaping the Western Hemisphere and, more broadly, the international system. The election results will undoubtedly be important. But they will not, on their own, determine the future of the Caribbean. That will depend above all on the ability of the region’s leaders, institutions, economic actors, and civil societies to transform their vulnerabilities into development levers, their constraints into opportunities, and their diversity into collective strength.

At the end of this reflection, one conviction stands out. The Caribbean must no longer be envisaged as a simple space where the great powers project their rivalries. It possesses the human, geographic, economic, and cultural resources necessary to become a geopolitical actor in its own right. Its future will be neither exclusively written in Washington, nor in Beijing, nor in Moscow. It will be determined first by the will of the Caribbean peoples themselves to build stronger states, more competitive economies, and a diplomacy ambitious enough to make their voices heard in the new world order.

This is perhaps the true lesson of this study. Great powers will continue to shape the international environment. But the nations that durably mark history are those that know how to recognize moments when balances are transformed, in order to seize the opportunities they offer. For the Caribbean, 2028 could be one of those decisive moments. More than a U.S. electoral deadline, this year could mark the beginning of a new historical stage: that of a region that finally chooses to stop suffering the world’s recompositions, but to fully take its place in them.

THE VIEW OF CPGNNews

Reading America from the Caribbean, Understanding the World to Come

U.S. presidential elections are among the most observed political events in the world. Their reach extends far beyond the framework of U.S. domestic politics. In an international system where Washington remains the leading military, economic, financial, and technological power, each change in the White House influences diplomatic balances, security strategies, international markets, migration flows, trade policies, and the power dynamics that structure the world order.

For the Caribbean, this reality holds particular importance. Situated a few hundred kilometers from U.S. shores, at the crossroads of the major sea routes linking North America, Latin America, and the Atlantic, the region is in direct contact with the strategic priorities of the United States. Decisions made in Washington regarding security, immigration, regional cooperation, sanctions, investments, or trade policy produce immediate effects on the political, economic, and social trajectories of Caribbean states. Few regions of the world live with such proximity to the consequences of every shift in U.S. foreign policy.

The 2028 presidential election, however, occurs in an unprecedented context. The international system is undergoing a profound recomposition of power dynamics. The affirmation of China as a global actor, the strategic return of Russia, the emergence of new regional powers, the transformations of global value chains, the energy transition, the digital revolution, and competition for control of maritime spaces are gradually redrawing the geopolitical architecture of the 21st century. In this new configuration, the Caribbean ceases to be a simple peripheral space. It becomes a strategic territory again where the interests of the great powers converge and where some of the principal balances of the Western Hemisphere are played out.

It is in this perspective that CaribPulse Global News Network conceived this report. More than an electoral analysis, this study offers a prospective reading of the geopolitical consequences that the 2028 U.S. presidential election could produce. Our ambition is not to anticipate the result of a vote or to comment on a campaign. It is to understand how the strategic choices of the world’s leading power could reshape power dynamics in the Caribbean, influence the trajectories of Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, transform regional balances, and accelerate the recompositions of the new world order.

Our approach rests on a fundamental conviction: U.S. elections do not merely change a government; they can alter the strategic environment of dozens of states when decisions made in Washington concern international security, global trade, migration, investment, military alliances, or multilateral institutions. Understanding the 2028 U.S. election thus means analyzing the dynamics that will shape inter-American relations and the geopolitical balances of the next decade.

This approach reflects the editorial vocation of CPGNNews. Born in the heart of the Caribbean, our media defends a simple conviction: this region is not a periphery of international news. It constitutes one of the spaces where the great mutations of the world produce some of the fastest and most visible effects. Debates on regional security, migration, economic sovereignty, strategic investments, energy transitions, new technologies, or rivalry among great powers are not abstract questions. They directly determine the development prospects, stability, and sovereignty of Caribbean peoples.

Our ambition is therefore neither to reproduce the perspective of major international media, nor to defend an ideological reading of international relations. It is to bring an original contribution, based on analytical rigor, cross-referencing of sources, historical depth, and understanding of the realities specific to the Caribbean. Informing, from this perspective, does not mean merely reporting facts. Informing means giving decision-makers, researchers, diplomats, academics, entrepreneurs, and citizens the keys necessary to understand the transformations reshaping their strategic environment.

Through this report, CPGNNews also defends an essential idea: the Caribbean must no longer be analyzed solely as a space where the rivalries of great powers are exercised. It must be recognized as a geopolitical actor in its own right, capable of building its own strategies, diversifying its partnerships, and participating in the elaboration of new regional balances. The challenges it faces are immense, but the opportunities are equally so for states that will know how to anticipate the changes underway rather than suffer them.

Ultimately, this report does not solely deal with a U.S. presidential election. It questions a broader issue: what will be the place of the Caribbean in the new world order that is taking shape? Behind the choice of the next U.S. president looms a deeper recomposition of power dynamics in the Western Hemisphere. Understanding this transformation today is to allow decision-makers to better prepare for tomorrow’s choices. It is to this reflection that CaribPulse Global News Network intends to contribute, with independence, intellectual rigor, and strategic vision.

Yvon Bonhomme
Editor-in-Chief and Geopolitical Analyst
CaribPulse Global News Network (CPGNNews)
“From the Caribbean, understanding the world’s transformations to better anticipate those of our region.”

CPGNNews – CaribPulse Global News Network
From the Caribbean, thinking about the world with rigor, independence, and strategic vision.

Every great idea begins with a question. Every transformation is born from a dialogue. Behind every analysis published by CPGNNews, there is a deep conviction: knowledge has true value only when it is shared, challenged, enriched, and passed on.

If this Grand Report has struck a chord with you, if a reflection inspires you, if an experience deserves to be told, or if you wish to contribute to a better understanding of the major issues of our time, we would be honored to hear from you.

Researchers, academics, journalists, students, decision-makers, entrepreneurs, members of the diaspora, or simply engaged citizens, your voice matters. The Caribbean needs a space where ideas circulate freely, where analyses meet, where experiences are shared, and where perspectives from around the world cross paths in respect for facts, diversity of opinions, and intellectual rigor.

To foster a truly international dialogue, the main reports, investigations, analyses, and studies published by CPGNNews are released simultaneously in French, English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Portuguese, thus reaching the major linguistic communities of the Caribbean, the Americas, and an increasingly broad international public.

CPGNNews was born from a simple yet demanding ambition: to foster an independent Caribbean strategic thought, open to the world, and deeply committed to rigor, intellectual honesty, humanism, and the pursuit of the common good.

We invite you to send us your research, analyses, opinion pieces, articles, proposals, or reactions. Every serious contribution enriches a collective reflection that transcends borders and contributes to a better understanding of the world.

Because great ideas belong to no one. They grow when they are shared. And because understanding the world is a collective work, every sincere voice can help illuminate the future.

Contact the editorial team

📧 Email: info@cpgnnews.com
☎ Phone: +509 2996-9999
💬 WhatsApp: +509 4025-1313.U.S. ELECTION 2028: The Battle for the Post-Trump Era

The Caribbean at the Heart of the New World Order

How the 2028 U.S. presidential election could redefine power dynamics in the Western Hemisphere, reshape the geopolitical balance of the Caribbean, and open a new strategic chapter for Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and the island states in the face of the rise of China, Russia, and other emerging powers.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC REPORT │ Strategic Foresight • Geopolitics • International Relations • Security • Diplomacy • Strategic Economics

By the editorial staff of CaribPulse Global News Network (CPGNNews).

Why This Report?

The 2028 U.S. presidential election is about far more than the United States. It will influence the political, economic, and strategic dynamics of the entire Western Hemisphere, with direct repercussions for the Caribbean, Latin America, and, more broadly, the international system.

Since 2016, American politics has entered a period of sustained polarization. Successive changes in administration have profoundly altered the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, challenging policy orientations that were long considered stable. Today, each change in administration brings a reassessment of diplomatic priorities, international alliances, and geopolitical power dynamics.

The 2028 election falls within this broader dynamic. Well before the official launch of the campaign, the leading political figures are already preparing for the post-Trump era. Governors are raising their national profile, think tanks are developing new doctrines, major donors are reorganizing their influence networks, and potential candidates are testing their policy positions on key national and international issues.

The objective of this report is not to predict the outcome of the election. Rather, it is to identify trends, analyze power dynamics, and assess the most plausible scenarios based on currently available data. In geopolitics, uncertainty remains a constant. It does not prevent analysis; on the contrary, it is its very reason for being.

Why Is the Caribbean Already Affected?

The Caribbean occupies a strategic position that is often underestimated. Situated at the crossroads of the major maritime routes linking North America, Latin America, and Europe, it constitutes a vital space for regional security, international trade, migration flows, and digital infrastructure.

In recent years, the relative influence of the United States in the region has been progressively challenged by the growing presence of other powers, notably China, Russia, Turkey, India, and several Gulf states. This evolution is reshaping traditional balances and placing the Caribbean at the center of a strategic competition that is likely to intensify.

The future U.S. president will have to define the role this region will play in American foreign policy. Decisions made in Washington will have direct consequences for migration policies, security cooperation, investment, development assistance, and the political stability of Caribbean states.

Why Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela?

Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela occupy a unique place in American strategic thinking. Each represents a distinct challenge, yet their geographic proximity and political significance make them three closely interconnected issues. Cuba remains a major foreign policy challenge, shaped by more than six decades of tensions with Washington. Venezuela continues to be central to the region’s energy, migration, and security concerns. Haiti, meanwhile, remains a persistent humanitarian, political, and security challenge for the United States and its partners.

The evolution of these three issues will be a key indicator of the regional policy of the next U.S. administration. Beyond their respective national situations, they illustrate the strategic choices Washington will have to make in response to the new realities of the Western Hemisphere.

The Key Questions This Report Addresses

This report is structured around several questions that will shape the American strategic debate in the coming years and whose consequences will extend far beyond U.S. borders. The first concerns not so much the identity of the next president as the type of leadership the American political system is now capable of producing. In a landscape marked by polarization, the evolution of party primaries, the growing influence of major donors, and the transformation of the media ecosystem, what kind of political leadership is most likely to emerge by 2028?

The second concerns U.S. foreign policy. Will the next administration prioritize strategic competition with China, refocus on domestic priorities, or make a more assertive return to its immediate neighborhood? The answer will largely determine the diplomatic, economic, and security orientations of the Western Hemisphere.

The third examines the evolution of the triangle formed by Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela. Each of these countries represents a distinct challenge for Washington. Together, they constitute a laboratory for the contradictions of U.S. policy in the Caribbean, where migration, regional security, energy, political influence, and geopolitical rivalries intersect.

The fourth question analyzes the intensification of competition among the major powers in the region. The expansion of Chinese influence, Russia’s renewed presence, and the growing engagement of other actors such as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, India, and Brazil raise fundamental questions about the United States’ ability to preserve its strategic position in a region long regarded as part of its natural sphere of influence.

Finally, this report examines the room for maneuver available to Caribbean states. How can they strengthen their institutional resilience? How can they diversify their partnerships without compromising their strategic interests? How can they move from a position of dependence to a genuine capacity for diplomatic initiative in an increasingly multipolar international environment?

These questions do not claim to provide definitive answers. Rather, they constitute the analytical framework of this report. Its ambition is less to predict the future than to provide the keys to understanding, identify major trends, and shed light on the decisions that public and private actors will have to make in the years ahead.

The United States on the Threshold of a New Political Cycle

Before understanding what 2028 could mean for the Caribbean, it is first necessary to understand what the United States has become. Not the America of simplified representations—the America of skyscrapers, Silicon Valley, or bustling commercial districts—but the real America: a society shaped by deep divisions, persistent contradictions, and quiet political realignments.

The country preparing to enter a new electoral cycle is no longer the one that carried Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, nor even the one that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Today, it is more demographically diverse, older, more politically fragmented, and more distrustful of its institutions. This internal evolution directly influences how the United States defines its role in the world and, consequently, its relationship with its regional environment, particularly the Caribbean.

This first part establishes the general framework for the analysis. It examines the transformation of the two major American political parties, the evolution of American society, and the underlying forces that explain why the 2028 presidential race has already begun long before the official launch of the campaign. Understanding the international implications of this election first requires understanding the domestic dynamics that shape the choices of American voters.

From Reagan to Trump: Forty Years of Transformation in the Republican Party

To understand the Republican Party of 2028, one must return to 1980. That year, Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory over Democrat Jimmy Carter and ushered in a new conservative vision of America. His message rested on a central conviction: the United States is an exceptional nation destined to exercise global leadership, but its potential is weakened by a federal government that has become too large, too costly, and too deeply involved in the nation’s economic and social life.

In his inaugural address, Reagan delivered a phrase that would become one of the most iconic in American political history: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” This statement encapsulated a profound ideological transformation. The Republican Party, already engaged in a conservative shift for several years, gradually became the principal vehicle for challenging the role of Washington. It attracted suburban middle-class voters, Southern evangelicals, Western entrepreneurs, and a segment of the white working class that increasingly felt alienated from the Democratic Party.

This electoral coalition, often identified with the Reagan era, would shape American politics for decades. It led to the election of George H. W. Bush in 1988 and later George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, while serving as a powerful counterweight during the Democratic administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Yet this coalition rested on sometimes conflicting currents. Religious conservatives sought social policies rooted in traditional values. Business leaders advocated tax cuts and deregulation. Foreign policy hawks favored a strong and active American role on the international stage, while another segment of the conservative movement remained committed to a more cautious approach to overseas engagements. For many years, these different tendencies were held together by two powerful forces: opposition to Democratic liberalism and the ideological confrontation with the Soviet Union.

The end of the Cold War in 1989, followed by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, profoundly altered this equilibrium. The disappearance of the Soviet adversary deprived the Republican Party of one of its principal unifying forces, while the war on terror became America’s new strategic priority. Gradually, tensions among the party’s various factions became increasingly visible.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 marked another major turning point. Republicans lost the White House amid a severe economic crisis and witnessed the rise of a new generation of Democratic leaders who embodied a different vision of America: more diverse, more supportive of an expanded role for government in certain sectors, and more focused on social and environmental issues. For a significant portion of the American right, Obama symbolized a cultural transformation that they viewed as a challenge to the nation’s traditional foundations.

The reaction came swiftly. In 2009, the Tea Party movement emerged and gradually reshaped the Republican grassroots. It called for deep spending cuts, lower taxes, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and greater distrust of Washington’s political establishment. Beyond its economic agenda, the Tea Party reflected a broader sense of lost control among many voters confronting rapid demographic, cultural, and social change.

This evolution paved the way for a new phase with the emergence of Donald Trump. In 2015, the New York businessman and former Democrat launched a presidential campaign that upended the traditional norms of the Republican Party. When he declared, “I am your voice,” he presented himself not simply as Ronald Reagan’s political heir but as the representative of Americans who felt forgotten by political elites, disadvantaged by globalization, and marginalized by the country’s cultural transformations.

The break was profound. Whereas Reagan primarily advocated limiting the role of government, Trump proposed using the power of the state to defend American national interests. Whereas the traditional Republican Party strongly supported free trade and an interventionist foreign policy, Trumpism embraced economic nationalism, stronger border security, and a more transactional approach to international relations.

Many observers believed that Trump could not win the 2016 presidential election. Yet his victory fundamentally transformed the Republican Party. More than an electoral realignment, it represented a profound ideological reorientation. Republican leaders who initially opposed him largely ended up aligning themselves with his agenda or accepting his dominance. Conservative institutions gradually adapted their positions, and Trumpism became the party’s new ideological reference point.

As 2028 approaches, the Republican Party appears to have undergone a profound transformation. It is no longer the party of the Cold War, free trade, and military interventionism that dominated much of the second half of the twentieth century. It has become the party of economic nationalism, strengthened national sovereignty, and growing skepticism toward certain international institutions.

Domestically, it promotes a conservative vision of society and opposes progressive policies related to cultural and identity issues. Electorally, it remains deeply rooted in rural America, small towns, and among a significant segment of the white working class, while seeking to expand its appeal among parts of the Latino electorate, particularly Cuban American and Venezuelan American communities that are especially receptive to anti-communist and anti-socialist messages.

Yet this dominance remains fragile because it depends heavily on one exceptional political figure: Donald Trump himself. The question of succession has therefore become central. The Republican challenge is to preserve the electoral energy of Trumpism while preparing a new generation of leaders capable of carrying the movement beyond its founder.

This tension will lie at the heart of the 2028 Republican primary. Candidates will have to demonstrate loyalty to Trump’s political legacy while establishing their own identities. They will also have to navigate a media environment profoundly transformed by social media, political podcasts, and digital platforms, which have increasingly replaced traditional media as the principal channels of electoral mobilization.

Understanding this evolution helps explain the central paradox of the Republican Party in 2028: a powerful political force capable of mobilizing a cohesive electoral coalition built around shared identities and geographic strongholds, yet also vulnerable because much of its contemporary identity remains closely tied to a single political leader.

The following sections examine the leading Republican contenders for the White House, assessing their strengths, weaknesses, and political strategies. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to turn to the other major force in the American political system: the Democratic Party, which is itself undergoing a profound transformation.

From Clinton to Today: How the Democratic Party Has Been Transformed

If the Republican Party has undergone a spectacular transformation under the effect of Trumpism, the Democratic Party has evolved through a more gradual, less visible, but equally profound process. To understand the Democrats of 2028, one must return to another pivotal moment in American political history: the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.

After twelve years of Republican presidencies, Democrats understood they could no longer hope to regain power durably by remaining associated solely with the traditional left, unions, the expansion of social programs, and a historical distrust of the market. Clinton then proposed a new orientation, often called the “Third Way”: a centrist positioning that accepted part of the economic transformations underway since the Reagan era while maintaining a protective role for the state.

This strategy marked an important evolution of the party. Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, despite opposition from part of the labor movement. He reformed the welfare system, declaring he wanted to “end welfare as we know it.” He also adopted a firmer approach on issues of domestic security and crime, choices later criticized by some progressive sectors of the party. Ultimately, Clinton embodied a Democrat capable of governing on several economic and security issues in a spirit close to the American political center, while retaining a progressive identity on social and environmental questions.

This strategy worked electorally. Clinton won two presidential elections and helped reposition the Democratic Party at the center of American political life. After him, Al Gore narrowly lost in 2000, then Barack Obama came to power in 2008 with a promise of generational and political renewal. Obama embodied change, but his time in power was marked by institutional pragmatism. He saved the automobile industry after the financial crisis, passed the Affordable Care Act—known as Obamacare—which constituted a historic advance in health coverage while remaining far from the ambitions of the most radical Democratic left. Internationally, his administration continued several military engagements inherited from previous years, maintained certain contested surveillance practices, and defended trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), despite criticism from parts of his own camp.

During this period, the Democratic Party relied on a broad electoral coalition uniting minorities, younger generations, women, urban voters, graduates, and populations of major metropolitan areas. It gradually became the party of cultural diversity, international openness, trust in institutions, and support for scientific research. However, this coalition remained fragile as it rested on a permanent balance between several sensibilities: a progressive wing desiring a deeper transformation of the economic and social system, and a moderate wing attached to electoral credibility among the middle classes and independent voters.

The 2016 election profoundly disrupted this dynamic. Hillary Clinton’s defeat to Donald Trump was a major shock for Democrats, who were largely convinced of their victory. The explanations were numerous: some highlighted the limitations of the U.S. Electoral College, others denounced Russian interference in the campaign, while others pointed to the weaknesses of Clinton’s candidacy itself. But a more fundamental analysis eventually prevailed: the Democratic Party had gradually lost part of its historical connection to certain segments of the American working class, particularly in the industrial states of the Midwest, where a portion of voters turned to Donald Trump.

This realization opened a strategic debate that still pervades the party in 2028. For the progressive wing, notably represented by Bernie Sanders, the Democratic defeat resulted from abandoning the popular classes in favor of a party that had become too close to economic and financial elites. For the moderate wing, associated with Joe Biden, Democrats lost because they appeared too far removed from the daily concerns of voters and too focused on certain cultural issues at the expense of economic and social ones. This confrontation between two visions of the Democratic future remains one of the party’s main challenges.

Joe Biden’s election in 2020 aimed to address this identity crisis. His project was based on restoring institutions, returning to a more traditional foreign policy, and implementing ambitious but pragmatic economic and social programs. His administration achieved several important results, notably in investments related to infrastructure, industry, and the energy transition, while strengthening certain international alliances. However, it also faced major difficulties: inflation, the migrant crisis at the southern border, the political consequences of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a national polarization that became increasingly difficult to contain. Above all, Biden did not always succeed in embodying a generational vision capable of overcoming partisan divisions.

As 2028 approaches, the Democratic Party thus remains a party in search of balance. It is divided between a progressive wing calling for structural reforms, a more regulated economy, and a less interventionist foreign policy, and a moderate wing seeking to restore the trust of centrist voters on economic, social, and security issues. Between these two currents, a new generation of leaders is emerging who belong neither entirely to the Clinton era nor to the Obama era, and who seek to define a new Democratic identity adapted to the realities of the 21st century.

This rising generation may be the party’s primary opportunity for 2028. Figures like Gavin Newsom, Governor of California; Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan; or Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, represent this desire for renewal. Their challenge will be to demonstrate they can transcend their regional roots and build a national vision capable of uniting a sufficiently broad electoral coalition.

The Democratic Party must also respond to a profound transformation of its electoral base. Its traditional coalition, composed of minorities, young people, and women, remains important but is no longer as automatic as before. A portion of the Latino electorate, notably certain Cuban-American and Venezuelan-American groups, has moved closer to the Republican Party due to particular sensitivity to anti-communist and anti-socialist rhetoric. African American voters remain largely attached to Democrats, but their mobilization is no longer guaranteed without effort. As for younger generations, they manifest growing distrust of political institutions and may turn to alternative candidates or choose abstention.

In this context, the 2028 Democratic primary will be as much a competition among personalities as a debate on the ideological future of the party. Each candidate will have to propose a vision capable of responding to progressive aspirations while reassuring a centrist electorate concerned with economic stability, security, and governance capability. Understanding this evolution allows one to grasp the paradox of the 2028 Democratic Party: a formation weakened by its internal divisions and the loss of some traditional voters, but still possessing considerable assets thanks to a diversified electoral base, potential for generational renewal, and a historical capacity for reinvention.

An American Society Profoundly Reshaped

Political parties are never abstract constructions. They are the product of a society: its demographic evolutions, economic transformations, cultural tensions, and collective aspirations. To understand why the Republicans and Democrats of 2028 defend sometimes profoundly different visions of the American future, one must first understand what American society has become. In recent decades, the country has undergone considerable changes that have gradually redefined relations between generations, territories, social groups, and political institutions.

The America of 2028 is more diverse, more connected, and more open to the world than it was at the end of the 20th century, but it is also more politically and culturally fragmented. Demographic, economic, and technological transformations did not occur separately; they combined to create a society where old political categories have become less stable and electoral behaviors harder to predict.

The first major change concerns demographics. The United States remains a dynamically growing nation demographically, but it is also experiencing a gradual aging of its population. The baby boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964, dominated American political life for over half a century. This generation participated in the great cultural transformations of the 1960s before becoming one of the main pillars of political conservatism during the Reagan era. For a long time, it occupied a central place in the economic, media, and political institutions of the country.

However, as 2028 approaches, its relative weight is diminishing. Some baby boomers are now retired, while others are gradually passing away. Their electoral influence remains significant, but it is no longer sufficient to define the country’s political orientation on its own. In their place, Generations X, Y, and Z are emerging, whose historical experiences and social references differ profoundly from those of their predecessors.

Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, now constitute a major electoral generation. More diverse, more urban, and generally more educated than previous generations, they have however experienced an economic path marked by several crises: the 2008 financial crisis, rising housing costs, student debt, and a more uncertain job market. Their relationship to politics is thus marked by greater distrust of traditional institutions and a demand for deeper changes in the country’s economic and social functioning.

The second major transformation concerns American political geography. The United States has become an increasingly polarized society along territorial lines. Major metropolitan areas and their close suburbs now constitute the main Democratic strongholds, while rural areas and small towns remain largely favorable to the Republican Party. This territorial division sometimes gives the image of two distinct Americas: that of large coastal cities, more multicultural and progressive, and that of rural or industrial interior territories, more attached to conservative values and a traditional vision of national identity.

This geographic opposition remains more complex than it appears, however. The true electoral battlegrounds are often in the intermediate zones, notably the suburbs. Long considered naturally Republican territories, some suburbs have evolved under the effect of social transformations and the rejection by some moderate voters of Donald Trump’s political style. However, this electoral shift is not irreversible. Republicans are now seeking to win back these voters by placing greater emphasis on the economy, security, and the daily concerns of middle-class families. In 2028, suburbs could once again be among the main arbiters of the presidential election.

The third transformation is cultural. The United States has always had significant debates around national identity, religion, race, and social values, but these tensions have taken on a new dimension in recent years. Cultural issues have become factors of political mobilization as powerful as economic issues.

A significant portion of the conservative electorate considers recent cultural transformations a threat to the country’s traditional benchmarks. This perception fuels strong opposition to progressive policies related to identity, gender, or diversity issues, often grouped by their opponents under the term “woke.” Conversely, a portion of the progressive electorate believes the United States must continue its efforts to correct historical injustices and build a more inclusive society. For these voters, resistance to social change represents less a defense of traditions than a refusal to address persistent inequalities.

This opposition now transcends simple partisan differences. It touches on how each side imagines the country’s future. For conservatives, the central question is often the preservation of a national identity perceived as threatened. For progressives, it concerns more the transformation of a society still deemed marked by structural inequalities. This cultural fracture is one of the most visible elements of contemporary American polarization.

The fourth transformation is economic. The United States remains the world’s leading economic power, but this global wealth masks profound changes in the distribution of income and opportunities. Since the 1980s, the gaps between the most favored categories and parts of the middle and working classes have widened considerably. Globalization, automation, and industrial transformations have created winners and losers, fueling a feeling of downward mobility among a portion of the population.

This economic reality has a major political dimension. A significant portion of Americans feels the economic system functions in an unbalanced way, that large corporations and the wealthiest categories wield excessive influence, and that political leaders no longer sufficiently respond to citizens’ daily difficulties. This sentiment of frustration provides fertile ground for the rise of populist discourse, on both the right and the left.

On the right, it fuels criticism of globalization, defense of economic protectionism, and rejection of political and economic elites. On the left, it reinforces demands for increased regulation, redistribution, and reform of American capitalism. In both cases, it reflects the same question: whether the American economic model continues to benefit the entire population fairly.

The fifth transformation concerns the technological revolution. The United States has entered a new phase where digital technologies are profoundly changing how citizens work, communicate, and participate in public life. Social networks have gradually replaced some traditional media as primary sources of political information, creating an environment where opinions circulate faster but divisions can also deepen.

Digital algorithms have fostered the creation of separate informational communities, where citizens are often exposed to content reinforcing their initial beliefs. This fragmentation of the public sphere represents a major challenge for American democracy, as it reduces common spaces for discussion and makes political compromises harder.

Artificial intelligence adds a new dimension to this transformation. It will have significant consequences on employment, economic competitiveness, national security, and the very functioning of electoral campaigns. The 2028 election will likely be the first where artificial intelligence plays a central role in producing political content, electoral analysis, targeted communication, and risks related to disinformation.

Finally, the last major transformation is generational. The young Americans who will be under thirty in 2028 grew up in a historical environment profoundly different from that of their parents. They did not experience the Cold War as a central political reality and did not experience the September 11, 2001 attacks with the same perception as previous generations. Their world view has been shaped by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 financial crisis, debates on climate change, social mobilizations related to racial justice, and the explosion of digital technologies.

This generation has a more critical relationship with traditional institutions, but it is also more open to the world and more attentive to global issues. Its electoral behavior will be decisive in 2028, as it will represent a growing share of the U.S. electorate. It could contribute to accelerating the transformation of the political system by favoring new economic, social, and environmental priorities.

These different changes do not operate independently of each other. They reinforce each other and produce an American society that is more diverse yet more fragmented, richer yet more unequal, more connected yet also more politically isolated. They create a more volatile electorate in its choices, but also more attached to certain cultural, territorial, and generational identities. It is in this profoundly reshaped America that the 2028 presidential battle will unfold. A battle that will not be just about candidates or parties, but about two competing visions for the future of the United States and its place in the world.

Why the 2028 Presidential Campaign Has Already Begun

There is a widely held idea, fostered by some media and political observers, that U.S. presidential elections truly begin in the election year. This perception is nonetheless inaccurate. In the United States, preparation for a presidential election always starts well before the official campaign opening, but this phenomenon has become even more pronounced in the context of 2028. The next presidential battle began the day after the 2024 election, and some of its elements were visible even before.

Behind the apparent calm political period, considerable work is already underway. Potential candidates are assessing their chances, testing their messages with voters, meeting donors, building influence networks, and seeking to identify themes likely to define the next campaign. Think tanks are developing policy proposals, teams of advisors are beginning to take shape, and electoral strategies are often developed subtly before being officially unveiled.

This precocity is first explained by the financial factor. U.S. presidential campaigns are among the most costly political operations in the world. The scale of electoral spending imposes long-term preparation on candidates. Even before officially declaring, a contender must establish a donor network, create fundraising structures, develop support committees, and build an organization capable of operating on a national scale. In a system where fundraising ability often serves as an early indicator of political credibility, time becomes a major strategic advantage.

The second factor is the transformation of the media environment. American politics now operates in a permanent news cycle. Cable news channels, social networks, digital platforms, political podcasts, and specialized media have eliminated the old distinction between electoral and non-electoral periods. Every speech, every appearance, every statement, or every mistake can be instantly analyzed, amplified, or exploited politically.

In this environment, candidates can no longer wait for the official campaign opening to build their public image. They must progressively establish their political identity, develop national name recognition, and convince potential voters they embody a credible response to the country’s challenges. Contemporary American politics has become a permanent competition for public attention.

The third factor concerns the complexity of the primary system. Unlike many political systems where candidates are quickly designated by parties, the United States imposes a long internal selection process. Candidates must face a succession of electoral consultations in states with very different profiles, each with its own political culture, local media, and specific priorities.

The ability to navigate this process successfully requires considerable preparation. One must build a national organization, recruit local teams, establish activist networks, and adapt one’s message to the realities of each territory. A U.S. presidential campaign is therefore not built in a few months; it relies on gradual establishment that often begins several years before the final vote.

The fourth factor is the particular role played by think tanks, universities, and expert networks in shaping U.S. public policy. Unlike other democracies where political parties directly produce much of their doctrine, the United States relies heavily on research institutions that influence economic, social, military, and diplomatic debates.

These organizations produce reports, analyses, and proposals that subsequently feed into candidates’ platforms. Future political leaders thus begin very early to assemble their teams of experts, identify the major orientations of their potential administration, and establish the networks that could support them if they come to power.

The final factor is uncertainty. The 2028 election remains largely open. The Republican and Democratic candidates are not definitively known, the main campaign issues may still evolve, and no one can predict the national or international crises that could shift voters’ priorities. This uncertainty pushes contenders to prepare well ahead of the deadline. They must position themselves early enough to be identified by voters, build a coherent image, and be able to seize political opportunities when the context becomes favorable.

This dynamic is further reinforced by a central question: the legacy of Donald Trump. Regardless of his personal involvement in the 2028 campaign, Trump will likely remain one of the defining figures of the Republican Party. If he seeks to re-enter the presidential race, the Republican primary could be largely dominated by his candidacy, and the general election would then become a judgment on his political record. If he does not run, the Republican battle will take the form of an open succession where several candidates will try to present themselves as the legitimate heirs of the movement he profoundly transformed. In both scenarios, the competition will have begun well before the official opening of the polls.

Understanding this precocity allows one to understand the very nature of the 2028 election. It is not a political event that will suddenly appear at the time of the vote; it is a process already underway, gradually constructed through alliances, ideological repositioning, media strategies, and electoral calculations. It is already influencing the behaviors of American candidates, the expectations of voters, and even the strategies of foreign powers closely observing Washington’s political evolution. The 2028 presidential election has not arrived yet, but it is already shaping the future American political landscape.

The Ten Numbers That Explain the America of 2028

To conclude this first part dedicated to the internal transformations of the United States, ten figures summarize, through a few key indicators, the major demographic, economic, and social forces that will shape the American political landscape as the 2028 presidential election approaches.

1. Approximately 340 million inhabitants:

2. The U.S. population continues to grow, but at a slower pace than in previous decades. This demographic evolution marks a new stage for the United States, simultaneously facing the aging of its population and increasing diversification of its society.

3. Nearly a quarter of the population of Hispanic or Latino origin:

The growth of the Hispanic population is one of the major demographic transformations of the 21st-century United States. This evolution is gradually changing the country’s electoral composition and forcing the two major parties to adapt their strategies towards an electorate that has become essential.

4. Nearly half of voters identifying as independent:

The increase in the number of Americans who refuse to define themselves exclusively as Republicans or Democrats reflects growing distrust of the two major parties. This independent electorate represents a major issue in presidential elections, particularly in states where a few thousand votes can decide the outcome.

5. Approximately $30 trillion in public debt:

The historic level of U.S. federal debt constitutes one of the major economic challenges for future administrations. It will weigh on budgetary choices, social policies, public investments, and the federal government’s ability to respond to future crises.

6. Inflation persistently felt by households:

Even after the slowdown in price increases observed following the inflationary shock of the early 2020s, the cost of living remains one of the primary concerns of American voters. For many families, the central issue is not just the level of inflation, but the erosion of purchasing power accumulated over the years.

7. Tens of millions of Americans born abroad:

Immigration remains one of the country’s major political issues. The United States remains a nation built by successive waves of migration, but the scale and speed of recent migratory movements fuel intense debate over borders, integration, and national identity.

8. Approximately 80% of the population living in urban or peri-urban areas:

Urban concentration has profoundly transformed American political geography. Large cities and their suburbs now constitute the main economic, technological, and cultural centers of the country, but they have also become arenas of major electoral confrontation.

9. Approximately 12% African American population:

The African American community retains essential political weight, notably in several key states and major urban areas. Its level of electoral mobilization remains a determining factor for the Democratic Party, even if its political behavior evolves according to generations and territories.

10. Durably weakened institutional confidence:

A significant portion of Americans express growing distrust of the federal government and national institutions. This crisis of confidence spans both major parties and is one of the engines of contemporary American populism.

11. A majority of Americans believing the country is heading in the wrong direction:

Political pessimism has become one of the characteristic traits of contemporary America. Despite its economic and technological power, a significant portion of the population considers the country is going through a period of uncertainty, marked by social divisions, economic difficulties, and loss of trust in institutions.

These figures are not mere statistical data. They reveal the underlying forces shaping the America of 2028: a nation more diverse but more fragmented, more powerful but more anxious, more innovative but more distrustful of its institutions. It is upon this social, economic, and demographic reality that presidential candidates will build their speeches, strategies, and promises. These figures constitute the political backdrop for the battle ahead.

The Republican Party: Consolidating the Trump Legacy

The first part established the general framework: the America of 2028 is a profoundly transformed society, traversed by demographic, economic, cultural, and institutional fractures that are redefining its political landscape. In this new reality, the Republican Party occupies a particular position. After having been for several decades the party of Reagan, then that of institutional conservatism dominated by economic and diplomatic elites, it has become the political vehicle of a new movement embodied by Donald Trump.

This transformation constitutes one of the most significant political events in recent U.S. history. Trumpism has not only modified the discourse of the Republican Party; it has changed its priorities, social alliances, and vision of America’s role in the world. The central question of 2028 is therefore not only whether Republicans will retain power, but whether they will be capable of transforming a movement built around an exceptional personality into a lasting political doctrine.

The strength of the Republican Party today rests on a profoundly restructured electoral coalition: rural areas, part of the white working class, religious conservatives, but also a growing fraction of Latino voters sensitive to themes of order, immigration, and opposition to socialism. This coalition allowed Trump to reshape the party, but it also carries a fundamental fragility: its cohesion remains largely tied to the president’s personal legacy.

The major challenge of the period ahead is therefore that of succession. How can the political energy of Trumpism be preserved without Donald Trump? How can the loyalty of its base be maintained while expanding the Republican electorate towards independents and suburban middle classes? How can a revolt against the establishment be transformed into a sustainable governing vision?

This second part analyzes this historic mutation. It examines Trumpism as a political phenomenon, the particular role of Donald Trump in the balance of the Republican Party, and then the figures who could claim his succession. Beyond personalities, the objective is to understand which ideological orientation could define the American right in the coming years and what consequences this evolution could have on U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Caribbean space.

Trumpism: Electoral Phenomenon or Durable Political Doctrine?

The question of the nature of Trumpism has become one of the great political debates of 21st-century America. Is it a temporary movement built around an exceptional personality, destined to disappear with Donald Trump? Or does it represent a deeper transformation of American conservatism, comparable in its historical influence to the Reaganism of the 1980s?

The answer probably lies between these two analyses. Trumpism was born around a man, but it also responds to social and political evolutions that existed before him. It is the expression of accumulated discontent: a feeling of economic decline in certain regions of the country, distrust of institutions, rejection of a globalization perceived as unfair, anxieties about cultural transformations, and the sense that political elites no longer represent a significant portion of the population.

Observers use several concepts to define this current: populist nationalism, identity conservatism, economic sovereigntism, strategic isolationism, or anti-establishment reaction. Each of these definitions describes part of the phenomenon, but none alone suffices. The heart of Trumpism rests on a simpler idea: America must be protected.

This promise of protection is probably its most powerful element. Trump offered voters a direct response to several simultaneous anxieties: protecting American jobs from the effects of globalization, protecting borders from illegal immigration, protecting traditional values from rapid cultural changes, protecting American sovereignty from international institutions deemed constraining. For a segment of the electorate, this promise represented less a detailed political program than a recognition of their frustrations and anxieties.

Trumpism also rests on a particular political method: permanent rupture with established norms. Unlike traditional conservative leaders who generally sought to respect institutional codes, Trump built his relationship with voters around confrontation. His direct style, his attacks on the media, his criticisms of judicial institutions, and his rejection of classical political conventions were interpreted differently by each camp.

For his opponents, this approach represents a threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law. For his supporters, it constitutes precisely proof of his authenticity. Trump was perceived not as a traditional politician seeking to preserve the system, but as an outsider capable of defying a system considered closed and inefficient. Beyond the method, Trumpism also carries a particular vision of the world. Internationally, it questions several principles that had structured U.S. foreign policy since World War II: automatic support for multilateral alliances, the promotion of an international order based on institutions, and the idea that American leadership rests on permanent global engagement.

Against this approach, Trump opposed a more transactional conception of international relations. Alliances must, according to this logic, be evaluated based on the direct benefits they bring to the United States. Trade agreements must better protect American industry. International organizations must not limit national sovereignty. Foreign partners must contribute more to funding their own security. This vision has deeply worried many traditional U.S. allies, particularly in Europe and Asia. It has created a fundamental question about the reliability of U.S. engagement in the world. This question remains open in 2028: even after subsequent years, doubt about the permanence of the United States’ international role remains one of the most significant legacies of the Trump era.

The great question of 2028 is therefore the survival of Trumpism after Trump. Its disappearance is possible, as the movement remains strongly associated with a unique personality. Donald Trump never built a structured political doctrine comparable to Reaganism; he rather embodied a political intuition, a leadership style, and a direct relationship with his electorate. But its complete disappearance also seems unlikely, as he has durably transformed the expectations of the Republican base. His successors will now have to contend with voters who consider immigration, economic sovereignty, criticism of elites, and priority given to American interests as central elements of conservative identity.

The future of the Republican Party will therefore depend on its ability to institutionalize this legacy. Three paths are possible: complete fidelity to the Trump model, adaptation intended to make the movement more acceptable to the centrist electorate, or an attempt at synthesis between traditional conservatism and nationalist populism. It is precisely this battle of interpretation that will define the 2028 Republican primary. All candidates will be, in one way or another, heirs of Trump. But they will have to answer a fundamental question: should the movement be continued as it exists, or should its legacy be transformed to build the next generation of American conservatism?

Donald Trump: President, Arbiter, or Kingmaker?

Even after leaving the White House, Donald Trump remains the dominant figure of the Republican Party. His influence far exceeds that of a traditional former president. Where other former U.S. heads of state have gradually taken an institutional distance from their party, Trump continues to occupy a central position in defining Republican priorities, choosing candidates, and the ideological orientation of the conservative movement.

In 2028, the real question is therefore not only who will be the Republican candidate for president, but what role Donald Trump will choose to play in this new political battle. Will he himself be a candidate for another term? Will he become the arbiter of a succession among several heirs? Or will he seek to become the true “kingmaker” of the Republican Party, capable of imposing his successor while retaining decisive influence over the direction of the movement?

This uncertainty constitutes one of Trump’s main political strengths. By keeping open the possibility of a new candidacy, he retains considerable strategic power over potential contenders. As long as his intention remains ambiguous, Republican candidates must calculate their positions carefully. They seek the support of his electoral base without appearing as adversaries, they claim his legacy without giving the impression of being mere copies, and they try to prepare for the future while remaining loyal to the one who redefined the party.

Trump’s real power today rests less on an institutional function than on a personal political relationship with tens of millions of voters. This relationship is one of the major transformations of the contemporary American party system. A segment of his electorate no longer defines itself primarily by its affiliation with the Republican Party, but by its attachment to Trump himself and what he represents: opposition to political elites, an assertive defense of national sovereignty, and a willingness to break with the established order.

This personal loyalty gives Trump an exceptional capacity for influence. A candidate publicly endorsed by him can benefit from a considerable advantage in a Republican primary. Conversely, a candidate who directly confronts him risks losing a significant portion of the conservative base. This reality explains why most contenders for succession seek less to break with Trump than to present themselves as the true heirs of his movement.

However, this influence also has limits. Politics also relies on generational renewal, and no political figure can maintain the same level of dominance indefinitely. Age, electoral fatigue, media wear and tear, and accumulated controversies are factors that could gradually reduce Trump’s ability to impose his will.

The Trump paradox is therefore as follows: he remains indispensable to the Republican Party, but he also represents a question the party will have to answer sooner or later. Can a political movement survive durably when built around such a dominant personality? The answer will largely determine the future of American conservatism.

Succession thus represents the main strategic challenge for the Republican Party. If Trump chooses not to run again, he will have to decide which candidate can preserve his legacy while being capable of broadening the electoral coalition. This decision will be difficult, as the criteria may conflict. The most loyal successor is not necessarily the one with the best electoral capacity. The candidate most competent to win a national election is not necessarily the one who will most reassure the Trumpist base.

Several profiles could then emerge. Some will seek to extend the movement directly, taking up the central themes of Trumpism with a new generation of leaders. Others will attempt a strategic evolution: retaining the populist and sovereigntist energy of the movement while adopting a more institutional tone capable of attracting independent voters and moderate suburbs.

In all scenarios, Donald Trump will remain a major player in the 2028 presidential election. Even without being a candidate, he will influence debates, alliances, and internal power dynamics. His legacy will likely surpass the question of his own political career, as he will have profoundly changed how a significant portion of Americans perceive the role of government, the relationship between the people and elites, and the place of the United States in the world.

Internationally, this influence will also remain significant. Trump’s vision on China, military alliances, multilateral institutions, and foreign political regimes will continue to weigh on the American strategic debate. For U.S. partners, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, understanding the future of the Republican Party necessarily involves understanding the role Trump will continue to play, whether in the forefront or behind the scenes. In 2028, Donald Trump may no longer be the U.S. president, but he could remain the man who still defines the contours of the American right.

The Republican Contenders: The Battle for the Trump Legacy

The Republican Party of 2028 faces a historic paradox. It is more ideologically powerful than it has been for several decades, but it must resolve a fundamental question: how to transform a movement built around an exceptional leader into a political force capable of lasting beyond its founder? The next Republican primary will therefore not just be a competition among ambitious personalities. It will be a battle of interpretation over the Trump legacy. All candidates will have to answer the same question: should Trumpism be extended in its current form, modernized, or surpassed?

The difficulty is considerable. The Republican electoral base expects its leaders to demonstrate loyalty to the themes that enabled the party’s transformation: national sovereignty, immigration control, priority to American economic interests, criticism of progressive elites, and a more transactional foreign policy. But a national victory also requires convincing independent voters, suburban middle classes, and a portion of moderate voters who remain wary of the most divisive aspects of the movement.

The 2028 Republican primary will therefore be a search for balance between fidelity and renewal. The best-positioned candidates will not necessarily be those who imitate Trump the most, but those who understand how to transform his legacy into a new stage of American conservatism. Among the figures likely to play a major role in this competition, several profiles stand out:

J.D. Vance
The Intellectual Heir of Trumpism?

J.D. Vance represents one of the most visible attempts to transform Trumpism into a structured political doctrine. His trajectory symbolizes an important evolution of the American right: a conservatism that is no longer limited to reducing the state or traditional social issues, but places economic sovereignty, protection of the working class, and criticism of globalization at its center. Originally from Ohio, an industrial state that has become a symbol of the political shift of the white working class towards the Republican Party, Vance has a profile particularly suited to the political narrative of the new conservatism. His book Hillbilly Elegy gave him national visibility by describing the social and economic difficulties of a part of peripheral America, which constituted one of the main electoral supports for Donald Trump.

His political journey is also revealing of the Republican Party’s transformation. Initially critical of Trump, Vance became one of his most convinced defenders. This evolution allowed him to gain the trust of part of the Republican base, which sees in him a representative of a new generation capable of continuing the movement after Trump. His strengths are significant. He is young, media-savvy, capable of defending a coherent ideological vision, and has roots in a politically strategic state. He also benefits from a growing network of supporters in conservative and technological circles, notably among actors seeking to influence the country’s economic and regulatory future.

But his vulnerabilities also exist. His conversion to Trumpism remains a source of criticism among some traditional conservatives who accuse him of changing positions for electoral reasons. His Democratic opponents will likely seek to present his trajectory as political opportunism rather than a sincere ideological evolution. His other challenge will be national. A presidential candidacy requires going beyond the traditional Republican base. Vance will have to demonstrate he can attract independents, suburban voters, and social categories still hesitant about economic and cultural populism.

Internationally, J.D. Vance embodies a particularly important trend of the new Republican Party: a strategic nationalism more concerned with domestic U.S. priorities than with the permanent management of global affairs. He criticizes traditional military interventionism, wants to reduce certain foreign engagements, and considers competition with China to be the primary strategic priority for the United States.

Regarding the Caribbean, notably Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his likely approach would be more based on direct U.S. interests, regional security, and control of migration flows than on a traditional policy of democratic promotion or humanitarian intervention. His positioning could therefore represent a significant evolution in the relationship between Washington and its regional neighborhood. J.D. Vance thus appears as one of the candidates most representative of the 2028 Republican dilemma: he embodies the continuity of Trumpism, but he must still demonstrate he can become more than an heir—a genuine national leader.

Ron DeSantis

Institutional Conservatism After Trump?

Ron DeSantis represents another possible path for the future of the Republican Party: a conservatism strongly inspired by the Trump era on cultural and identity issues, but more structured around a classic governmental experience. Unlike some heirs of the movement, DeSantis does not present himself as a mere continuator of Trump; he rather seeks to demonstrate he can achieve Trumpism’s objectives with a more disciplined and more institutional approach.

Governor of Florida, a state that has become one of the most important bastions of the modern Republican Party, DeSantis built his national reputation around several themes: opposition to progressive policies in public institutions, defense of conservative values, immigration control, and affirmation of a strong executive. His political strategy rests on the idea that the American right can retain the cultural energy of Trumpism while reducing dependence on a unique personality.

His main advantage lies in his executive experience. Unlike several potential contenders, he has a concrete governmental record to present to voters. He can defend the idea that he has already administered a large American state, managed public crises, and implemented a coherent conservative program. This experience could be an important argument for voters who want ideological continuity but with a different leadership style. However, DeSantis also has a major weakness: his relationship with Donald Trump. When he tried to establish himself as an alternative to the outgoing president, he did not succeed in surpassing Trump’s personal influence with the Republican base. A portion of conservative voters perceived him not as a natural heir, but as a rival who had tried to replace the movement’s founder too quickly.

In 2028, his challenge will therefore be to convince that he is neither an adversary of Trump nor a mere copy of Trump. He will have to demonstrate he represents a new generation capable of continuing certain priorities of the movement while bringing superior governmental efficiency. Ideologically, DeSantis belongs to a more organized and more institutional right than original Trumpism. He attaches great importance to cultural issues, the sovereignty of federal states, and confrontation with what he considers the excessive influence of progressive elites in universities, media, and large corporations.

Economically, he generally defends a pro-business approach, combining deregulation and support for national industrial policies. He shares with Trump the criticism of certain effects of globalization, but his approach is more oriented towards American competitiveness than permanent rupture. In foreign policy, DeSantis represents an intermediate position. He is less isolationist than some heirs of Trumpism, but less interventionist than traditional post-Cold War Republicans. He considers China the main strategic challenge for the United States and advocates for a strengthening of American power, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

Regarding the Western Hemisphere, his approach would likely be marked by particular attention to regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests, notably Cuba and Venezuela. His policy towards Haiti could be more centered on regional security, migration, and institutional stability, with an approach less focused on traditional development aid programs.

DeSantis’s potential thus rests on a promise: retaining Trump’s political energy without depending entirely on Trump. But this very position constitutes his main challenge. He will have to convince an electoral base that still greatly appreciates the former president that a new generation can carry the movement without betraying it.

Nikki Haley

The Attempt at Reconciliation with Moderate America

Nikki Haley represents a different trajectory within the Republican Party. Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she embodies more of the party’s traditional internationalist conservative tradition: a Republicanism favorable to an active America in the world, attached to alliances, and closer to the diplomatic legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Her profile constitutes a possible response to the question many Republicans ask: how to broaden the party’s coalition beyond the Trumpist base? Haley seeks to present a more institutional right, capable of retaining certain conservative priorities while reassuring independent voters and U.S. international partners. Her diplomatic experience is her main asset. Unlike candidates whose international approach rests essentially on economic competition or national sovereignty, Haley defends a vision where American leadership abroad remains an essential instrument of power.

She notably insists on the need to maintain alliances, support U.S. strategic partners, and firmly respond to regimes considered adversaries of Washington. This position could appeal to Republican voters who desire a return to a more traditional foreign policy. But her main difficulty remains her relationship with the Trumpist base. Her past criticisms of Donald Trump could limit her acceptance among a segment of the Republican electorate. To succeed in a primary dominated by the Trump legacy, she will have to demonstrate she understands the frustrations that fueled the movement while offering a credible alternative. On the international stage, Haley likely represents the Republican current most favorable to active U.S. engagement. Her vision could lead to a more coordinated policy with allies and more attentive to democratic issues in the Western Hemisphere.

For Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this approach could mean a return to more classical diplomacy: pressure on authoritarian regimes, cooperation with regional partners, and use of American diplomatic instruments as tools of influence. The Haley candidacy would thus pose a fundamental question to the Republican Party: should the movement’s future remain centered on populist rupture, or regain an international dimension closer to traditional conservatism?

Marco Rubio

The Bridge Between Trumpism and the Republican Internationalist Tradition

Marco Rubio likely represents one of the most complex profiles in the Republican succession. Senator from Florida, former presidential candidate, and a major figure in conservative foreign policy, he embodies an attempt at synthesis between several currents of the Republican Party: traditional conservatism, the new populist right, and the strategic vision centered on competition with China.

His career is particularly interesting because it reflects the very evolution of the Republican Party over the past fifteen years. At the beginning of his national career, Rubio was considered one of the faces of the new conservative generation, favorable to free trade, international alliances, and an active U.S. foreign policy. But Donald Trump’s arrival profoundly changed the political environment in which he operated. Like several Republican officials, he had to adapt his positioning to remain connected to an electoral base that had become more distrustful of the traditional establishment.

This evolution is both his strength and his weakness. His strength, because he has significant experience of how Washington works, in-depth knowledge of international issues, and an ability to dialogue with several sensibilities within the party. His weakness, because he must convince two electorates sometimes hard to reconcile: Trumpist voters seeking loyalty and traditional conservative voters who value experience and institutional competence.

Originally from Florida, a strategic state for Republicans, Rubio also benefits from a particular advantage in Latin American politics. His political heritage and roots in a community highly mobilized on Cuba and Venezuela give him specific credibility on Western Hemisphere affairs. Ideologically, Rubio could represent an evolution of Trumpism towards a more structured doctrine. He shares with Trump several priorities: competition with China, criticism of certain economic dependencies, defense of American interests, and a firmer approach towards regimes considered adversaries. But he remains more attached to international alliances and the strategic use of American diplomacy. In a Rubio administration, foreign policy might therefore seek a balance between the relative withdrawal advocated by some Trump heirs and the traditional interventionism of post-Cold War Republicans.

Regarding Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be influenced by three factors: regional security, the migration issue, and the fight against the influence of rival powers in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba and Venezuela would likely occupy a central place due to their proximity to U.S. interests and their ties with Russia or China. Haiti, for its part, would be more addressed from the angle of regional stability, governance, and control of migration flows. Rubio’s challenge will therefore be to convince that he can be the candidate of a transformed Republican Party without being a prisoner of its contradictions. He must appear sufficiently close to the Trump legacy to gain the support of the base, while offering a presidential stature capable of reassuring the entire country and the United States’ international partners.

Vivek Ramaswamy

The New Technological and Generational Right

Vivek Ramaswamy embodies a different dimension of the Republican transformation: the emergence of a new generation right, stemming from the entrepreneurial and technological world, seeking to combine economic nationalism, criticism of traditional institutions, and intensive use of new media. An entrepreneur before becoming a politician, Ramaswamy made a name for himself through a particularly offensive discourse against what he considers the excessive influence of major cultural, economic, and academic institutions. His positioning echoes several themes of Trumpism: criticism of elites, opposition to cultural progressivism, defense of national sovereignty, and a willingness to break with traditional political norms.

His main advantage lies in his generational profile. Unlike a large part of the American political class coming from classical institutions, he represents a new generation of leaders who built their influence outside traditional structures. His mastery of digital platforms and his ability to communicate directly with voters correspond to the evolution of contemporary American politics. However, his lack of governmental experience also constitutes a major limitation. A presidential election requires not only an ability to mobilize an electoral base, but also credibility in state management, national security, and foreign policy.

Internationally, Ramaswamy shares several positions with the most sovereigntist wing of the Republican Party. He considers that the United States must reduce engagements deemed secondary and concentrate resources on national priorities, notably competition with China. His approach could therefore lead to a more selective foreign policy, where Washington would intervene less in peripheral crises but would seek to strengthen its economic and strategic influence in regions deemed essential.

In the Caribbean, this vision could mean prioritizing security, trade, immigration, and geopolitical competition with China. Haiti could be analyzed primarily through the prism of regional stability and migration consequences for the United States. Ramaswamy thus represents an important question for the Republican future: is the American conservative movement transitioning from a political generation dominated by former leaders towards a generation stemming from the digital economy and new forms of communication?

Kristi Noem

Territorial Conservatism and Rural America

Kristi Noem represents another important component of the modern Republican coalition: that of rural America, sparsely populated states, and voters attached to a traditional conception of public authority, individual liberty, and national identity. Governor of South Dakota, she fits the profile of a political leader capable of speaking directly to conservative voters in regions far from major urban centers. Her political image rests on defending individual liberties, reducing the role of the federal government, and valuing local communities. Her main asset is her proximity to an electoral base that still constitutes the heart of the Republican Party. She represents a cultural continuity with the electorate that brought Trump to power: rurality, social conservatism, distrust of Washington, and attachment to traditional values.

Her main difficulty, however, will be her national visibility. Unlike some other contenders with strong media or international recognition, she will have to demonstrate she possesses a stature capable of transcending her regional roots. Internationally, her approach would likely be close to pragmatic conservatism: priority to American interests, border control, and particular attention to the domestic consequences of international decisions. She could represent a more traditional wing of Trumpism, less ideological on the world stage but deeply attached to themes of sovereignty, order, and national identity.

The America of 2028 and the World: What Role for the World’s Leading Power?

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will not merely be a clash between two parties or two visions of American society. It will also be a decisive moment for the international order. Since 1945, the United States has held a unique place in the global system: dominant military power, leading technological economy, major financial center, and indispensable actor in major international institutions. Yet this position is now contested from within and without.

The fundamental question running through the 2028 campaign will therefore be this: which America do voters want to project into the world? A more cautious America, focused on its immediate national interests, wary of foreign commitments? Or an America that still considers its global influence an essential instrument of its security and prosperity? This question extends far beyond U.S. borders. It concerns Europe facing Russia, Asia facing China, the Middle East facing new power rivalries, but also the Western Hemisphere, where the Caribbean remains directly influenced by Washington’s strategic choices.

For the countries of the region, and particularly for Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Central American states, the 2028 U.S. election will therefore not be a mere foreign political event. It will be a determining factor in the migration, security, economic, and diplomatic policies that will shape the next decade.

After the Trump Era: The Redefinition of American Leadership

For nearly eight decades, U.S. foreign policy has rested on a fundamental conviction: America’s power depends on its ability to organize and influence the international order. After World War II, Washington built a system based on military alliances, economic institutions, and permanent global presence. This strategy, often called American liberal internationalism, survived political alternations. Democratic and Republican presidents could diverge on methods, but they generally shared the same idea: American withdrawal creates a vacuum that other powers immediately seek to fill.

Donald Trump’s arrival profoundly disrupted this consensus. For the first time in several generations, a U.S. president openly challenged the idea that the United States should bear the primary responsibility for world order. His “America First” doctrine asserted that international engagements should be evaluated not by their contribution to global stability, but by their direct benefit to American interests.

This rupture did not only concern international institutions. It also transformed the perception of alliances. Where previous administrations considered NATO, Asian partnerships, or relations with Western Hemisphere neighbors as power multipliers, Trump often presented them as costly arrangements requiring renegotiation.

In 2028, this transformation remains one of the great strategic debates of the Republican Party. Trump’s heirs are not all agreed on the future direction. Some want to continue the logic of selective withdrawal, considering the United States should avoid engagements that do not directly serve its security. Others believe the country risks losing its influence if it abandons its international responsibilities too quickly. This division reflects a deeper question: are the United States still willing to pay the price of global leadership?

China: The Central Strategic Rival of America

If there is a point of convergence among different American political sensibilities, it is the perception of China as the primary strategic challenge of the 21st century. Unlike debates on Russia, the Middle East, or military interventions, competition with Beijing now enjoys consensus in Washington. China represents a different threat from those encountered by the United States in the previous century. The Soviet Union was primarily a military and ideological power. China is simultaneously an industrial, technological, commercial, financial, and military power. It does not merely seek to challenge U.S. influence in a specific region; it aims to reshape the global balance.

The China question will therefore be at the heart of the 2028 election. Both Republican and Democratic candidates will have to answer several questions: should economic confrontation be prioritized? Strengthen alliances in Asia? Limit industrial dependencies? Continue cooperation on certain issues like climate and global health? For the Caribbean, this rivalry also has a particular dimension. Beijing has strengthened its economic presence in several countries in the region through investments in infrastructure, telecommunications, and trade. Washington watches this development closely, as Sino-American competition is no longer just about Asia: it is also playing out in the Western Hemisphere. The next U.S. administration will therefore have to define a strategy capable of responding to China’s rise without turning every diplomatic space into a permanent battlefield.

Russia, Ukraine, and the End of the Post-Cold War American Order

The relationship between the United States and Russia is one of the issues that most clearly reveals the internal divisions in U.S. foreign policy. Unlike China, which now enjoys relatively broad strategic consensus in Washington, Russia remains a subject of profound disagreement among different American political sensibilities.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has long considered Russia a weakened but nonetheless important power for international stability. Successive administrations have attempted to combine dialogue and firmness, seeking to integrate Moscow into an international order dominated by Western institutions while limiting its regional ambitions.

The 2022 invasion of Ukraine profoundly disrupted this approach. It marked the return of a direct confrontation between Russia and the West and placed the question of European security back at the center of U.S. strategy. For supporters of an interventionist policy, Ukraine represents a major issue: defending an attacked country, preserving the credibility of American alliances, and preventing a great power from changing borders by force.

Conversely, a growing portion of the American right considers that the United States has devoted too many resources to foreign conflicts and that Europe must assume more of its own security. This vision, notably borne by certain currents close to Trumpism, believes that the primary U.S. strategic priority should be competition with China and the reconstruction of domestic power.

This debate will be central in 2028. The Ukraine question will not merely be a foreign policy issue; it will have become a symbol of two opposing visions of the American role in the world. On one side, an America that considers its influence depends on its ability to defend its partners. On the other, an America that believes its primary duty is to protect its own interests before those of other nations.

Beyond Ukraine, this evolution poses a fundamental question: could a gradual American disengagement encourage other powers to test the limits of the international order? Or, conversely, would it allow the United States to concentrate its resources on what it considers priority challenges? The answer to this question will have consequences far beyond Europe. In a world where great powers seek to expand their influence, every region becomes a potential space for competition. The Caribbean itself is not exempt from this new reality.

The Caribbean in the New Power Competition: Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela at the Heart of the Stakes

For a long time, the Caribbean was considered by Washington as a zone of natural, almost exclusive, influence. Geographic proximity, historical ties, migration issues, and security interests made this region a particular strategic space for the United States. But this situation has changed. In the 21st century, the Caribbean is no longer just an American neighborhood. It has become a space where several influences converge: American, Chinese, Russian, European, and Latin American. Ports, digital infrastructure, natural resources, trade routes, and migration issues have transformed the region into a discreet theater of geopolitical competition.

Three countries hold a particular place in this equation: Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti. Each represents a different challenge for Washington.

Cuba remains the historical symbol of the confrontation between the United States and a communist regime located less than two hundred kilometers from American shores. Since the 1959 revolution, the relationship between Washington and Havana has oscillated between periods of confrontation and attempts at rapprochement. The Cuban question remains heavily influenced by U.S. domestic politics, notably by the electoral weight of the Cuban-American community in Florida.

In 2028, the Cuban debate could pit two approaches against each other. The first, inherited from the traditional Republican line, considers that economic and diplomatic pressure remains necessary to foster political change in Havana. The second believes an engagement strategy could better serve U.S. interests by reducing the influence of external actors like China and Russia. Venezuela represents another major issue. The political, economic, and humanitarian crisis that has marked the country for several years has transformed Caracas into a regional flashpoint. U.S. sanctions, the energy question, mass migration, and the growing presence of foreign actors have made Venezuela a strategic file.

For some U.S. officials, Venezuela is primarily a problem of regional security and democratic stability. For others, a more pragmatic approach could serve U.S. energy interests while reducing the influence of rival powers. But it is likely Haiti that represents the most complex challenge for the next U.S. administration. Unlike Cuba and Venezuela, Haiti is not perceived as an ideological adversary of the United States. Rather, it represents a multidimensional challenge combining institutional crisis, insecurity, poverty, migration, state weakness, and the growing influence of criminal networks.

The Haitian question illustrates an important evolution in U.S. policy in the Caribbean: security can no longer be separated from development. Political, economic, and social crises directly produce regional consequences, notably through migration flows and transnational threats.

In 2028, U.S. policy towards Haiti will largely depend on the strategic vision of the next president. A more interventionist administration might favor increased engagement in security and institutional reconstruction. A more nationalist administration might seek to limit direct commitments and favor targeted partnerships. In both cases, Haiti will remain a major test of the American capacity to exercise constructive influence in its immediate environment.

The Republican Contenders: The Battle for the Trump Legacy

The Republican Party of 2028 faces one of the most important questions in its recent history: how to transform Donald Trump’s legacy into a sustainable political force without depending exclusively on his personality? Since 2016, Trump has profoundly altered the party’s identity. He has shifted the Republican center of gravity toward economic nationalism, more restrictive immigration policy, criticism of international institutions, and a challenge to the old Washington consensus. But a question remains open: has Trumpism become a doctrine capable of surviving its founder, or does it remain a political movement attached to a man exceptionally capable of mobilizing an electoral base?

The 2028 Republican primary will therefore be much more than a competition among candidates. It will be a battle to define the ideological future of American conservatism. Several currents will clash.

The first is that of the direct heirs of Trumpism, who consider that the rupture initiated since 2016 must be pursued and deepened. For them, Trump did not merely win an election: he revealed a new political coalition based on the working class, rural voters, workers affected by globalization, and a portion of the middle class anxious about the country’s cultural transformations.

The second current is that of the power Republicans, who accept the populist transformation of the party but wish to preserve a more traditional vision of the American role in the world. They consider that the United States must remain a dominant power, maintain its alliances, and use its diplomatic and military influence to defend its interests.

The third current is that of the conservative renovators, who seek to retain Trump’s electoral gains while developing a discourse more capable of attracting independents, suburbanites, and younger generations.

The 2028 battle will therefore be a confrontation between several visions of America: a sovereigntist America wary of the outside, a conservative but globally engaged America, and an America seeking to move beyond the divisions of the Trump era.

J.D. Vance: The Ideological Heir of Trumpism

J.D. Vance appears as one of the most natural representatives of the new American right. His trajectory symbolizes the transformation of the Republican Party since Donald Trump’s arrival. A former critic of the Republican president, he became one of his most convinced defenders, to the point of embodying a new generation of political leaders who consider Trumpism not as an interlude, but as a historical reorientation of American conservatism. Senator from Ohio, a state emblematic of the Republican reconquest among the industrial working class, Vance has built an image as spokesman for a popular America that feels abandoned by economic, cultural, and political elites. His personal background, popularized by his book Hillbilly Elegy, gives him particular legitimacy with voters who see in his story that of a part of the country hit by deindustrialization, social crisis, and a feeling of decline.

His main advantage is his proximity to Trump’s electoral base. He masters the central themes of the movement: economic sovereignty, border control, criticism of elites, defense of traditional values, and a desire to place American interests at the center of national policy. He also benefits from the support of a new generation of conservative donors, particularly from the tech world, who wish to build a political movement different from the old economic conservatism based solely on tax cuts and deregulation.

But this proximity to the heart of Trumpism also constitutes his main challenge. A presidential election requires a broader coalition than a primary. Vance will have to convince independent voters, urban middle classes, and a portion of moderate voters who might be sensitive to his economic discourse but hesitant about his cultural conservatism. His political transformation is also a subject of debate. His opponents recall he was once a severe critic of Trump before becoming one of his most fervent defenders. His supporters reply that it is not a change of conviction, but an evolution linked to his analysis of American social transformation.

Internationally, J.D. Vance represents the wing closest to the modern isolationism of the Republican Party. He considers that the United States must avoid foreign engagements deemed costly and concentrate resources on its own economic and social priorities. This approach would challenge several decades of U.S. foreign policy based on global leadership.

Regarding the Western Hemisphere, his approach would likely favor a stricter national security logic, a reduction in foreign aid programs, and limited U.S. intervention to situations considered directly related to U.S. strategic interests. For Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this vision could mean a policy more centered on regional stability, migration, and security than on large-scale institutional transformation programs.

Marco Rubio: The Return of Internationalist Republicanism

Marco Rubio represents another possible path for the Republican Party of 2028. An experienced figure in the U.S. Senate and a major personality in Republican foreign policy, he embodies an attempt at synthesis between the economic populism that emerged with Trump and the American tradition of international leadership. His background gives him a considerable advantage. Unlike several younger contenders, Rubio knows U.S. institutions, diplomatic mechanisms, and major geopolitical balances deeply. He possesses international experience rare in a political generation more marked by domestic debates.

His roots in Florida also constitute a major strategic asset. This state has become a political laboratory of contemporary America: strong demographic growth, Latin American influence, considerable economic weight, and a central role in debates concerning Cuba, Venezuela, and the Caribbean. Rubio notably benefits from a privileged relationship with a significant portion of the Cuban-American and Venezuelan electorate, which sees the Republican Party as a bulwark against socialist regimes in the region. However, his main obstacle remains his image. A portion of the Republican base continues to see him as a representative of Washington’s old political system. His campaign will therefore have to demonstrate that he fully belongs to the post-Trump era and that he can defend a new conservative majority without returning to the Republicanism of pre-2016.

On foreign policy, Rubio represents a much more interventionist vision than that of J.D. Vance. He considers that American power rests on a network of alliances, a global presence, and the capacity to influence international events. He defends a hard line against China, traditionally supports Western alliances, and believes America must retain a driving role in the Western Hemisphere.

On Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach is more based on diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions against authoritarian regimes, and support for forces favoring a democratic transition. His vision therefore represents a stronger continuity with classical Republican foreign policy.

Ron DeSantis: The “Trump Without the Chaos”

Ron DeSantis likely represents the most structured attempt to move beyond Donald Trump’s personality while retaining a large part of his political legacy. Governor of Florida, former member of Congress, and rising figure in American conservatism, he has established himself as one of the first Republican leaders capable of transforming Trump’s popularity into a more institutional governmental doctrine. His supporters often present him as the “Trump without the chaos”: a leader who shares the major orientations of the movement—immigration control, defense of conservative values, opposition to progressive policies on cultural issues—but who intends to implement them with greater administrative discipline and institutional predictability.

His main advantage is his executive experience. Unlike several candidates from Congress or the media world, DeSantis can present a governor’s record. He can defend concrete management experience, particularly on economic, educational, and regulatory issues. In a presidential election, this dimension can be an important advantage for voters looking less for a figure of protest than a leader capable of governing. His roots in Florida also represent a strategic asset. The state has become a symbol of the new Republican coalition: traditional conservative voters, retirees, entrepreneurs, Latin American communities, and voters attracted by a discourse of low government intervention in the economy but firmness on cultural issues.

However, his trajectory also reveals several difficulties. His previous presidential candidacy showed the limits of an approach essentially based on competence and organization. Many voters considered him intelligent and prepared, but struggled to establish an emotional connection with him. Yet, the Trump era has profoundly changed the expectations of a segment of the Republican electorate: the ability to mobilize, create a political narrative, and embody a cause has become almost as important as governmental experience.

DeSantis will therefore have to solve a complex equation: remain sufficiently close to Trump to retain the movement’s base, while demonstrating he possesses his own political identity. On foreign policy, he occupies an intermediate position between J.D. Vance’s isolationism and Marco Rubio’s internationalism. He defends a policy centered on American interests, criticizes certain international engagements deemed excessive, but recognizes the importance of strategic competition with China and maintaining U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be dominated by three priorities: regional security, migration control, and protection of U.S. interests in the Caribbean. He might favor targeted cooperation with partner governments rather than a policy of large-scale political or institutional intervention.

Glenn Youngkin: The Moderate and Entrepreneurial Alternative

Glenn Youngkin represents another possibility for the Republican Party of 2028: a return to a more moderate form of conservatism, more oriented towards economic management and winning back independent voters. A former business executive turned Governor of Virginia, Youngkin built his political career by demonstrating that a Republican could still win in a politically competitive state by combining conservative economic discourse, pragmatic governance, and a cultural strategy capable of mobilizing the base without provoking mass rejection among moderate voters.

His success in Virginia attracted the attention of the Republican Party, as it showed a different path from the most confrontational Trumpism. Youngkin seeks less to embody a political revolution than to offer governmental efficiency, improvement of the education system, and a favorable environment for businesses. His main advantage is therefore his potential among voters who could be decisive in 2028: independents, suburban middle classes, educated voters, and entrepreneurs. But this position also constitutes his challenge. In a Republican primary heavily influenced by the Trump legacy, a candidate who is too moderate risks appearing insufficiently committed to the base. Youngkin will have to convince that he can defend conservative priorities without being seen as a return to pre-Trump Republicanism. His lack of national name recognition is also an obstacle. Unlike Trump, Rubio, or DeSantis, he does not yet have comparable political recognition across the country.

Internationally, Youngkin would likely defend a pragmatic approach: maintaining American leadership, supporting alliances when they serve U.S. interests, and seeking a balance between firmness and diplomacy. In the Caribbean, he might favor a policy combining security, economic development, and regional cooperation. Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be less ideological than that of other candidates, seeking more concrete results on stability, migration, and economic opportunities.

Tim Scott: Optimistic and Unifying Conservatism

Tim Scott represents another facet of the contemporary Republican Party. Senator from South Carolina and one of the few African American Republicans at the national level, he embodies a vision of conservatism based on economic opportunity, individual responsibility, and the possibility of social progress through American institutions. His personal story is his main political argument. Coming from a modest background, he presents his trajectory as a demonstration of the American model’s capacity to enable social mobility. His message stands out from the confrontational rhetoric that often dominates contemporary American politics. Scott possesses several assets. He can speak to a segment of the traditional conservative electorate, but also attempt to broaden the Republican coalition among minorities and voters seeking a less conflictual discourse. His political style, marked by optimism and dialogue, could appeal to some independents tired of permanent polarization.

However, his challenge is considerable. In a primary dominated by questions of political identity and loyalty to Trump, he will have to demonstrate he is not merely a moderate alternative, but a true heir capable of mobilizing the Republican base. Some conservatives might also consider his approach too consensual in the face of the major cultural clashes structuring part of the American political debate.

On foreign policy, Scott belongs more to the Republican internationalist tradition. He supports American alliances, considers China a strategic adversary, and defends an active U.S. presence in the Western Hemisphere. For Haiti, he has historically favored an approach combining security, development aid, and institutional cooperation. On Cuba and Venezuela, he supports a line of firmness towards authoritarian governments while recognizing the need for a sustainable diplomatic strategy.

Kristi Noem: The Voice of Rural and Cultural Conservatism

Kristi Noem represents one of the most faithful expressions of the popular conservatism that has transformed the Republican Party since Donald Trump’s arrival. Governor of South Dakota, former member of the House of Representatives, she established herself as a national figure through her opposition to government restrictions, her defense of individual liberties, and her positioning very close to the concerns of the conservative base.

Her main asset is her political identity. In a Republican Party where a significant portion of voters seeks leaders capable of embodying resistance to cultural and institutional elites, Noem appears as a candidate authentically aligned with the philosophy of the Trump movement. She speaks particularly to rural voters, religious conservatives, and those who consider Washington exerts excessive influence on citizens’ daily lives.

She also has a significant symbolic advantage: she could become one of the first women to carry the Trumpist legacy at the presidential level. In a party seeking to broaden its base among female voters while maintaining its conservative coalition, this dimension could play a strategic role. But her profile also presents important limitations. South Dakota remains a sparsely populated state, which limits her national exposure compared to governors from more competitive states. She will have to demonstrate she can transition from a policy adapted to a rural state to a vision capable of meeting the challenges of a global power.

Her other difficulty will be convincing beyond the conservative base. Her very pronounced positioning on cultural issues could strengthen her support among the most engaged Republican voters, but complicate her ability to attract independents and voters from major urban areas. On foreign policy, Kristi Noem belongs to the most cautious wing of the Republican Party. She defends an approach centered on the direct interests of the United States, a reduction of foreign engagements, and greater demands regarding the use of American resources abroad.

Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this philosophy could lead to a more restrictive policy on international aid, favoring security, the fight against irregular migration, and the protection of American interests rather than large-scale institutional assistance programs.

Other Emerging Personalities: A Competition Still Open

Beyond the most visible candidates, the Republican Party has a significant reservoir of personalities likely to alter the dynamics of the 2028 primary. American political history regularly shows that candidates considered secondary can benefit from an unexpected event, a political crisis, or a shift in public opinion to become serious contenders.

Among them is Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He represents a Republican wing very attached to American power, strategic competition with China, and assertive foreign policy. His governmental experience is a major advantage, but his highly ideological image could limit his appeal to a broader electorate.

Nikki Haley represents another path. Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she embodies a more internationalist and more institutional conservatism. Her profile—woman, minority, executive and diplomatic experience—could enable her to attract some moderate voters. However, her difficult relations with Trump and part of his base could be a major obstacle.

Tucker Carlson, for his part, represents a particular evolution of American politics: the rise of media figures capable of transforming a cultural audience into political force. Without electoral experience, he nevertheless has considerable influence among a segment of the conservative electorate. His candidacy would depend on his ability to transform media popularity into political organization.

Josh Hawley belongs to the same generation as J.D. Vance and shares several themes of the new conservative populism: criticism of major tech companies, defense of the working class, and skepticism towards certain foreign interventions. He could represent a more combative alternative within the same ideological family.

Finally, Sarah Huckabee Sanders embodies another possibility: that of an institutionalized Trumpism in feminine form. Former White House Press Secretary under Donald Trump, she benefits from strong recognition among the conservative base and a privileged political relationship with the former president.

These figures show that the Trump succession will not simply be a competition among a few favorites. It will be a battle between several visions of American conservatism.

Money, Networks, and the Invisible Battle of the Primary

A U.S. presidential election is not won on ideas or personality alone. It is also won with organization, networks, and considerable financial resources. The 2028 Republican primary will also be a competition between different political infrastructures. Super PACs, major private donors, conservative religious networks, economic groups, and media platforms will play a determining role in candidates’ ability to reach voters.

The Trump movement has profoundly changed the relationship between money and politics. For a long time, the Republican establishment rested mainly on major donors from finance, industry, and traditional business circles. The new Republican Party functions more as a hybrid coalition associating working class, technology entrepreneurs, alternative media, and activist networks. This transformation opens a new battle: who will control the political apparatus capable of replacing Trump? A candidate with a strong popular base but limited financial organization could be overtaken by a better-structured competitor. Conversely, a candidate with significant resources but unable to mobilize the Trumpist electorate could fail. The 2028 primary will therefore be a confrontation between personalities, but also between political machines.

Strategic Overview: The Six Main Paths of Trumpism’s Succession

Candidate	Political Current	Main Advantage	Main Risk
J.D. Vance	Ideological Trumpism	Loyalty to the base and doctrinal coherence	Difficulty broadening the coalition
Marco Rubio	Internationalist Republicanism	Experience and global credibility	Image of former establishment
Ron DeSantis	Institutional Trumpism	Executive experience and organization	Difficulty creating emotional connection
Glenn Youngkin	Moderate Conservatism	Ability to attract independents	Low national profile
Tim Scott	Unifying Conservatism	Positive image and broadening potential	Risk of being seen as too moderate
Kristi Noem	Rural Populist Conservatism	Strong proximity to the base	Difficulty winning urban electorate

The Battle for the Trump Legacy

Ultimately, the question of Donald Trump’s succession extends far beyond the choice of a candidate. It concerns the very nature of the Republican Party. Trump succeeded in transforming an electoral coalition into a political movement. But a movement built around a personality must always face the moment when that personality disappears or loses its influence. The candidate who wins the 2028 Republican primary will have to accomplish an almost contradictory task: be sufficiently loyal to retain the Trump legacy, but sufficiently different to demonstrate he or she can build the future. The real battle will therefore not only be for the White House. It will be to define what it means to be conservative in 21st-century America.

The Economic Challenges: Americans’ Pocketbooks at the Heart of the 2028 Battle

The economy will likely be the primary arbiter of the 2028 U.S. presidential election. Behind the great ideological confrontations, cultural debates, and international issues, the fundamental question will remain the one voters have always asked: has their standard of living improved or deteriorated? In a democracy where economic perception often plays a determining role in electoral choice, housing prices, food costs, access to healthcare, wage levels, and opportunities for new generations will weigh more heavily than abstract discourse.

The America of 2028 will inherit a decade of profound economic upheavals. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of global supply chains; the war in Ukraine accelerated energy and food tensions; rivalry with China transformed industrial policy into a national security issue; while artificial intelligence is beginning to profoundly alter the organization of work. The American economic debate will therefore not only be about growth or taxation. It will address a much broader question: what strategy will allow the United States to maintain its economic power in a world that has become more competitive, more fragmented, and more technological?

This question will be at the heart of the confrontation between the two major parties. Republicans will seek to convince that the American renaissance lies in domestic production, reducing the weight of the state, lowering taxes, and a more offensive trade policy. Democrats will defend the idea that American competitiveness will depend on public investment, education, infrastructure, the energy transition, and regulation of new strategic sectors. But beyond this partisan opposition, both camps will have to answer the same concern: how to ensure that the benefits of growth truly reach the entire population.

Inflation and the Cost of Living: The Economic Fracture Still Marking Minds

Even if inflation slows before 2028, its political impact will remain lasting. The experience of the 2020s will have profoundly marked American households, because a decrease in the rate of price increases does not mean a return to previous prices. For a large part of the population, especially the middle classes and modest workers, the dominant sentiment will remain one of a loss of purchasing power.

Housing will likely be one of the main sources of frustration. In several major urban areas, homeownership will have become more difficult for younger generations, while rents will continue to represent a significant share of income. Added to this will be healthcare costs, higher education, and essential services, which remain structural concerns of American society.

Republicans will present inflation as the result of an overly spendthrift economic policy and excessive public intervention. Their argument will be that sustainable growth can only come from a favorable environment for businesses, private investment, and domestic production. In this logic, reducing public spending, deregulation, and lowering tax burdens will be presented as necessary instruments to restore economic confidence.

However, the Republican Party of 2028 will no longer be simply the party of traditional economic conservatism. Under the influence of Trumpism, a significant part of the party will defend a more nationalist approach: protection of American industries, tariffs on certain foreign products, fight against offshoring, and priority given to American workers. This evolution represents a significant break with the old Republican consensus favorable to free trade.

Democrats, for their part, will explain that American inflation was largely influenced by international factors: global logistical disruptions, the energy crisis, geopolitical tensions, and rapid economic recovery after the pandemic. Their response will rely more on public investment, support for households, competition against monopolies, and the development of a more inclusive economy.

For the Caribbean, this American economic debate will have direct consequences. The region’s economies depend heavily on imports, international prices, and financial transfers sent by diasporas living in the United States. A stable U.S. economy fosters regional stability; a weakened U.S. economy quickly reverberates across Caribbean societies.

Public Debt: The Invisible Limit of American Power

The second major economic challenge will be public debt. For several decades, American power has rested on an exceptional ability to simultaneously finance defense, innovation, infrastructure, social programs, and its role as the world’s leading power. But the continuous accumulation of debt now raises a fundamental strategic question: how far can the United States pursue its ambitions without undertaking a profound reform of its budgetary model?

As of November 2025, federal debt outstanding had crossed the historic threshold of $38 trillion, or about 124% of GDP, before approaching $39.1 trillion in early 2026. For fiscal year 2026, the deficit is estimated at nearly $1.9 trillion, equivalent to 5.8% of GDP. Debt held by the public now represents more than 101% of GDP and, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, could reach nearly 120% by 2036 and about 175% over the next thirty years if no structural correction is undertaken. More than $8 trillion of this debt is held by foreign investors, including over $800 billion by China, while the overall weight of indebtedness now represents a theoretical burden of over $112,000 per capita.

Republicans will generally view this trajectory as a threat to national competitiveness, financial stability, and future generations. Their response will rest on gradual deficit reduction, limiting the growth of federal spending, and reforming major social programs. A large part of the party will believe American prosperity depends above all on a leaner federal state, more competitive taxation, and a private sector capable of sustainably stimulating investment and growth.

Democrats will defend a different approach. They will argue that debt must be controlled without compromising the investments essential to the United States’ future competitiveness. Their strategy will favor increasing targeted tax revenues on large corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers, while preserving spending on infrastructure, research, education, the energy transition, and cutting-edge technologies.

Beyond national considerations, this debate will have major geopolitical significance. Washington’s budgetary choices will directly determine its capacity to finance its military apparatus, alliance network, international aid, and economic and security cooperation programs. For Caribbean countries, a sustained tightening of U.S. public finances could translate into a reduction in resources allocated to regional security, development, public health, humanitarian assistance, and economic stabilization mechanisms.

Reindustrialization: Rebuilding American Productive Power

The industrial question will be one of the great symbols of American political transformation. For several decades, globalization allowed American consumers to benefit from cheaper products, but it also led to the disappearance of many manufacturing jobs in certain regions of the country. This economic fracture fueled a feeling of abandonment among part of the working class and contributed to the emergence of the economic populism championed by Donald Trump.

In 2028, the question will no longer simply be whether the United States should produce more, but how it should rebuild its industrial power in an environment dominated by competition with China. The populist wing of the Republican Party will defend a policy of economic sovereignty based on tariffs, incentives for industrial repatriation, and protection of strategic sectors. Republicans closer to business circles will, however, seek to avoid overly protectionist policies that could reduce the competitiveness of American companies.

Democrats will advocate a new industrial policy based on public investment, vocational training, modern infrastructure, and clean technologies. Their goal will be to create a new generation of industrial jobs linked to future-oriented sectors. For the Caribbean, this transformation represents both an opportunity and a risk. A U.S. strategy aimed at diversifying supply chains could strengthen partnerships with neighboring countries. But a strongly protectionist trade policy could also limit the access of certain Caribbean economies to the U.S. market.

Artificial Intelligence: The Economic Revolution Redefining Work

Artificial intelligence will likely be the most profound economic challenge of the late 2020s. Unlike previous technological revolutions, it will not only concern industrial or repetitive jobs. It will also affect skilled professions in finance, law, communication, administration, research, and certain medical sectors. The political debate will therefore center on an essential question: how to benefit from the productivity gains linked to artificial intelligence while avoiding a new explosion of inequalities?

Republicans will generally favor an approach favorable to rapid innovation. They will consider the priority must be to allow American companies to stay ahead of their Chinese competitors and avoid excessive regulation that would slow technological progress. Democrats will place greater emphasis on the need to regulate artificial intelligence to protect workers, limit abuses, and ensure better distribution of economic benefits. For them, the question will not only be technological, but social. This battle will extend far beyond U.S. borders. Dominance in artificial intelligence will become a central element of global competition between Washington and Beijing. The United States will seek to maintain its lead in semiconductors, data, digital infrastructure, and AI systems.

For the Caribbean, this transformation represents a considerable challenge. Economies dependent on remittances from diasporas could be affected if certain employment sectors in the United States undergo rapid automation. But it can also create new opportunities in digital services, technological training, and the remote economy.

The Choice Between Two Models of America’s Future

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will therefore be largely structured by a fundamental economic question: what form will American power take in the 21st century? The first model considers that the United States must regain its strength by protecting its industry, reducing external dependence, and prioritizing national interests. The second believes America’s future will depend more on innovation, investment, education, and the ability to lead new technological revolutions.

This confrontation will transcend U.S. borders. Washington’s economic choice will influence the Caribbean, Latin America, and the global economic balance. In 2028, American voters will therefore not only choose a president; they will also choose a vision of America facing the economic transformations of the century.

The Social Issues: America Facing Its Internal Fractures

Beyond economic performance and international rivalries, the 2028 U.S. presidential election will be deeply marked by social issues that touch upon the very identity of the country. Immigration, healthcare, education, justice, public safety: these subjects are not merely technical debates. They represent different visions of America’s future, the role of the state, the function of the national community, and how the United States should respond to the profound transformations of its society.

These issues are all the more important as they cut across traditional partisan lines. They pit Republicans and Democrats against each other, but they also reveal internal divisions within each camp. In 2028, voters will not only choose between two political programs; they will choose between two conceptions of the American model.

For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, these debates will have direct consequences. U.S. immigration policy, cooperation programs, health policies, or security strategies will impact millions of people linked to the United States through migration, investment, or economic exchange.

Immigration: Between Border Control and Humanitarian Responsibility

Immigration will likely remain one of the most sensitive issues of the 2028 presidential election. For several years, the migration question has become a symbol of American political divisions. For a segment of the Republican electorate, it represents a question of national sovereignty and state control. For Democrats, it also constitutes a humanitarian and economic issue requiring comprehensive reform.

In 2028, the southern border will remain at the center of the debate. Migration flows, asylum applications, and pressure on reception infrastructure will fuel criticism of successive migration policies. Republicans will likely defend a security-based approach: strengthening the border, increasing control means, limiting certain immigration pathways, and accelerating the expulsion of undocumented migrants.

Democrats will propose a different approach, more oriented towards system reform: modernizing asylum procedures, creating legal immigration pathways, regularizing certain categories of long-established migrants, and cooperating with countries of origin to reduce the root causes of departures.

For Haiti, this debate will be particularly strategic. Haitian migrants are among the populations most exposed to changes in U.S. migration policy. Many flee a combination of factors: persistent poverty, insecurity, institutional instability, and natural disasters. An exclusively restrictive policy could accentuate the vulnerability of thousands of Haitians and create new social tensions in an already fragile country. Conversely, a policy combining control, humanitarian protection, and support for development could contribute to a more sustainable approach to the migration crisis.

Healthcare: The Debate Over the American Model

The healthcare system will remain one of the great social debates of 2028. The United States has some of the most advanced medical technologies in the world, but its system remains one of the most costly and unequal among major developed economies. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the structural flaws of the American model: disparities in access to care, vulnerability of precarious populations, and dependence on private insurance. Despite progress made since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, several million Americans remain inadequately covered.

Republicans will defend a more market-oriented approach: reducing regulations, competition among insurers, patient choice, and tax incentives for individuals and businesses. Democrats will instead seek to strengthen the role of the state: extending existing coverage, increasing public aid, and possible debate around a public option or a more universal system.

For the Caribbean, the issue transcends U.S. borders. Millions of citizens from the region live in the United States and depend directly on the American healthcare system. Furthermore, several Caribbean countries benefit from U.S. health cooperation programs. A reduction in U.S. engagement could weaken some essential programs, while strengthened cooperation could further support regional health systems.

Education: Preparing the America of Tomorrow

Education will be another major battleground. The United States has some of the world’s most prestigious universities, but its education system faces considerable challenges: inequalities between schools, relative decline in academic performance, high cost of higher education, and the weight of student debt.

The university question will be particularly sensitive among young voters. Student debt, accumulated by millions of Americans, has become a symbol of the economic difficulties faced by a generation confronted with a high cost of living and more difficult access to homeownership. Republicans will generally favor an approach based on individual responsibility, competition between institutions, the development of vocational training, and a reduced federal role in education. Democrats will defend greater public investment, student aid, reducing the cost of higher education, and increased federal intervention.

For Haiti, this debate has a strategic dimension. Rebuilding a country cannot be done without human capital. Access to quality education, technical training, and university development are essential conditions for strengthening the Haitian state. A U.S. policy more oriented towards training and human development could have a lasting effect in the region.

Justice and Crime: Public Safety vs. Institutional Reform

The question of justice and public safety will also remain central in 2028. The United States continues to face complex debates around crime, the role of police, judicial reform, and social tensions related to inequality. Republicans will emphasize state authority: increased police resources, stricter penalties for criminals, and enhanced security in major cities. Democrats will favor an approach combining security and reform: improving police practices, reducing judicial inequalities, crime prevention, and reintegration programs.

This debate will have particular resonance in Haiti. The country is going through a major security crisis marked by the expansion of armed groups, the weakening of judicial institutions, and the loss of control over certain urban areas. Washington’s orientation on international security could directly influence U.S. cooperation with Haiti, notably in the areas of police training, intelligence, and institutional strengthening.

The social issues of 2028 will therefore be much more than a series of internal electoral debates. They will reveal the great question running through contemporary America: how to reconcile a more diverse, more technological, and more globalized society with the expectations of a portion of the population that demands more protection, control, and stability?

For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, this election will be decisive. Decisions made in Washington will directly influence migration, economic cooperation, regional security, and development prospects.

International Challenges: America Facing the New World Order

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will not only be a clash over domestic issues. It will also be a strategic choice on the place of the United States in a profoundly transformed world. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the international order built after World War II has been progressively challenged by the rise of new powers, the return of military rivalries, economic fragmentation, and the emergence of new fields of confrontation like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and space. The next U.S. president will have to respond to several simultaneous challenges: competition with China, the relationship with Russia, the future of Ukraine, stability in the Middle East, the role of NATO, security in the Indo-Pacific, and the transformation of global trade.

Behind these major issues lies a fundamental question: should the United States continue to play the role of the leading power of the international system, or should it favor a strategy of restraint, more centered on its immediate national interests? This question deeply divides the Republican Party. It pits a more nationalist and cautious tendency, embodied by some heirs of the “America First” current, against a more interventionist tradition attached to historical American alliances. Democrats, for their part, remain broadly favorable to active international engagement, even if debates also exist within their ranks.

For the Caribbean, this evolution will be strategic. An America more focused on major geopolitical confrontations could reduce its attention to its immediate neighborhood. Conversely, a policy that recognizes the importance of the Western Hemisphere could open a new phase of regional cooperation.

China: The Great Competition of the 21st Century

The rivalry between the United States and China will likely be the main international issue of the 2028 presidential election. This competition extends far beyond the military domain. It concerns the economy, advanced technologies, supply chains, artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and diplomatic influence.

China has considerably strengthened its global presence over recent decades. Through its investments in infrastructure, ports, technology, and natural resources, Beijing has developed growing influence in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Republicans will likely defend a firmer approach: limiting economic dependencies, controlling Chinese investments in strategic sectors, technological restrictions, and strengthening military alliances in the Indo-Pacific. Democrats will seek more of a balance between competition and cooperation. They will consider China a strategic rival, but will continue to defend the need for international coordination on certain issues like climate, global financial stability, or technological regulation.

For the Caribbean, this Sino-American duel represents a major issue. Several countries in the region have benefited from Chinese investments in infrastructure, telecommunications, or energy. Increased confrontation between Washington and Beijing could transform the Caribbean into a new space for geopolitical competition. States will then have to find a balance between their development needs and the preservation of their strategic autonomy.

For Haiti, this competition could also create opportunities, provided the country is capable of presenting a clear international partnership strategy based on its national interests.

Russia: Between Confrontation and Geopolitical Reshaping

Russia will remain another major challenge for U.S. foreign policy. The war in Ukraine has profoundly altered relations between Moscow and Washington, reviving a confrontation many thought belonged to the past. Russia remains a major nuclear power, with significant military capability and a network of influence that extends beyond its regional environment. It also seeks to strengthen its relations with several countries opposed to U.S. influence, notably in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Within the Republican Party, the Russian question is a significant fault line. A portion of the party believes the United States should limit its foreign engagements and concentrate its resources on national priorities. Another tendency considers Washington must continue to defend its alliances and prevent the expansion of rival powers. Democrats remain broadly favorable to a policy of firmness towards Moscow, considering that the defense of Ukraine contributes to preserving the international order based on certain rules.

For the Caribbean, the Russian question has a particular dimension. Moscow’s diplomatic and military presence in certain countries of the region, notably Cuba and Venezuela, reminds us that the rivalries of great powers can also reach the Caribbean space.

Ukraine: The Debate on American Engagement

The future of Ukraine will be a major test for U.S. foreign policy. After several years of war, the question will no longer be just about immediate military support, but about the overall strategy of the United States facing international conflicts. Republicans will be divided between two visions. The first considers Washington should reduce its financial involvement and encourage a diplomatic solution. The second believes abandoning Ukraine would weaken U.S. credibility with its allies. Democrats will likely continue to defend significant support for Kyiv, believing European stability and the defense of democracies depend on America’s ability to respond to foreign aggression.

For the Caribbean, the impact of this war is primarily economic. Disruptions related to energy, grains, and international markets have affected the region’s vulnerable economies. A durable resolution of the conflict could contribute to global economic stabilization, but it could also accelerate a new redistribution of international alliances.

The Middle East: Influence, Energy Security, and Regional Balance

The Middle East will remain another major dossier of U.S. foreign policy. Despite the rise of China and concerns related to the Indo-Pacific, the region remains strategic due to its energy importance, persistent conflicts, and geopolitical influence. Republicans will remain broadly favorable to strong support for Israel, a policy of firmness towards Iran, and a U.S. presence capable of containing rival powers. Democrats will seek more of a balance between support for traditional allies, defense of human rights, and pursuit of diplomatic solutions.

For the Caribbean, the Middle East may seem distant, but its consequences are real. Energy fluctuations directly affect island economies dependent on imports. Furthermore, investments from Gulf countries represent a potential source of financing for certain regional projects.

NATO and the Indo-Pacific: The Future of American Alliances

The question of alliances will be at the heart of the 2028 international debate. Since its creation, NATO has represented the main collective security instrument led by the United States. But its future is now the subject of significant discussions within the Republican Party. Some consider European allies must assume a greater share of their own defense and that the United States must reduce its permanent commitments. Others believe an American withdrawal would weaken the entire Western system and give more strategic space to Russia and China. In the Indo-Pacific, the American consensus is broader: China’s rise is pushing Washington to strengthen its partnerships with Japan, Australia, India, and other regional actors.

For the Caribbean, this strategic focus on Europe and Asia poses an essential question: will Washington continue to consider its own neighborhood a priority? A decrease in U.S. attention could leave more space to other external powers.

Global Trade, Technology, and Cybersecurity: The New Battlefields

Economic and technological issues will complement the major international debates of 2028. Global trade has entered a new phase marked by the return of protectionism, the securitization of supply chains, and competition for strategic technologies. Republicans will likely favor an approach privileging U.S. economic sovereignty: tariffs, control of foreign investments, and protection of national industries. Democrats will seek more to maintain an open trade framework governed by international rules and social protections.

Simultaneously, cybersecurity will become a central issue of national security. Cyberattacks on infrastructure, businesses, and public institutions now represent a threat comparable to traditional conflicts. For the Caribbean, these transformations present both risks and opportunities. The region’s economies depend heavily on international trade and remain vulnerable to external crises. But digital development can also offer new growth levers, notably in services, education, and innovation.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will therefore also be a referendum on the place of the United States in the world. Behind the debates on China, Russia, Ukraine, or the Middle East lies a fundamental question: should America continue to lead the international order or redefine its role around a more national approach? This decision will have consequences far beyond U.S. borders. For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, the issue will be whether Washington will still consider this region a strategic space or merely a periphery.

In a world marked by great power competition, small states can no longer simply wait for others’ decisions. They must develop their own strategies, strengthen their institutions, and transform their geographic position into a diplomatic advantage.

The Electoral Weight of the Caribbean Diaspora in 2028

The Caribbean diaspora in the United States constitutes one of the most underestimated electoral factors in contemporary American politics. For a long time, electoral analyses focused on traditional large groups—white voters in rural areas, suburbs, African Americans, unions, or urban youth—neglecting the growing role of communities from the Caribbean. Yet, these populations now represent a political force capable of influencing decisive states, particularly when electoral margins are counted in a few thousand votes.

This reality is particularly visible in Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Georgia, where significant Cuban, Haitian, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Jamaican, Dominican, and Trinidadian communities are concentrated. These groups do not form a homogeneous political bloc. Their historical trajectories, migration experiences, and concerns differ profoundly. Some remain attached to Democrats due to their history with the party’s social and migration policies. Others have moved closer to Republicans due to their opposition to socialism, security concerns, or a desire for more conservative economic policy.

The 2028 presidential election could therefore confirm a major transformation: U.S. Caribbean policy will no longer be determined solely by Washington’s strategic interests in the region, but also by the electoral weight of Caribbean communities established on U.S. soil. Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela thus become issues with a double dimension: foreign policy issues, but also subjects of domestic electoral mobilization.

Florida: The Political Center of Gravity of the American Caribbean

Florida remains the state where the electoral dimension of the Caribbean is most visible. With its thirty electoral votes, it has for decades represented a strategic territory for any presidential campaign. Its large and politically active Caribbean population makes it a veritable laboratory of American electoral transformations.

Cuban Americans have historically been the most influential Caribbean group in Florida. Concentrated mainly in Miami-Dade County, they have long been associated with the Republican Party due to their opposition to the Cuban regime and their distrust of socialist policies. This political identity, built around the experience of exile and the fight against Castroism, has deeply marked Florida politics.

However, this community is evolving. New generations born in the United States sometimes have a different relationship with the Cuban question. For a portion of young Cuban Americans, economic issues, housing, education, healthcare, and the cost of living now occupy a place as important as foreign policy towards Havana. This evolution could make their vote more competitive in 2028, even if Republicans retain a significant lead among this community.

Haitian Americans represent another essential component of the Florida electoral landscape. Settled mainly in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties, they constitute a community deeply linked to migration, humanitarian, and security issues concerning Haiti. Historically close to the Democratic Party, many Haitian Americans have mobilized around the defense of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), the question of deportations, and the political situation in their country of origin.

However, this community is not politically static. A growing portion of Haitian-American voters express concerns similar to those of other immigrant groups: security, entrepreneurship, taxation, access to housing, and economic opportunities. Candidates who manage to articulate a credible policy both on Haiti and on the daily concerns of immigrant families could alter traditional balances.

Venezuelans in Florida also represent an expanding electoral group. Their experience of the political and economic crisis in Venezuela has brought them closer to the Republican Party, notably due to the anti-socialist discourse carried by several conservative leaders. For them, U.S. policy towards Caracas is not an abstract question: it directly touches their family history, their security, and their perception of the American political model.

Finally, the Puerto Rican community occupies a particular place in this electoral recomposition. Long associated with the Democratic Party, it has experienced political evolution in recent years, notably among voters settled in Florida after the economic crises and natural disasters that affected Puerto Rico. Economic issues, the reconstruction of the island, political recognition, and family values are becoming important factors in their electoral behavior.

Thus, in 2028, Florida could be one of the states where the presidential battle is played out as much on national themes—inflation, immigration, security—as on the candidates’ ability to understand the specific realities of Caribbean communities.

New York: The Historical Heart of the Haitian Community

If Florida represents the political center of the American Caribbean, New York remains its historical and cultural heart. The metropolis is home to one of the largest Haitian communities in the United States, concentrated notably in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and certain areas of New York State.

The New York Haitian community has a long tradition of political engagement. It has played a major role in defending interests related to Haiti, mobilizing around migration issues, and the emergence of several local political leaders. Its electoral orientation remains largely Democratic, but its political behavior is more complex than simple partisan alignment. The concerns of this community extend far beyond traditional ideological boundaries. The protection of TPS, Haiti’s stability, the security of relatives back home, remittances, access to healthcare, housing, and the economic success of new generations are determining issues.

This evolution opens a political space for both parties. Democrats have a historical advantage due to their position on immigration and social programs. But Republicans could seek to gain ground by developing a discourse more centered on entrepreneurship, security, and the reconstruction of Haiti. The issue extends beyond the presidential election alone. In a state like New York, traditionally Democratic, the mobilization of the Caribbean diaspora also influences local elections, primaries, and political representation in Congress.

Massachusetts and Georgia: The New Mobilization Territories

Massachusetts constitutes another important hub of the Caribbean diaspora. The Boston area has hosted a significant Haitian community for decades, as well as Jamaican, Trinidadian, and Dominican populations. As in New York, these communities remain predominantly Democratic, but their priorities are evolving with new generations.

The economic question is progressively becoming central. The cost of housing in major American cities, access to higher education, business creation, and social mobility are now as important as traditional migration issues. Georgia represents a more recent phenomenon. Atlanta has become one of the preferred destinations for Caribbean populations, attracted by its economic dynamism, job market, and relatively more accessible cost of living. In a state that has become highly competitive since 2020, even a relatively limited electoral community can play a decisive role when results are decided by a narrow margin.

Democrats have invested heavily in mobilizing urban and immigrant minorities in Georgia. Republicans, for their part, seek to broaden their coalition by emphasizing the economy, security, and family values. The Caribbean diaspora could therefore become one of the groups courted by both camps in this new electoral battle.

Puerto Rico: An American Political Singularity

Puerto Rico holds a unique place in the relationship between the United States and the Caribbean. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but those residing on the island do not directly participate in the U.S. presidential election. However, Puerto Ricans settled on the mainland can vote and particularly influence states where their presence is significant, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, or New York.

This situation creates a democratic contradiction often debated: U.S. citizens fully participate in national political life when they live on the mainland, but do not have the same electoral power when they reside on the island. The question of Puerto Rico’s political status—U.S. statehood, independence, or maintenance of the current status—could become an issue in the 2028 campaign. Democrats are generally favorable to a clarification of status through a democratic process. Republicans are divided between those who support potential statehood and those who prefer to maintain the status quo.

For presidential candidates, Puerto Rico therefore represents both an institutional and an electoral question. How they address this issue could influence the Puerto Rican vote in several decisive states.

The American Caribbean diaspora no longer constitutes a mere cultural extension of the Caribbean region. It has become a political actor in its own right. Its influence rests not only on its numbers, but on its geographic concentration in states where every vote can count.

In 2028, presidential candidates will therefore have to understand a new reality: talking about the Caribbean no longer means only talking about diplomacy, security, or international aid. It also means talking to millions of American voters whose family histories, identities, and concerns cross borders.

For Haiti in particular, this evolution is strategic. The Haitian-American community could become a major intermediary between Washington and Port-au-Prince, provided its concerns are integrated into a broader vision of partnership, security, and development. The 2028 American electoral battle will therefore also be, in part, a battle to understand and mobilize the American Caribbean.

The Caribbean Becomes a Major Geostrategic Space Again

For several decades, the Caribbean occupied a marginal place in the United States’ international strategy. Caught in a vision inherited from the Cold War, often reduced to an American “backyard,” the region was progressively relegated behind other priorities: Middle Eastern wars, China’s rise in Asia, European tensions with Russia, or major global economic challenges. This relative strategic indifference nonetheless created a vacuum that other powers gradually sought to fill. China developed a growing economic presence through investments in infrastructure, ports, telecommunications, and energy. Russia strengthened its diplomatic and military relations with certain governments in the region. Other actors, like Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or India, also identified the Caribbean as a space of economic opportunities and influence.

The transformation of the international environment now compels Washington to review its approach. The Caribbean is no longer just a zone of geographic proximity; it has become a space where several major 21st-century issues intersect: migration, maritime security, the fight against transnational criminal networks, energy transition, climate change, and great power rivalry. This evolution is particularly important as the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches. The future occupant of the White House will have to answer a fundamental question: does the United States still consider the Caribbean a strategic periphery, or an essential component of its national security and global influence?

The answer to this question will have direct consequences for the countries of the region, notably Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, three states that occupy a central place in Washington’s geopolitical calculations. It will also determine how the United States manages its relations with other Caribbean partners, like the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Barbados, or Guyana.

Why Washington Is Rediscovering Its Caribbean Neighborhood

The return of the Caribbean to American priorities is not the result of a simple shift in political perception. It stems from a profound transformation of the regional and international environment. Several dynamics, long considered separate, now converge and place the region at the center of American strategic concerns.

Migration, organized crime, competition with China, energy security, and the consequences of climate change no longer constitute isolated issues. They form an interdependent whole that directly affects U.S. internal security and the stability of the Western Hemisphere.

Migration Pressure: A Domestic Issue That Has Become Strategic

The first reason for the Caribbean’s return to Washington’s agenda is migration. For several years, migratory movements from the region have taken on major political significance in the United States. Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans, Dominicans, and nationals of other Caribbean countries participate in complex migratory flows that combine economic factors, political crises, natural disasters, and insecurity.

For Washington, this issue now goes beyond simple border management. It touches on the American state’s ability to control its borders, define its immigration policy, and respond to the expectations of an electorate deeply divided on this issue. The Haitian crisis illustrates this evolution. The rapid deterioration of the security, economic, and institutional situation has pushed thousands of Haitian citizens to seek alternatives abroad. Some take dangerous sea routes, others cross several Latin American countries before reaching the U.S. border. This dynamic transforms a national crisis into a regional issue.

Republicans generally approach this issue from the angle of national security and border control. Their approach favors strengthening surveillance means, limiting irregular immigration, and a stricter deportation policy. Democrats place greater emphasis on the root causes of migration: poverty, political instability, climate change, and institutional weakness. They defend an approach combining border control, creation of legal migration pathways, and cooperation with countries of origin. Beyond the partisan debate, one reality remains: U.S. migration policy will increasingly depend on the stability of its Caribbean environment. As long as economic and institutional crises persist in several countries of the region, migration pressure will remain a major issue in American policy.

Drug Trafficking: A Transnational Threat

The second factor explaining renewed American interest in the Caribbean is the rise of transnational criminal networks. The region has long been a transit zone for traffics originating in South America and destined for North American and European markets. The Caribbean geography—with its thousands of islands, maritime spaces difficult to control, and proximity to major consumer markets—offers criminal organizations significant logistical possibilities. Sea routes are used for transporting narcotics, weapons, illicit capital, and, in some cases, human trafficking.

This criminality directly weakens the states concerned. It fuels corruption, weakens public institutions, and contributes to the establishment of lawless zones. Haiti today represents one of the most worrying examples of this dynamic, with armed groups capable of challenging state authority and controlling strategic territories.

For the United States, this situation represents a threat at several levels. It affects their internal security, fuels criminal networks present on their territory, and threatens the political stability of their immediate neighborhood. Republicans generally favor a more security-oriented approach: military cooperation, reinforced maritime operations, sanctions against criminal organizations, and increased support for security forces. Democrats defend a more global approach combining the fight against organized crime, institutional strengthening, economic development, and social prevention. The central debate for 2028 will therefore be less about whether to act, but rather how to act: through a primarily coercive approach or through a strategy combining security, development, and institutional reconstruction.

Sea Routes: The New Battle of Strategic Spaces

The third reason for the Caribbean’s return to American calculations concerns the maritime dimension. The region is located at the crossroads of several essential trade routes linking North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia.

The Panama Canal holds a particular place in this architecture. A veritable artery of global trade, it allows for considerably reducing distances between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Its strategic value extends far beyond the purely economic domain: it represents an essential passage point for trade, supply chains, and maritime projection.

The rise of Chinese influence around port and commercial infrastructure in the region has heightened American concerns. Washington now considers that the economic presence of a rival power in its immediate environment can have security implications. The question is therefore no longer solely commercial. It concerns control of critical infrastructure, security of logistics chains, and the balance of influences in the Western Hemisphere.

For Caribbean countries, this competition represents both an opportunity and a risk. Foreign investments can contribute to economic development, but they can also create new strategic dependencies.

Cuba: Between Revolutionary Heritage and Geopolitical Realignment

Cuba remains one of the most persistent paradoxes of the Western Hemisphere. Less than 150 kilometers from U.S. shores, the island remains both a living legacy of the Cold War and a contemporary issue of geopolitical competition. For over six decades, Washington and Havana have maintained a relationship dominated by confrontation: economic embargo, diplomatic ruptures, migration crises, and ideological clashes. Yet, behind this historical opposition lies a more complex reality: Cuba is a regional actor whose stability, or instability, directly influences Caribbean security.

In 2026, the island is going through one of the most difficult periods since the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The combination of the internal economic crisis, the decline in Venezuelan support, the tightening of U.S. sanctions, and rising social tensions places the regime before its greatest challenge in several decades. The Cuban question is therefore no longer just about the survival of a political system. It has become about its evolution in a profoundly transformed international environment.

An Economy on the Brink

The Cuban economy is going through a structural crisis. For several decades, the country benefited from Venezuelan energy support, which provided a significant portion of its oil needs. But the Venezuelan economic collapse progressively reduced this assistance, worsening the island’s energy difficulties. The decrease in fuel supplies triggered a succession of crises: power outages, partial transport paralysis, industrial slowdown, and increased difficulties for agricultural and tourism sectors.

To this internal fragility were added U.S. sanctions reinforced in recent years. Washington claims these measures aim to exert pressure on the Cuban government to obtain political and economic reforms. Cuban authorities, in turn, consider the embargo a major factor in the economic crisis. The reality is more complex. Cuba’s difficulties result from a combination of factors: inefficiency of the economic model, low productivity, excessive import dependence, demographic aging, lack of foreign investment, and constraints related to U.S. sanctions.

The social consequences are visible. Food shortages, difficulties accessing medicines, frequent power interruptions, and massive emigration have profoundly affected Cuban society. Faced with this situation, the government has begun to introduce certain economic reforms. The stated objective is to attract more investment, broaden the role of the private sector, and modernize certain economic mechanisms inherited from the traditional socialist model. But these changes remain limited. The central question remains: how far is the regime willing to go without challenging the political foundations of the system?

A Regime Facing a New Generation of Protest

The economic crisis has progressively transformed the relationship between the Cuban state and its population. For a long time, the regime was able to maintain a certain stability thanks to several factors: the memory of the revolution, the institutional organization of the Communist Party, political control, and the ability to provide certain essential social services. But this historical legitimacy has gradually eroded. A new generation of Cubans, born after the Cold War, has a different relationship with power. It judges the regime less on its revolutionary heritage than on its ability to offer economic prospects, freedom of expression, and improved living conditions.

The protests of recent years have illustrated this evolution. Demands are no longer solely ideological. They also concern daily life: access to electricity, food, wages, mobility, and economic future. The Cuban government continues to attribute a large part of the national difficulties to U.S. sanctions. But this explanation no longer suffices to meet the expectations of a population facing a prolonged crisis.

The question of political succession also remains central. Since Raúl Castro’s departure, Miguel Díaz-Canel embodies a different generation of Cuban leaders. However, his power remains limited by the weight of the Party’s historical structures and the security apparatus. Havana’s challenge is now twofold: preserve political stability while responding to a society progressively demanding more openness.

Washington Facing the Cuban Dilemma: Pressure or Engagement?

For six decades, U.S. policy towards Cuba has oscillated between two major visions. The first considers that economic and diplomatic pressure is the best means of obtaining political change. This approach, historically supported by a significant portion of the Republican current, believes any opening without Cuban concessions would strengthen the regime.

The second favors diplomatic engagement. Its defenders consider isolation has not succeeded in provoking political transformation and that a more open relationship could foster internal evolution. The Trump administration favored the first approach: reinforced sanctions, limited exchanges, and increased diplomatic pressure.

This strategy has nonetheless produced a paradoxical result. If it limited certain economic capabilities of the Cuban government, it did not lead to its collapse. It also created a diplomatic space from which other actors, notably China and Russia, have benefited. A future Democratic administration might seek to resume an opening policy similar to the one initiated under Barack Obama starting in 2014: restoration of diplomatic dialogue, relaxation of certain restrictions, and encouragement of economic reforms. But the context of 2028 will be different. Strategic competition with Beijing and Moscow will weigh more heavily in American calculations.

Cuba in the Caribbean Strategic Triangle: Historical Heritage, Internal Crisis, and New Power Balance

Cuba remains one of the most singular actors in Caribbean geopolitics. Few states in the region concentrate such historical, symbolic, and strategic weight. Since the 1959 revolution, the island has held a particular place in the international political imagination: for some, it represents one of the last vestiges of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere; for others, it constitutes an example of resistance to U.S. influence. But beyond ideological perceptions, Cuba today represents a major geopolitical issue in a Caribbean that has become a space of competition among great powers.

Within the framework of this report, Cuba constitutes one of the three vertices of the Caribbean strategic triangle formed with Haiti and Venezuela. This triangle rests not only on geographic proximity. It reflects a deeper reality: these three states hold a particular position in the political, economic, and security dynamics of the region. Cuba through its historical weight and diplomatic influence, Venezuela through its energy resources and role in international rivalries, Haiti through its demographic, migratory, and humanitarian importance.

Cuba’s position is also determined by its complex relationship with the United States. A few hundred kilometers from U.S. shores, the island remains an issue where historical memory, American electoral considerations, and regional strategic issues meet. For several decades, U.S. policy towards Havana has oscillated between two approaches: that of maximum pressure aimed at provoking internal political transformation, and that of diplomatic engagement aimed at fostering a gradual evolution of Cuban society.

As the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches, the Cuban question could enter a new phase. The issue will probably no longer be solely how to contain the influence of the Cuban government, but also how to prevent a strategic space at the heart of the Caribbean from becoming more accessible to rival powers like China and Russia.

Cuba and Venezuela: A Historical Alliance Weakened by Regional Transformations

The relationship between Cuba and Venezuela constitutes one of the major axes of contemporary Caribbean geopolitics. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Caracas and Havana have built a partnership based on political convergence, energy cooperation, and diplomatic solidarity.

Under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela became an essential economic supporter for Cuba, notably through energy agreements allowing the island to obtain oil on preferential terms. In exchange, Cuba provided significant cooperation in several sectors, notably health, education, and professional services. This relationship deeply marked the regional balance. It allowed Cuba to reduce its international isolation after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and offered Venezuela a network of ideological and diplomatic influence in several Latin American countries.

However, the Venezuelan economic crisis has considerably weakened this model. The decline in Caracas’s financial capabilities, the fall in oil production, and U.S. sanctions have reduced Venezuela’s ability to maintain the same level of economic support for Cuba. This evolution has forced Havana to seek new economic partners and diversify its international relations. China, Russia, and several European actors now occupy a growing place in Cuba’s economic survival strategy.

Cuba and Haiti: A Historical Relationship Beyond Regional Politics

The relationship between Cuba and Haiti has a particular dimension in Caribbean history. The two nations share geographic proximity, a history marked by colonial and revolutionary upheavals, and common belonging to a complex Caribbean cultural space.

In recent decades, Cuban medical cooperation has constituted one of the main elements of this relationship. Cuban doctors and professionals have participated in several health programs in Haiti, notably in community care, medical training, and the fight against certain epidemics. Beyond this cooperation, Cuba and Haiti illustrate two different trajectories in facing the challenges of postcolonial development. Cuba has maintained a strongly centralized state with significant capabilities in certain social sectors, notably health and education, while Haiti has experienced deep institutional fragility.

In the new strategic configuration of the Caribbean, the relationship between Port-au-Prince and Havana could evolve. The stabilization of Haiti, migration issues, regional security, and new U.S. policies towards the region could create space for renewed cooperation between the two countries.

The Cuban Crisis: Between System Resistance and Social Pressure

Despite its historical resilience, Cuba is today going through one of the most difficult economic periods in several decades. The combined effects of the global economic crisis, trade restrictions, the decline in tourism revenues after the pandemic, and internal structural difficulties have caused a significant deterioration in living conditions.

Shortages of essential products, energy difficulties, massive emigration, and demographic aging now constitute major challenges for the country’s future. The Cuban question cannot, however, be analyzed solely through an economic lens. The Cuban political system retains institutional mechanisms capable of maintaining a certain stability, but it faces growing pressure from a population more connected to the outside world and confronted with new economic expectations. The great question for the coming years will therefore be whether Cuba can proceed with a gradual adaptation of its model without provoking a major political rupture.

The Three Possible Trajectories for Cuba After 2028

Several scenarios can be envisioned regarding Cuba’s future. The first scenario would be one of gradual adaptation. In this hypothesis, the Cuban government would pursue certain limited economic reforms, further encourage foreign investment, and seek to improve economic efficiency without deep political transformation. This path would allow for controlled evolution of the system.

The second scenario would be one of a gradual transition. The combination of economic difficulties, generational changes, and social pressures could lead to a more significant political evolution. Such a transition could open a period of international rapprochement and economic reconstruction, but it would require extremely careful management to avoid institutional instability.

The third scenario would be one of a worsening crisis. Prolonged economic deterioration could accelerate emigration, strengthen social tensions, and create a period of political uncertainty. In this scenario, the Cuban question would become not only a domestic problem, but also a major regional issue.

Cuba and the Future of U.S. Strategy in the Caribbean

Cuba’s evolution will be an important test for the next U.S. administration. The traditional policy of confrontation has maintained pressure on the Cuban government, but it has not prevented the emergence of other international actors in the Caribbean space. China considers Cuba a strategic partner due to its geographic position and economic needs. Russia, for its part, sees in Havana a historical symbol of its ability to maintain a presence in a region long considered the American strategic space.

For Washington, the issue will therefore be to define a new approach capable of combining national security, diplomatic influence, and economic cooperation. The 21st-century Cuban question will probably no longer be only: how to limit Havana’s influence? It will also become: how to prevent a strategic vacuum at the heart of the Caribbean from being durably occupied by rival powers?

Venezuela: Oil, Political Crisis, and Great Power Rivalry in the Western Hemisphere

Venezuela holds a unique place in the geopolitics of Latin America and the Caribbean. Few countries illustrate the contradictions of the contemporary world with such force: a territory possessing the largest known oil reserves in the world, but facing one of the deepest economic and social crises in the region’s recent history; a state located strategically close to the United States, which has become a symbol of political confrontation; a country where the interests of Washington, Beijing, and Moscow now intersect.

As the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches, Venezuela will remain one of the major dossiers of U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. Its importance extends far beyond national borders. The Venezuelan situation simultaneously touches several strategic issues for Washington: energy security, regional stability, migration, competition with external powers, and the future of the Latin American political order.

For more than a decade, Venezuela has been going through a multidimensional crisis characterized by economic collapse, political polarization, institutional weakening, international sanctions, and massive human exodus. Several million Venezuelans have left their country in recent years, causing one of the most significant migration crises in the recent history of Latin America and exerting considerable pressure on neighboring countries as well as on the United States.

Venezuela therefore represents a strategic paradox. For some U.S. officials, it embodies a political challenge related to governance, democracy, and the influence of rival powers. For other analysts, it also constitutes an example of the limits of a policy based primarily on economic pressure and diplomatic isolation. The central question for Washington after 2028 will therefore be: how to favor political and economic evolution in Venezuela without provoking a new period of instability that could affect the entire Caribbean?

The Venezuelan Paradox: A Weakened Energy Power

Venezuela’s recent history is one of the most striking examples of dependence on natural resources. For several decades, oil revenues allowed the country to finance ambitious social programs, develop significant regional influence, and play a major role in Latin American politics. Under Hugo Chávez, and then Nicolás Maduro, oil became much more than an economic resource. It was used as an instrument of domestic policy, regional diplomacy, and international projection. Thanks to its energy revenues, Caracas was able to establish political alliances, support certain regional partners, and increase its influence within several Latin American organizations.

However, this excessive dependence on hydrocarbons also created great vulnerability. The fall in international oil prices, difficulties in managing the energy industry, corruption, loss of technical skills, and internal political tensions gradually weakened the national oil sector. The state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), once considered one of the world’s most important energy companies, experienced a considerable decline in its operational capabilities. Oil production fell sharply, reducing the country’s main source of revenue. This economic degradation led to major social consequences. Inflation, the decline in purchasing power, difficulties accessing essential products, infrastructure degradation, and energy supply problems have profoundly affected the population.

The Venezuelan crisis thus illustrates a reality common in states heavily dependent on natural resources: abundant wealth does not automatically guarantee sustainable development. Without solid institutions and economic diversification, resources can become a source of fragility rather than a strategic advantage.

U.S. Sanctions: Political Pressure or Factor of Economic Weakening?

U.S. policy towards Caracas is one of the most controversial subjects of Washington’s regional strategy. For several years, the United States has adopted an approach based on economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to obtain political changes in Venezuela.

Washington claims these measures aim to encourage respect for democratic processes, promote transparent elections, and exert pressure on officials accused of institutional violations or human rights abuses. Venezuelan authorities and their international partners present a different reading. They consider sanctions a form of economic pressure intended to provoke regime change and accuse Washington of using its financial influence to weaken the Venezuelan state.

The geopolitical reality is more complex. Sanctions have indeed reduced the Venezuelan government’s financial capabilities and limited its access to international markets. They have also contributed to isolating Caracas diplomatically. However, their effects on the national economy are the subject of significant debate. Several analyses emphasize that these measures have also limited foreign investment, complicated the modernization of the energy sector, and worsened certain economic difficulties directly affecting the population. This question should remain at the heart of the U.S. political debate during the 2028 presidential campaign.

Two visions will likely continue to oppose each other:

• The first will favor a policy of maximum pressure, considering any opening would weaken the U.S. ability to obtain political concessions.

• The second will defend a more pragmatic approach, believing that a strategy of economic and diplomatic engagement could reduce the influence of rival powers and favor gradual stabilization.

• Behind this debate lies a broader question: is isolation or influence the best way to defend U.S. interests in the region?

The Venezuelan Political Transition: Reconstruction or Risk of Instability?

Venezuela’s political future remains deeply uncertain. The country is still marked by a lasting confrontation between the Chavista government and a fragmented political opposition. Electoral institutions, justice, security forces, and economic structures remain at the center of this power struggle. A political transition could open a new historical period. It could favor the return of international investment, economic reconstruction, improved diplomatic relations, and Venezuela’s gradual reintegration into regional mechanisms.

A controlled political change could also have positive consequences for the migration crisis. The economic and institutional stabilization of the country would likely reduce pressure on neighboring countries and on the United States. But an ill-prepared transition would also carry considerable risks.

Venezuela has fragile institutions, a powerful security apparatus, and economic actors whose interests are linked to the current system. An abrupt rupture could provoke a struggle for control of the state, institutional fragmentation, or a new migration wave. For Washington, the strategic challenge is therefore particularly complex: encouraging political evolution without provoking the collapse of a state located at the heart of the American regional environment.

Venezuela at the Center of the Washington-Beijing-Moscow Competition

The Venezuelan crisis has transformed the country into a secondary space for global rivalry among great powers. For the United States, the Chinese and Russian presence in Venezuela represents an extension of strategic competition into the Western Hemisphere. After several decades during which Washington considered Latin America and the Caribbean its privileged sphere of influence, the arrival of new actors is progressively modifying regional balances.

China has developed an important economic relationship with Caracas, mainly around the energy sector. Beijing primarily seeks to secure its economic interests, maintain commercial partnerships, and preserve its energy supplies. Russia, for its part, has developed a more political and security-oriented relationship. Moscow has supported Caracas diplomatically and strengthened its military cooperation with the Venezuelan government. However, this foreign presence must be analyzed with nuance. China and Russia do not have the same capabilities or objectives in the region. Beijing primarily favors economics and infrastructure, while Moscow uses political and security cooperation more as an instrument of influence.

Venezuela thus illustrates a major transformation: the Caribbean and Latin America no longer constitute solely a space of American influence, but are gradually becoming a theater where several powers seek to defend their interests.

Venezuela in the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Strategic Triangle

In the new Caribbean geopolitics, Venezuela constitutes the third vertex of the strategic triangle with Cuba and Haiti. With Cuba, Caracas shares an alliance built around energy, political, and diplomatic cooperation since the beginning of the 21st century. This relationship remains one of the symbols of regional political recomposition. With Haiti, historical relations rest more on regional cooperation, Latin-Caribbean mechanisms, and diplomatic ties developed over recent decades. Even if these relations have been less structuring than those between Cuba and Venezuela, Caracas’s evolution can indirectly influence Haiti’s strategic environment.

With the United States, Venezuela represents an issue where energy, security, migration, and international competition intersect. Caracas’s evolution will therefore have significant regional consequences. Stabilization could contribute to reducing migration tensions, strengthening regional economic integration, and opening a new phase in inter-American relations. Conversely, a prolonged new crisis could increase instability and offer more space to external powers.

What Future for Caracas After 2028?

Three main scenarios can be envisioned.

• The first scenario would be a negotiated transition. A political agreement would allow gradual opening, accompanied by an improvement in international relations, a partial lifting of sanctions, and a progressive return of foreign investment.

• The second scenario would be authoritarian stabilization. The power would retain political control while implementing certain limited economic reforms to ensure the system’s survival.

• The third scenario would be a prolonged crisis. The absence of political compromise would maintain a fragile economy, prolong migration pressure, and reinforce competition among foreign powers around Venezuela.

Regardless of the scenario, one conclusion is clear: Venezuela will not be merely a Latin American issue. It will be a major test of the American ability to manage its own strategic environment. The Caribbean, long considered peripheral, has become a central space where some of the great transformations of the 21st century are unfolding.

Other Strategic Actors in the Caribbean: A Region Between Sovereignty, Vulnerabilities, and Global Competition

The Caribbean cannot be understood solely through the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela strategic triangle. While these three countries hold a central place in current geopolitical dynamics due to their history, geographic position, and particular relationship with the great powers, the Caribbean space remains a much vaster and more complex reality. The region is composed of a mosaic of states and territories whose economic, diplomatic, and security trajectories directly influence the regional balance. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Puerto Rico, as well as regional organizations like CARICOM and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), each play a specific role in this new strategic configuration. These actors share several common challenges: vulnerability to climate change, external economic dependence, migration pressure, transnational crime, energy security, and the need to preserve their autonomy in an environment marked by the return of great power competition.

The 21st-century Caribbean is therefore no longer merely a peripheral zone between North America and Latin America. It is gradually becoming a strategic space where several global dynamics converge: Sino-American rivalry, Russian repositioning, energy transition, new trade routes, and transforming diplomatic balances. In this context, every Caribbean state, regardless of size, becomes an actor whose choices can contribute to modifying the regional balance.

The Dominican Republic: Haiti’s Indispensable Neighbor and a Strategic Partner for Washington

The Dominican Republic today holds a particular place in Caribbean geopolitics. Located on the same island as Haiti, it represents both a major economic actor in the region and a central element of U.S. security concerns in the Caribbean. With a population exceeding eleven million, an economy among the most dynamic in the region, and growth sustained by tourism, industrial free zones, infrastructure, and foreign investment, Santo Domingo has become one of the most important economic hubs in the Caribbean space.

This evolution contrasts sharply with the multidimensional crisis in Haiti. The coexistence of two radically different trajectories on the same island creates a deeply asymmetric bilateral relationship, marked both by economic interdependence and recurrent political tensions. The migration issue remains the main point of friction between the two countries. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians live or work in the Dominican Republic, contributing to several essential sectors of its economy, notably agriculture, construction, and services. However, Dominican migration policies towards Haitian workers and people of Haitian descent regularly draw international criticism regarding human rights and deportation conditions.

For the United States and regional organizations, the stability of the island of Hispaniola depends largely on the ability of the two states to build a more predictable relationship, based on cooperation, border security, and shared development. The Dominican Republic thus represents an important strategic partner for Washington. Its economic stability, diplomatic positioning, and regional role make it an actor whose decisions will have a direct influence on Haiti’s future and the overall balance of the Caribbean.

Jamaica: The Diplomatic Voice of the Anglophone Caribbean

Jamaica remains one of the most influential countries in the Anglophone Caribbean. Its importance rests not only on its population or economy, but also on its historical heritage, cultural influence, and regional diplomatic role. A major member of CARICOM, Kingston has traditionally played a mediating role in regional affairs. The country maintains close relations with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, while seeking to preserve a margin of diplomatic autonomy.

Its economy relies primarily on tourism, services, mining exports (notably bauxite), as well as financial transfers from its diaspora. However, like several Caribbean countries, Jamaica faces significant challenges. Organized crime, violence linked to criminal networks, social inequalities, and climate vulnerability are major obstacles to its sustainable development. Regional security has become a growing priority for Kingston. The circulation of arms, drug trafficking, and the expansion of transnational criminal networks now represent threats that extend far beyond national borders.

Jamaica also plays an important role in the Haitian question. Its involvement in regional stabilization initiatives reflects a desire to preserve the collective security of the Caribbean while maintaining a balanced approach between regional solidarity and strategic interests. In a region where small states seek to strengthen their collective influence vis-à-vis the great powers, Jamaica should continue to play a major diplomatic role.

Guyana: The New Energy Power of the Wider Caribbean

Guyana likely represents one of the most spectacular geopolitical changes in the region in the 21st century. Long considered one of the poorest countries in South America, this English-speaking state is now undergoing a historic transformation thanks to its immense offshore oil discoveries.

The exploitation of these resources has profoundly modified its economic prospects. Guyana has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, attracting the attention of the United States, China, Europe, and major international investors. This new energy wealth offers the country an exceptional development opportunity. It could allow for the modernization of infrastructure, improvement of public services, and deep economic transformation.

However, international experience also recalls the risks associated with excessive dependence on natural resources. Georgetown’s challenge will be to avoid the “resource curse” by transforming its oil revenues into sustainable development. To this economic dimension is added a major geopolitical issue: the territorial dispute with Venezuela over Essequibo, a resource-rich region claimed by Caracas.

This conflict now goes beyond the simple border issue. It has become a strategic dossier directly involving the great powers. The United States has strengthened its cooperation with Georgetown, while Venezuela seeks to maintain its historical claims. Guyana has thus become a new space where energy, regional security, and international competition intersect.

Suriname: Between Energy Potential and the Need for Economic Diversification

Located between Guyana and French Guiana, Suriname holds a particular position in the geopolitics of the wider Caribbean. A small multicultural state of about 600,000 inhabitants, it possesses significant natural resources, notably in the mining and energy sectors, which could profoundly transform its economic future.

Like neighboring Guyana, offshore oil discoveries are opening new development prospects. They could allow the country to attract more foreign investment, modernize its infrastructure, and increase its regional economic weight. However, the experience of other producer countries reminds us that the discovery of natural resources is not automatically a guarantee of development. The real challenge for Paramaribo will be to transform this potential wealth into sustainable growth, improved living standards, and strengthened institutional capacities.

Suriname must also avoid excessive dependence on hydrocarbons. In a global context marked by the energy transition, producer countries must now prepare for the future beyond oil and gas. Economic diversification, education, infrastructure, and technological innovation will become essential factors of national sovereignty. Diplomatically, Suriname seeks to maintain a balance between its traditional partners and the new powers showing growing interest in the region. Like several small Caribbean states, it attempts to benefit from international competition while preserving its strategic autonomy.

Trinidad and Tobago: The Energy Giant of the Caribbean

Trinidad and Tobago holds a particularly strategic place in the Caribbean space. Thanks to its natural gas resources, developed petrochemical industry, and level of industrialization above the regional average, the country has for decades been one of the main economic engines of the Caribbean. Its geographic proximity to Venezuela also reinforces its strategic importance. Located at the crossroads of South America and the insular Caribbean, the archipelago has particular value in energy, commercial, and security matters.

Port of Spain plays an important role within CARICOM and traditionally seeks to maintain regional influence based on its economic and diplomatic weight. The country also participates in discussions concerning regional energy security, notably in a context where global markets are undergoing profound transformations. However, like several hydrocarbon-producing economies, Trinidad and Tobago faces a major challenge: preparing for the post-oil era. The global energy transition, the evolution of international markets, and the rise of renewable energies compel the country to accelerate its economic diversification. Its future will depend on its ability to transform its current energy revenues into investments in future-oriented sectors: technology, modern industry, the digital economy, and human capital. In the new Caribbean geopolitical competition, Trinidad and Tobago thus represents an essential actor both as an energy power and as a potential strategic partner for the great powers.

Puerto Rico: The American Exception at the Heart of the Caribbean

Puerto Rico holds a unique position in the regional geopolitical balance. A U.S. territory since 1898, the island represents a particular institutional situation: its inhabitants possess U.S. citizenship, but Puerto Rico residents do not participate in the U.S. presidential election through popular vote and do not have representatives with full voting rights in Congress. This situation has been a major political debate for several decades around three main options: maintaining the current status, attaining U.S. statehood, or independence.

The Puerto Rican question could regain particular importance in the context of the 2028 U.S. election, notably due to the growing weight of the Puerto Rican community in several strategic American states, including Florida. But beyond U.S. domestic politics, Puerto Rico has major geopolitical importance. Its geographic position in the center of the Caribbean makes it an important element of the U.S. economic, military, and diplomatic apparatus in the region.

The island also represents a privileged observation point for regional transformations: migration, maritime security, transnational trafficking, relations with Cuba and Venezuela, as well as competition among great powers. Thus, Puerto Rico illustrates a fundamental reality of the contemporary Caribbean: political boundaries do not always correspond to strategic realities. Although legally linked to the United States, its future remains deeply connected to Caribbean regional dynamics.

CARICOM and the OECS: Towards a Collective Diplomacy of Small States

Faced with the rise of international rivalries, Caribbean states are seeking to strengthen their collective capacity for action. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) today constitutes the central political and economic organization of the region. It represents an essential coordination mechanism in the areas of trade, diplomacy, security, and development.

The importance of CARICOM now goes beyond mere economic cooperation. In an international environment marked by competition among great powers, it becomes an instrument allowing small states to collectively defend their interests. The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) plays a similar role for the small island states of the Eastern Caribbean. These countries, often particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and economic constraints, seek to strengthen their collective voice on the international stage.

Their common priorities are now clearly identified: climate adaptation, access to international finance, regional security, sustainable development, energy transition, and reform of international institutions. The Haitian crisis has also reinforced the diplomatic importance of these organizations. Haiti’s stability has gradually become a collective issue for the entire Caribbean, as its instability affects migration, maritime security, economic exchanges, and the regional political balance. However, Caribbean organizations still face a major difficulty: transforming their collective weight into genuine strategic capacity. Their influence will depend on their ability to overcome national divisions and build a common vision in the face of the great powers.

Panama: The Strategic Corridor Between Two Oceans

Although not an insular Caribbean state, Panama holds an essential place in the geopolitics of the wider Caribbean. Its canal is one of the world’s most important maritime infrastructures. Connecting the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, it plays a major role in international trade and the organization of global logistics chains. Approximately 5% of world maritime trade transits through this strategic infrastructure, which explains the particular attention given to it by the great powers.

But the Panama Canal faces several challenges today. Climate change is a growing threat, notably due to drought periods that reduce the water reserves necessary for lock operation. Simultaneously, the canal has become a symbol of competition between Washington and Beijing. China’s economic presence in certain Panamanian port infrastructures is observed closely by the United States, which considers this area essential to its economic and strategic security.

For Beijing, Panama represents an important point in global trade networks. For Washington, it remains a historical space where the question of external influence is of particular importance. Panama thus illustrates a major transformation of contemporary geopolitics: civil infrastructure is no longer only an economic tool. It is also becoming an instrument of power.

A Caribbean That Has Become a Global Strategic Space

The 21st-century Caribbean can no longer be considered a simple collection of islands dependent on the great powers. It has become a strategic space where several major dynamics converge: competition between Washington and Beijing, Moscow’s political return, energy transition, new trade routes, migration issues, and climate challenges. The diversity of national trajectories shows, however, that the regional future will not be determined solely by the great powers. It will also depend on the ability of Caribbean states to transform their resources, geographic positions, and alliances into genuine national strategies.

The new strategic question for the Caribbean is therefore no longer only which power will exert the greatest influence. It is rather to determine whether the states of the region will know how to use current international competition to strengthen their collective sovereignty, accelerate their development, and become themselves actors capable of weighing in on the emerging world order. The Caribbean is no longer a periphery of the international system. It is progressively becoming one of the spaces where a significant part of the geopolitical recomposition of the 21st century is playing out.

China in the Caribbean: The Economic Power Transforming the Regional Order

The rise of China in the Caribbean constitutes one of the most significant geopolitical changes of the early 21st century. For a large part of the previous century, the region was considered a space falling almost exclusively within the strategic influence of the United States. Geographic proximity, economic ties, migratory relations, and the historical legacy of the Monroe Doctrine had helped maintain a dominant American presence in regional affairs.

This reality has, however, begun to evolve with the emergence of China as a global power. Unlike Russia, whose presence in the Caribbean rests mainly on political, military, and symbolic considerations, Beijing is developing a much broader strategy, based on economic investment, trade, infrastructure, technology, diplomacy, and institutional cooperation. China is not necessarily seeking to establish a direct confrontation with Washington in the Western Hemisphere. Its strategy relies more on a logic of progressive influence: creating economic dependencies, strengthening diplomatic partnerships, and participating in the strategic sectors that will determine the region’s economic future.

The Caribbean represents for Beijing a limited space economically, but considerable geopolitically. Its position at the heart of the American hemisphere, close to the world’s major trade and energy routes, gives it particular strategic value in the global competition among great powers.

The Chinese Strategic Logic in the Caribbean

China’s presence in the region responds to several complementary objectives:

• The first objective is economic. China seeks to develop new markets for its companies, secure its supply chains, and participate in major infrastructure projects necessary for the development of Caribbean economies. In several countries of the region, infrastructure needs remain considerable: port modernization, energy networks, telecommunications, transport, housing, and public facilities.

• The second objective is diplomatic. The Caribbean has particular importance in international institutions due to the number of sovereign states it represents at the United Nations. Beijing therefore seeks to strengthen its relations with these countries to increase its diplomatic influence and progressively reduce the international space still occupied by Taiwan with certain Caribbean states.

• The third objective is strategic. China’s presence in a region historically considered the United States’ privileged sphere of influence is also a means of affirming the global dimension of Chinese power. Even without seeking a military presence comparable to Washington’s, Beijing wishes to demonstrate that no region of the world can henceforth be considered as belonging exclusively to a single power.

Infrastructure: The New Instrument of Power

One of the central elements of Chinese strategy relies on infrastructure. In several Caribbean countries, difficulties in accessing international financing have created a space favorable to Chinese investment. Beijing often offers rapid, visible projects directly linked to the immediate economic needs of partner governments. This approach appeals to several states seeking concrete solutions to improve their infrastructure and accelerate their development.

However, this presence also raises strategic questions. Modern infrastructure is no longer merely an economic tool. Ports, digital networks, power plants, or communication systems can also become instruments of political and strategic influence. It is precisely this dimension that concerns Washington. U.S. officials consider that certain Chinese investments could, in the long term, offer Beijing an additional capacity for economic, technological, or informational influence in a region located in the immediate vicinity of U.S. territory.

However, a balanced analysis also requires recognizing that China’s expansion partly responds to a reality created by the unmet needs of Caribbean states. When traditional partners do not offer sufficient investment or suitable solutions, regional governments naturally seek other alternatives.

The Panama Canal: An Infrastructure at the Heart of Global Competition

Panama holds a particular place in this new geopolitical competition. The Panama Canal remains one of the world’s most important maritime infrastructures. Connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, it constitutes an essential passage for international trade and a major element of global logistics chains. China’s economic presence around Panamanian port infrastructure has therefore acquired significant strategic importance. For Beijing, participating in Panama’s logistical development represents an opportunity for further integration into major international trade networks.

For Washington, this presence is much more sensitive. The canal has particular historical and strategic value in American memory. The United States built it at the beginning of the 20th century and administered it for several decades before its final transfer to Panama in 1999. The central question is therefore not solely economic. It also touches on the ability of a rival power to develop influence around an infrastructure considered essential to U.S. economic and strategic security.

The Panama Canal thus illustrates a major transformation of the 21st century: civil infrastructure is progressively becoming an instrument of geopolitical power.

China, Cuba, and Venezuela: A Strategy with States Under U.S. Pressure

China has also strengthened its relations with certain Caribbean states that have faced tensions with Washington for several decades, notably Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba represents a symbolically important partner. Since the 1959 Cuban revolution, the island remains one of the most sensitive issues in relations between the United States and the Caribbean. Faced with U.S. economic restrictions, Havana has long sought to diversify its international partners.

China has progressively developed cooperation with Cuba in several sectors, notably trade, energy, telecommunications, and certain infrastructures. For Havana, this relationship constitutes a source of economic support and a means of reducing its international isolation. For Beijing, Cuba also has particular political value. Its geographic proximity to the United States and its diplomatic history make it a partner whose importance extends far beyond the economic dimension.

Venezuela represents another major pillar of Chinese strategy. Before the worsening of its economic crisis, Caracas had become one of Beijing’s main energy partners in Latin America. China had granted significant financing to Venezuela and developed deep cooperation in the oil sector. After the imposition of U.S. sanctions, Beijing became an essential actor allowing Venezuela to maintain certain international economic relations. This situation illustrates an important characteristic of Chinese strategy: taking advantage of periods of crisis to gradually strengthen its influence.

The Technological Battle: Telecommunications, Digital Sovereignty, and the New Infrastructure Competition

Beyond physical investments, the competition between China and the United States in the Caribbean is progressively moving towards another strategic field: technology. The digital transformation of Caribbean economies creates new needs in connectivity, cybersecurity, data storage, and digital infrastructure. Chinese companies have sought to participate in this transformation by offering solutions in telecommunications, digital networks, and technological equipment. For several Caribbean states, these partnerships represent an opportunity to accelerate their digital modernization in a context where national financial resources remain limited.

But this technological dimension extends far beyond the commercial question. In a world where data, communication networks, and digital infrastructure become essential elements of national sovereignty, the choice of a technology provider also constitutes a strategic decision. Washington thus considers that the presence of Chinese companies in certain sensitive sectors could have implications for security, data protection, and the capacity for external influence. The question is therefore no longer only who builds digital infrastructure, but also who controls the technologies that will enable Caribbean societies to function in the 21st-century economy.

This technological competition should become one of the main axes of indirect confrontation between Beijing and Washington in the coming years. For Caribbean states, the challenge will be to benefit from the opportunities offered by the digital transformation while preserving their strategic autonomy.

The Limits of China’s Strategy in the Caribbean

Despite its rapid expansion, China’s influence in the Caribbean remains confronted with several important limits. The first limit concerns the historical depth of relations. The United States has a structural advantage in the region related to its geographic proximity, economic ties, diasporic communities, and cultural influence. This historical presence cannot be rapidly replaced by an external power.

The second limit concerns local perception. While Chinese investments are often welcomed by governments seeking alternative financing, certain questions also arise regarding contract transparency, project financial conditions, local labor participation, and risks of excessive debt.

The third limit lies in the desire of Caribbean states to preserve their autonomy. The majority of governments in the region do not wish to substitute American dependence for Chinese dependence. Their objective is rather to benefit from competition among great powers to obtain more investment, partnerships, and diplomatic space. The new Caribbean geopolitical reality therefore rests less on replacing one influence with another than on the emergence of a multipolar environment in which small states seek to maximize their interests.

China and the 2028 U.S. Election: What New Influence Model for Washington?

The rise of Chinese influence in the Caribbean should become an important subject of the American strategic debate during the 2028 presidential election. The fundamental question for Washington will be: how to preserve its historical influence in the region without pushing Caribbean states further towards alternative partners?

A policy based solely on confrontation could strengthen China’s attractiveness to governments wishing to diversify their international relations. Conversely, a purely defensive approach could allow Beijing to gradually consolidate its economic and diplomatic positions. The real challenge for the United States will therefore be to propose a more ambitious regional strategy, combining security, economic development, energy cooperation, digital transition, and support for democratic institutions.

The competition with China will likely not be won solely through diplomatic or military pressure. It will also depend on America’s ability to demonstrate that its partnership with the Caribbean remains more advantageous, more sustainable, and more respectful of the aspirations of local populations.

China, an Indispensable Power in the New Caribbean

China has become an indispensable actor in Caribbean geopolitics. Its power rests not primarily on a military presence, but on its ability to finance, build, invest, and develop long-term political relations. Its objective is not necessarily to provoke a direct confrontation with the United States in the Western Hemisphere. Its strategy consists rather of gradually transforming a space historically dominated by Washington into a region where several powers can now exercise influence.

For Caribbean states, this evolution represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The arrival of new partners can offer more economic possibilities, but it also exposes the region to the strategic rivalries of the great powers. The central question for the coming years will therefore not simply be which power will dominate the Caribbean, but rather whether the states of the region will be capable of using this new competition to strengthen their sovereignty, development, and collective decision-making capacity.

Russia in the Caribbean: The Return of a Strategic Power in the American Space

Unlike China, whose influence rests mainly on economic power, Russia’s presence in the Caribbean remains essentially political, diplomatic, and security-oriented. Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow had considerably reduced its engagement in the region, gradually allowing the United States to regain a dominant position in its immediate strategic environment.

This period of relative withdrawal has, however, begun to evolve in recent years. Russia has progressively reactivated its relations with several historical partners, mainly Cuba and Venezuela, in a logic that combines Soviet heritage, international projection, and a desire to demonstrate that Moscow retains a capacity for action beyond its immediate regional environment.

Russia’s presence in the Caribbean obviously does not represent a threat comparable to that posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow does not have the same economic resources or the same global alliance network. However, its influence has important symbolic value: it reminds us that the Caribbean is no longer a space exclusively controlled by Washington. For the United States, the Russian question in the region therefore concerns not only Moscow’s military capability. It also touches on diplomatic competition, American international credibility, and Washington’s ability to maintain its influence in its own strategic environment.

The Soviet Legacy: Cuba and the Memory of the Cold War

The relationship between Moscow and Havana remains the historical symbol of Russia’s presence in the Caribbean. After the 1959 Cuban revolution, the Soviet Union became Cuba’s main economic, military, and political partner. For several decades, the island held an exceptional place in Soviet strategy due to its geographic proximity to the United States. The 1962 missile crisis represented the most spectacular moment of this confrontation. For the first time in modern history, the rivalry between two superpowers risked provoking a direct nuclear confrontation.

After the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the Russo-Cuban relationship lost some of its intensity. However, it never completely disappeared. The gradual rapprochement between Moscow and Havana in recent years fits into a historical logic: maintaining a political presence in a region that retains strong symbolic value vis-à-vis the United States. For Cuba, Russia represents a partner allowing it to diversify its international relations. For Moscow, Cuba remains a strategic actor whose importance extends far beyond its geographic size.

Venezuela: Russia’s Main Strategic Partner in the Caribbean

Venezuela today constitutes the second pillar of Russia’s presence in the Caribbean, after Cuba. Since Hugo Chávez came to power in the early 2000s, Caracas and Moscow have progressively built a relationship based on military cooperation, energy exchanges, economic partnerships, and diplomatic rapprochement marked by common opposition to U.S. influence.

This relationship developed in a context of rising tensions between Venezuela and the United States. For Caracas, the partnership with Moscow represented a way to diversify its international alliances and reduce its historical dependence on Washington in strategic and security areas. For Russia, Venezuela constituted an opportunity to maintain a political presence in the Western Hemisphere and demonstrate that Moscow retained a capacity for action in a region traditionally considered to fall under U.S. influence.

Military cooperation has been one of the most visible aspects of this relationship. Russia has provided Venezuela with various defense equipment, including military aircraft, air defense systems, and surveillance technologies. These exchanges have strengthened Venezuelan military capabilities while giving Moscow an additional means of maintaining a strategic relationship with Caracas.

However, this cooperation must be analyzed with nuance. Venezuela has not become a Russian military base comparable to U.S. installations present in different regions of the world. The Russo-Venezuelan relationship rests more on political cooperation, diplomacy, and strategic symbolism than on a permanent military capability.

A Military Presence with High Symbolic Value

The military dimension nonetheless remains an important element of Russia’s strategy in the Caribbean. Moscow has regularly sought to demonstrate its capacity for international projection through naval visits, military exercises, or cooperation initiatives with its regional partners. These actions have a significance that goes beyond their operational dimension. They constitute above all political messages addressed to Washington: Russia wishes to show that it retains the capacity to act in spaces historically considered close to the United States.

However, an essential distinction must be made between symbolic presence and real strategic capability. Unlike the Soviet period, present-day Russia does not have in the Caribbean a military apparatus comparable to that which the Soviet Union possessed during the Cold War. Its economic resources are more limited, its projection capabilities are concentrated on other international priorities, and its military engagement remains constrained by its own geopolitical challenges.

Russia’s influence in the region therefore rests less on material domination than on its ability to exploit existing tensions, maintain political partnerships, and offer a diplomatic alternative to governments wishing to reduce their dependence on Washington.

Russia and Anti-Sanctions Diplomacy: Exploiting Regional Frustrations

One of Russia’s main instruments of influence in the Caribbean is its opposition to U.S. sanctions policies, particularly towards Cuba and Venezuela. Russia regularly presents these measures as instruments of political pressure that limit the economic sovereignty of the states concerned. This discourse finds some echo among several governments and regional actors who consider that international sanctions can have significant social consequences on civilian populations.

In this perspective, Moscow seeks to appear as a defender of an international order based on national sovereignty and non-interference. This strategy allows it to strengthen its relations with certain states that wish to diversify their international partnerships and avoid exclusive dependence on Western powers. However, Russian influence also remains limited by a major economic reality. Unlike China, Moscow does not possess the financial capacity necessary to propose massive investment or development programs in the region. Russia can offer political, security, and diplomatic support, but it does not have the same economic means to durably transform regional structures.

The Limits of Russian Influence in the Caribbean

Despite its strategic return to the region, Russia remains confronted with several important constraints.

• The first is economic. Russian power rests mainly on its energy, military, and diplomatic capabilities. It does not have the same financial weight as China to finance major infrastructure projects or support the economic development of Caribbean states.

• The second limit is diplomatic. The majority of Caribbean countries have deep economic relations with the United States and do not wish to transform the region into a zone of confrontation between great powers.

• The third limit is geopolitical. Moscow’s international priorities are multiple, notably in Europe and other strategic spaces. The Caribbean constitutes an important area of interest, but it does not represent the main center of Russian global strategy.

Thus, Russia can influence certain regional issues, but it does not currently have the means to single-handedly alter the strategic balance of the Caribbean.

The Russo-American Rivalry in the Caribbean: A New Form of Competition

For Washington, Russia’s presence in the Caribbean represents less a direct military threat than a challenge of influence. The American objective is mainly to prevent a rival power from using the region as a political, diplomatic, or strategic platform against American interests. This situation recalls certain elements of the Cold War, but the current context is different. Contemporary competition is less ideological than in the 20th century. It concerns more diplomatic influence, access to resources, economic partnerships, technology, and the ability to influence states’ strategic choices.

The Caribbean thus becomes a space where the great powers seek less to directly control territories than to influence governments’ decisions. For the small Caribbean states, this new reality represents a major challenge. Their objective will be to avoid becoming mere instruments in a rivalry that exceeds their own national interests.

Russia and the 2028 U.S. Election: What Strategic Choice for Washington?

The Russian question could become an important element of the American strategic debate during the 2028 presidential election. Three broad orientations could emerge:

• The first approach would consist of increasing pressure on Moscow’s partners in the region. According to this vision, Cuba and Venezuela must be isolated to limit Russia’s ability to develop its influence in the Western Hemisphere. This strategy would favor economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and support for political forces favorable to a rapprochement with Washington.

• The second approach would advocate a different strategy of influence. According to this perspective, sanctions alone are not enough to reduce Russian influence. The United States should rather propose a more attractive regional alternative based on economic cooperation, investment, energy partnerships, and a renewed diplomatic approach. The objective would be to reduce the political space available to Moscow by strengthening the attractiveness of the American partnership.

• The third question will concern the risk of a new militarization of the Caribbean. Increased confrontation between Washington and Moscow could transform the region into a space of permanent strategic tension. For Caribbean states, the danger would be to become indirect actors in a rivalry between great powers whose consequences could far exceed their own interests.

Russia: A Power Returning, But Not a Dominant Power

Russia has become a visible actor again in the Caribbean, but its influence remains profoundly different from that exerted by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow is not seeking today to rebuild a global ideological bloc comparable to that of the past. Its strategy consists rather of demonstrating that it retains a capacity for international action and that no strategic region can be considered exclusively reserved for a single power.

Its influence rests mainly on a few key partners, notably Cuba and Venezuela, as well as its ability to exploit existing tensions between certain regional governments and Washington. However, Russia neither possesses the economic resources nor the alliance network necessary to become the dominant power in the Caribbean. It nevertheless represents an important strategic factor. Its presence forces the United States to rethink its regional policy and confirms a fundamental transformation: the Caribbean is no longer merely a space of historical American influence, but a theater where the major dynamics of global competition now meet.

Other International Actors in the Caribbean: A Region Becoming a Multipolar Diplomatic Space

Competition in the Caribbean is no longer limited to the face-off between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. Other international actors are now seeking to strengthen their presence in a region whose strategic importance is growing: the European Union, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers. Their objectives are different. Some prioritize trade and development, others energy security, diplomatic cooperation, or access to emerging markets. This multiplication of actors offers new opportunities to Caribbean states. But it also creates a more complex environment, where small states must navigate between several influences without losing their strategic autonomy.

The European Union: The Partner of Development and International Norms

The European Union remains one of the most important historical partners of the Caribbean. Its influence rests less on military power than on three main instruments: economic cooperation, development aid, and trade relations. Through its cooperation programs, Brussels finances projects related to the energy transition, climate adaptation, institutional governance, education, health, and economic resilience. The European Union also shares with several Caribbean states a political proximity based on the defense of multilateralism, human rights, and the rule of law. In the Haitian dossier, it remains a major actor of international support, notably in the humanitarian, institutional, and security fields.

The Limits of Europe

Despite its considerable economic weight, the European Union suffers from a strategic handicap: it does not have the same projection capability as the United States or the same speed of action as China. Its financing procedures are often longer and more complex. In an environment where Beijing quickly proposes visible infrastructure and Washington favors security partnerships, Europe must find a new method to maintain its influence. Its challenge is to transform its economic power into genuine geopolitical influence.

Canada: An Engaged Middle Power

Canada holds a particular place in the Caribbean. Its influence rests mainly on historical ties with English-speaking countries, development cooperation, multilateral diplomacy, and the presence of large Caribbean diasporas. Ottawa also plays an important role in regional security issues, notably in Haiti. Canada is often perceived as a less interventionist actor than the United States, which sometimes allows it to maintain a capacity for dialogue with different governments.

The Canadian Challenge

Canada has a positive image in the region, but its means remain limited. Faced with China’s rise and U.S. weight, Ottawa must define a more ambitious strategy if it wishes to retain significant influence. Its main advantage remains the political trust it inspires among many regional partners.

Brazil: The Return of a Latin American Power

Brazil represents a natural actor of the wider Caribbean due to its demographic, economic, and diplomatic weight. The leading economy in Latin America, it has historically sought to play a role of regional leadership. Its influence rests on South-South cooperation, trade, multilateral diplomacy, and development programs. Brazil also has particular experience in relations with Haiti, notably through its past participation in international stabilization operations.

Brazilian Ambitions

Brasilia seeks to defend a vision of a multipolar world where countries of the Global South have greater autonomy. This approach can bring Brazil closer to certain Caribbean states wishing to reduce their dependence on traditional great powers. However, its investment capabilities remain inferior to those of China or the United States.

Mexico: A Regional Power Under Construction

Mexico holds a strategic position between North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. Its geographic proximity to the United States gives it particular importance in migration, trade, and security matters. Mexico maintains important relations with several Caribbean states and seeks to strengthen its diplomatic role. Its regional priorities notably concern energy cooperation, migration management, the fight against criminal networks, and economic integration.

The Mexican Dilemma

Mexico must constantly balance two realities: its indispensable economic partnership with the United States and its desire to affirm Latin American diplomatic autonomy. This intermediate position sometimes limits its influence, but also gives it a mediation capacity.

India: An Emerging Power Seeking Opportunities

India is beginning to strengthen its presence in the Caribbean. Its strategy rests mainly on trade, digital technologies, energy cooperation, and historical ties with certain communities of Indian origin. New Delhi also seeks to broaden its influence within the framework of its global competition with China. The Caribbean represents for India a space where it can develop a diplomatic presence without direct confrontation with established great powers.

Still Limited Influence

India has significant potential, but its presence remains modest compared to that of China. Its challenge will be to transform its diplomatic relations into concrete economic partnerships.

Turkey: An Expansion Diplomacy

Turkey has developed a more active diplomacy in recent years in regions traditionally dominated by other powers. In the Caribbean, Ankara seeks to develop trade, investment, diplomatic relations, and humanitarian cooperation. This strategy is part of a broader desire to become an independent global actor. However, its regional influence remains limited.

The Gulf Powers: Investments and Strategic Diversification

The Gulf countries, notably the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, are showing growing interest in the Caribbean. Their objectives are primarily economic: infrastructure, energy, tourism, logistics, and financial investments. These states have considerable resources they seek to invest in new markets.

The Gulf Model

Unlike traditional powers, the Gulf monarchies generally favor a pragmatic economic approach. They seek less to export a political model than to establish commercial partnerships. This approach can be attractive to several Caribbean governments seeking investments without strong ideological conditions.

The New Reality: A Multipolar Caribbean

The arrival of new actors is profoundly transforming the region. For a long time, the central question was: What was the relationship between each Caribbean country and the United States? Today, a new question arises: How can each state manage several partnerships simultaneously?

This evolution offers considerable opportunities: diversification of investments, access to new markets, competition among partners, increased bargaining power. But it also carries major risks: creation of multiple dependencies, importation of international rivalries, political instrumentalization, and regional fragmentation.

Caribbean countries must therefore navigate this new environment with a keen awareness of their national interests. A passive diplomacy will expose them to being overwhelmed by the logics of the great powers. An active diplomacy, on the contrary, will allow them to transform international competition into a lever for development.

The Caribbean has entered a new historical period. It is no longer simply a zone of American influence. It has become a space where several powers seek to build economic, diplomatic, and strategic relations. The United States remains the dominant actor, but it must now contend with a more competitive environment. China brings capital and infrastructure. Russia provides limited but symbolic political and security support. Europe and Canada offer cooperation and development. Emerging powers seek new opportunities. For Caribbean countries, the major challenge will be to transform this international competition into a lever for development rather than a new form of dependence. The great battle of the 21st century in the Caribbean will not only be a battle to control the region. It will be a battle to gain influence among peoples who seek above all stability, prosperity, and sovereignty.

Haiti at the Heart of Regional Recomposition: From Vulnerability to Strategy

Among all the states of the Caribbean, Haiti holds a paradoxical position. It is both the most fragile country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most symbolic. Its geographic situation, in the center of the Caribbean and close to U.S. shores, makes it a point of permanent attention for Washington. Its diaspora, one of the most dynamic in the region, constitutes a considerable economic and political asset.

Yet, for decades, this potential importance was not transformed into real power. Chronic political instability, weak institutions, security degradation, and humanitarian dependence have reduced Haiti to the status of an international problem rather than a strategic actor. This situation is not inevitable. It is the result of political choices, historical legacies, and an unfavorable power dynamic that the country can begin to reverse.

Fragility as an Issue of Regional Security

The first reality to understand is that Haitian fragility is no longer a purely national problem. It has become a regional security issue. The insecurity spreading in Port-au-Prince and certain provinces fuels migration flows, transnational trafficking, and diplomatic tensions between neighboring countries. The Dominican Republic, the United States, Canada, and the CARICOM Caribbean states are all directly affected by what happens in Haiti.

This recognition is both a danger and an opportunity. A danger, because it can lead to increased interference by foreign powers. An opportunity, because it gives Haiti a negotiating lever: the international community needs stability in Haiti as much as the country itself. The stabilization of Haiti cannot therefore be solely a humanitarian objective. It must become a shared political, security, and economic project. International actors wishing to maintain their influence in the region have every interest in contributing to this reconstruction. It is up to Haiti to define the conditions for this cooperation.

Refounding the State: A Prerequisite for Any External Strategy

The absence of a state is the main obstacle to the emergence of a coherent Haitian foreign policy. A country whose institutions are paralyzed, whose administration is failing, and whose justice system is incapable of exercising its prerogatives cannot negotiate with the great powers on an equal footing. It can only implore or endure.

The absolute priority must therefore be institutional refoundation:

• Security: Restore a legitimate monopoly on force. This presupposes a profound reform of the police, a justice system capable of judging criminals, and regional security cooperation based on respect for sovereignty.

• Governance: Re-establish a functioning public administration, capable of collecting taxes, managing basic services, and executing development projects.

• Justice: Fight impunity, restore confidence in the judicial system, and offer guarantees to investors and citizens alike.

• Planning: Define a long-term national vision, beyond electoral cycles and humanitarian emergencies.

• These reforms are not merely internal requirements. They are the conditions for any international credibility. A Haiti that controls its territory, protects its citizens, and administers its resources can negotiate with Washington, Beijing, or Brussels. A Haiti that remains in institutional incapacity can only be assisted, never truly associated.

Diaspora and Soft Power: Haiti’s Overlooked Assets

Haiti possesses assets that most analyses neglect. Its diaspora is one of the largest in the region, representing several million people spread across the United States, Canada, France, the Caribbean, and Latin America. This diaspora is a considerable economic reservoir: remittances represent a massive share of Haiti’s GDP. But it is also a political and cultural lever.

Haitian citizens abroad can influence migration policies, defend the country’s interests in foreign capitals, and facilitate access to influence networks. A coherent national strategy must integrate this diaspora as a full-fledged actor, not merely as a source of revenue. Furthermore, Haiti remains a global symbol. The first independent black republic, born from a successful slave revolt, the country carries a historical memory that resonates far beyond its borders. This memory is a diplomatic asset. It can be mobilized to obtain special treatment on the international stage, draw attention to historical injustices, or justify requests for reparations and enhanced cooperation.

Haiti’s Strategic Choices in the Face of the Great Powers

For Haiti, the issue is not choosing a side. It is learning to practice a modern diplomacy of balance, capable of profiting from external rivalries without being trapped by them.

1. The United States: Indispensable Partner, but Not Exclusive

The United States is the historical and geographical principal partner. Their economic, diplomatic, and security influence is considerable. A realistic Haitian strategy cannot ignore this reality. But Washington has often oscillated between indifference and interference. Haiti must learn to manage this relationship: accept support and cooperation, but refuse tutelage. The United States needs a stable Haiti. It is this American vulnerability, paradoxically, that gives Port-au-Prince leverage.

2. China: The Infrastructure Partner

China offers financing and infrastructure. Its projects for roads, ports, energy, or telecommunications can accelerate Haiti’s economic development. Several other Caribbean countries have already made this choice. But China imposes its conditions: cost, limited transparency, Chinese employees, and sometimes disputed debts. Haiti must learn to say yes to China, but by negotiating balanced contracts, protecting its long-term interests, and diversifying its partners.

3. The European Union and Canada: The Governance Allies

These partners offer cooperation based on values, norms, institutional programs, and humanitarian aid. They are often less politically constraining than Washington or Beijing. Their support is essential for institutional reconstruction, justice, and governance. But their aid is sometimes slow, conditional, and less visible. Haiti must learn to mobilize it effectively.

4. CARICOM: The Regional Collective as a Shield

CARICOM offers important diplomatic protection. It allows for defending common positions, weighing collectively in international negotiations, and benefiting from neighborhood solidarity. Haiti must invest in this regional framework and make it a priority coordination space.

Haiti and the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Triangle: A Strategic Solidarity

The three countries of the strategic triangle share common challenges: relative isolation from Washington, institutional and economic crises, and migratory and symbolic importance. Haiti can and must strengthen its relations with Cuba and Venezuela. Not to oppose the United States, but to diversify its alliances, build regional solidarities, and defend common interests. Cuba brings its experience of resilience in the face of sanctions, its model of medical cooperation, and its historical diplomatic influence. Venezuela, despite its crisis, retains energy resources, political weight, and historical ties with Haiti via regional cooperation programs. The reconstruction of an active solidarity between these three countries would strengthen each of them. It would allow them to speak with one voice in negotiations with the great powers.

Avoiding Automatic Alignment, Practicing the Diplomacy of Balance

The great challenge for Haiti, as for other Caribbean states, is to learn to navigate between powers without automatically aligning with any. A diplomacy of balance means: accepting cooperation from all, without depending exclusively on any; negotiating concrete, transparent agreements beneficial to the population; refusing to be instrumentalized in rivalries between great powers; defending its sovereignty without isolating itself diplomatically; using regional organizations to strengthen its collective weight. This approach is demanding. It requires analytical capacity, political stability, and professional institutions. But it is the only one that will allow Haiti to leave the position of object of geopolitics to become an actor in its own future.

Cuba: Between Revolutionary Heritage and the Necessity of Transformation

Cuba holds a unique place in the strategic triangle. Long considered the symbol of anti-American resistance in the hemisphere, the island is today confronted with an existential challenge: how to preserve its political and social model while adapting to new economic, demographic, and geopolitical realities?

The Cuban regime has demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience. It has survived the collapse of the USSR, the persistence of the U.S. embargo, the economic crisis of the 1990s, and the political tensions of the 21st century. But this resilience has a cost. The Cuban economy is drained. Infrastructure is aging. The population faces recurrent shortages and very low purchasing power. Emigration is reaching historic levels, draining the country of its lifeblood.

The Cuban question is therefore not only political. It has become a question of economic and social survival. The Havana regime must find a new balance between political control and economic openness, between its historical alliance with Moscow and Beijing and the need to renew pragmatic ties with Washington.

Scenarios for Cuba After 2028

1. Gradual Adaptation: Havana undertakes limited economic reforms, allows more foreign investment, partially liberalizes certain sectors. The political system remains unchanged, but Cuban society benefits from a gradual improvement in living conditions. This scenario assumes a relaxation of U.S. sanctions and a certain internal political stability. It is the most likely if Washington adopts a pragmatic approach.

2. Controlled Transition: Under pressure from economic and social difficulties, the Cuban regime accepts deeper political reforms. A gradual opening occurs, accompanied by stability guarantees. The United States and the European Union support this process. This scenario requires strong political will on both sides and careful management of tensions. It is possible but difficult.

3. Worsening Crisis: The economy continues to deteriorate, emigration intensifies, social tensions increase. The regime hardens its position, U.S. sanctions strengthen. Cuba enters a phase of prolonged instability. This scenario is the most dangerous for the region. A major Cuban crisis would cause a massive migration wave, tensions in the Caribbean, and increased competition among great powers on the island.

The Cuban Choice

For Cuba, the issue is clear. It is no longer possible to maintain the status quo. The country must choose a path. Either a controlled opening that preserves the essence of the system while adapting it. Or a prolonged crisis that risks destroying what the regime has built. The United States has a role to play in this choice. A policy of maximum pressure could accelerate collapse but also provoke regional instability. A policy of conditional dialogue could offer a way out, provided Havana shows its willingness to reform. Cuba’s future is therefore intimately linked to the 2028 U.S. election. The next president will have to decide whether he wants a stable Cuba or whether he accepts the risk of a major crisis 150 kilometers from the Florida coast.

Venezuela: The Energy Power in Suspense

Venezuela remains one of the most complex cases in contemporary geopolitics. Endowed with the world’s largest oil reserves, it is nonetheless mired in a historic economic and social crisis. A country once the engine of regional integration, it is now diplomatically isolated, but remains a central issue for the great powers.

Venezuelan oil is not disappearing. It awaits. It awaits political and economic conditions allowing a resumption of massive exploitation. This reality gives Venezuela a strategic weight that its current situation seems to contradict. The United States, China, Russia, and even India or Turkey closely monitor the country’s evolution. Whoever can secure access to Venezuelan resources will have a considerable advantage in the decades to come.

Venezuelan Scenarios

1. Negotiated Transition: A political agreement between the government and the opposition allows gradual opening, a partial lifting of sanctions, and the return of foreign investment. Venezuela regains economic growth and reintegrates the international community.

2. Authoritarian Stabilization: The conservative government maintains political control while accepting limited economic reforms to ensure its survival. The situation remains tense but manageable.
3. Prolonged Collapse: The absence of political compromise, maintenance of sanctions, collapse of institutions, and mass emigration. Venezuela becomes a fragile state, a terrain of competition among foreign powers.

The Issue for the Caribbean

A stable Venezuela would reduce migration pressures on neighboring countries, stabilize part of the region’s energy supply, and allow for diplomatic reintegration beneficial to the entire Caribbean. A Venezuela in crisis would amplify regional tensions, fuel insecurity, and reinforce the presence of external actors.

What Strategy for Haiti and the Caribbean Facing the America of Tomorrow?

The previous chapters have shown that the 2028 U.S. presidential election could constitute a moment of rupture for the Western Hemisphere. The Caribbean has become a space of strategic competition where the interests of the United States, China, Russia, and other emerging powers clash. Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela are at the center of this recomposition. Their internal instability, geographic importance, and complex relations with Washington make them territories where power dynamics unfold that far exceed their borders.

But the Caribbean must not be reduced to the role of a battleground between external powers. It has its own capacity for action. Its states can choose their alliances, defend their interests, and build a collective strategy adapted to a world that has become multipolar. This final part explores the possible choices for Haiti and the region: rebuilding states, mobilizing diasporas, diversifying economic partnerships, strengthening regional cooperation, and transforming current vulnerabilities into strategic levers.

Building a Caribbean Strategy for the 21st Century

The Caribbean can no longer simply wait for the great powers to decide its future. It must develop a collective vision and coherent national strategies. This strategy rests on several pillars:

1. Strengthened regional integration: CARICOM and the OECS must be strengthened. Diplomatic coordination, common commercial policy, regional security, crisis management, and defense of collective interests are absolute priorities.

2. Diversification of partnerships: Caribbean countries must multiply their alliances. The United States remains the principal partner, but China, Europe, Canada, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers offer opportunities to seize.
3. Strengthening national institutions: A state that does not control its territory, does not administer justice, does not collect taxes cannot be a strategic actor. Institutional refoundation is the basis of any credible foreign policy.

4. Mobilization of diasporas: Caribbean diasporas are major economic and diplomatic assets. They must be integrated into national strategies as full-fledged partners, not merely as sources of financing.

5. Defense of sovereignty in a multipolar world: Caribbean states must learn to navigate between powers without automatically aligning with any. Sovereignty does not mean isolation. It means the ability to choose one’s partners and negotiate one’s alliances.

Haiti: Transforming a Historical Vulnerability into a Geostrategic Advantage

Haiti is generally described as one of the most fragile states in the international system. This reality is undeniable: security crisis, institutional weakness, massive poverty, political instability, and external dependence. But this reading has a limit. It presents Haiti solely as a problem to be solved, never as an actor capable of weighing on its regional environment. Yet Haiti has several strategic advantages rarely exploited: a central geographic position in the Caribbean, an influential global diaspora, a young population, underutilized economic potential, and a history that gives it unique symbolic importance in the international space.

The challenge is therefore not only to emerge from the crisis. It is to reposition Haiti as a regional actor.

The Diaspora: The Forgotten Strategic Capital

The Haitian diaspora represents one of the country’s main assets. Present mainly in the United States, Canada, France, and several Caribbean countries, it constitutes a considerable economic, intellectual, and diplomatic network. Financial transfers sent by Haitians living abroad have for several years represented an essential source of revenue for the national economy. But reducing the diaspora to its financial role would be a strategic error. It also represents human capital: entrepreneurs, qualified professionals, academics, scientists, investors, and community actors.

A modern national policy towards the diaspora should go beyond the traditional logic of financial solicitation. It should create a genuine strategic partnership: dedicated investment mechanisms, temporary return programs for skills, innovation networks, participation in major national projects, and diplomatic mobilization in host countries. In the United States notably, the Haitian community can become a relay for political, economic, and cultural influence. The diaspora must no longer be considered an external extension of Haiti. It must become one of its main instruments of power.

Geography: Transforming a Position into an Advantage

Haiti occupies an exceptional geographic position at the heart of the Caribbean. Located close to the United States, on one of the main maritime routes of the Western Hemisphere, the country could become a regional commercial, logistical, and digital hub. This position is today largely underutilized. The development of modern infrastructure could transform Haiti into a regional platform: competitive international ports, special economic zones, trade corridors, digital infrastructure, and logistics platforms connecting the Caribbean to the Americas.

Proximity to the Dominican Republic is also a strategic factor. Despite historical tensions, the two countries share a common geographic reality and could develop economic complementarities in energy, transport, agriculture, tourism, and regional production chains. Geography is never a guarantee of power. It becomes an advantage only when accompanied by a political vision and institutions capable of transforming it.

Rebuilding the State: The Prerequisite

No geopolitical strategy is possible without a functioning state. The Haitian crisis is not solely an economic or security crisis. It is above all an institutional crisis. The weakness of the state has created a vacuum progressively occupied by armed groups, criminal networks, and special interests. Reconstruction must therefore begin with three priorities:

1. Restoring security: The fight against gangs cannot be only a one-off police operation. It requires a profound reform of security forces, effective border control, the fight against arms trafficking, and structured international cooperation. Security is the primary condition for any economic reconstruction.

2. Reforming institutions: A modern state requires a professional administration, an independent judiciary, a credible electoral system, and effective anti-corruption mechanisms. Without solid institutions, investments and international programs remain temporary.

3. Re-balancing the territory: The excessive centralization of Port-au-Prince has aggravated national imbalances. Reconstruction must involve genuine decentralization: development of secondary cities, regional investments, strengthened local autonomy, and creation of territorial economic hubs. A strong state is not only a state present in the capital. It is a state present everywhere.

Economic Potential: Emerging from Dependence

Haiti can no longer build its future solely around international aid, traditional agriculture, and diaspora transfers. The country must develop strategic sectors: modern agriculture and agro-industry, cultural and ecological tourism, the digital economy, renewable energies, light industry, and regional financial services. The economic transition must also integrate the new geopolitical reality: global production chains are now seeking to reduce their excessive dependence on certain Asian hubs. Geographic proximity to the United States could allow Haiti to become a proximity partner in certain regional value chains. But this requires a fundamental condition: stability.

Cuba and Venezuela: Between Adaptation and Strategic Repositioning

Cuba and Venezuela hold a particular place in the geopolitical balance of the Caribbean. For decades, these two countries constituted the main points of resistance to U.S. influence in the region. Their political, energy, and diplomatic alliance allowed the Cuban regime to survive after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and Venezuela to maintain regional influence despite its economic collapse. But this model is reaching its limits. The economic crisis, the evolution of the international system, and the rise of a multipolar world force Havana and Caracas to rethink their strategies. Their survival will depend less on their ability to resist external pressures than on their aptitude to transform their own internal structures.

Cuba: Between Economic Opening and Political Transition

Cuba is going through one of the most difficult periods in its recent history. After surviving the end of Soviet support in the 1990s, then several decades of U.S. sanctions, the island faces a multidimensional crisis: energy shortages, food difficulties, demographic aging, mass departure of part of its youth, and loss of confidence of a population facing economic stagnation. The Cuban economic model, based on strong state centralization, is showing its limits. The government has gradually recognized the need for adaptation, authorizing more private initiatives and seeking new foreign investment. But the issue goes beyond mere economic reform.

The Need for a New Economic Architecture

Cuba has several assets: a high level of education, recognized medical expertise, a strategic geographic position, and considerable tourism potential. However, these advantages remain insufficiently exploited due to structural constraints: low productivity, excessive bureaucracy, lack of investment, restrictions on entrepreneurship, and limited access to international markets. A sustainable transformation would require a deeper evolution: development of the national private sector, creation of an environment favorable to foreign investment, agricultural modernization, reform of the energy system, and greater integration into regional trade. The objective would not be to completely abandon the Cuban social model, but to create a more flexible economy capable of meeting the population’s needs.

The American Question: Confrontation or Normalization?

The relationship with Washington remains the most determining external factor for Cuba’s future. For over sixty years, U.S. policy has oscillated between two strategies: maximum pressure to provoke political change and diplomatic engagement to encourage gradual evolution. Historical experience shows that economic isolation did not lead to the collapse of the Cuban regime. It rather contributed to reinforcing certain defensive reflexes of the power and increasing Cuba’s dependence on other partners like Russia and China. A new U.S. approach could therefore favor a gradual economic opening, academic and cultural exchanges, health cooperation, and dialogue on migration and security issues. The Cuban question could become an important issue in the 2028 U.S. presidential election: between those who favor ideological firmness and those who consider U.S. influence passes more through engagement than isolation.

Cuba in a Multipolar Environment

Cuba must also review its external dependencies. For a long time, the island benefited from the support of a dominant partner: the Soviet Union before 1991, Venezuela during the Chávez-Maduro era, and today a more diverse set including China and Russia. But no foreign power can durably replace a national development strategy. Cuban diplomacy will therefore have to seek a balance: preserve its historical relations, attract Western investment, strengthen its regional ties, and avoid excessive dependence on a single partner. Cuba’s future will depend less on the survival of the current system than on its ability to evolve.

Venezuela: Rebuilding After the Crisis

Venezuela represents one of the greatest paradoxes in Latin America. The country has the world’s largest oil reserves, but it has experienced one of the most spectacular economic collapses in contemporary history. The Venezuelan crisis is the result of a combination of factors: excessive dependence on oil, poor economic management, corruption, institutional weakening, political tensions, and international sanctions. The central question is therefore not only the recovery of oil production. It is the reconstruction of a state capable of using its resources for national development.

Oil: An Opportunity to Rebuild

Venezuela has an advantage that few countries possess: its energy resources. But oil can no longer be considered a sole solution. A modern strategy should combine modernization of the oil industry, economic diversification, agricultural development, technological investment, and professional training. Venezuela must emerge from the rent model that made it extremely vulnerable to international fluctuations. Energy revenues should finance an economic transformation, not simply maintain a political system.

Institutional Reconstruction

Venezuela’s stabilization also requires political reconstruction. Without credible institutions, no sustainable investment will be possible. Priorities should include: restoration of electoral confidence, judicial independence, protection of public freedoms, national reconciliation, and the gradual return of international investors. Venezuela still has significant human resources: engineers, entrepreneurs, academics, and a large diaspora. Their mobilization will be essential to rebuild the country.

A New International Positioning

Venezuela will also have to redefine its alliances. In recent years, Caracas has strengthened its ties with Moscow and Beijing to compensate for its Western isolation. This strategy allowed the Venezuelan government to survive, but it also limited its economic options. A more balanced foreign policy could consist of maintaining relations with China and Russia, re-establishing economic ties with the United States and Europe, strengthening cooperation with Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, and participating more in regional mechanisms. Venezuela could become a major actor in the Caribbean and South America again, but only if it transforms its potential into solid institutions.

The Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Triangle: A New Strategic Reading

These three countries are often analyzed separately. Yet, they form a particular geopolitical ensemble. Haiti represents the issue of institutional and security stability. Cuba represents the ideological and diplomatic issue. Venezuela represents the energy issue. Their evolution will directly influence the regional balance. For Washington, Beijing, and Moscow, this triangle remains strategic. For the peoples concerned, it represents above all a fundamental question: how to transform historical vulnerabilities into development opportunities?

Towards a More Coordinated Caribbean Diplomacy?

For a long time, the Caribbean was considered a collection of scattered, vulnerable states dependent on external great powers. This perception has often limited the region’s ability to defend its own interests in major international debates. Yet, the challenges Caribbean countries face are largely common: climate change, transnational crime, migration, energy dependence, economic vulnerability, and competition among powers. Faced with these issues, a new approach becomes necessary: moving from fragmented diplomacy to more coordinated regional diplomacy. The Caribbean will not be able to influence the world order by remaining divided. It will have to build a collective negotiation capacity, capable of dialoguing with Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Brussels, or New Delhi without losing its strategic autonomy.

CARICOM: From Economic Integration to Diplomatic Power

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) remains the most important institutional instrument of regional cooperation. Created to foster economic and political integration, it has gradually expanded its role to include security, climate change, and international diplomacy. But its influence remains limited by several factors: weak institutional resources, divergent interests among member states, differences in economic size, and excessive dependence on external partners.

CARICOM must take a new step. It can no longer be merely a consultation space. It must become a genuine geopolitical actor. This implies more systematic coordination of international positions, common representation in certain strategic negotiations, regional economic diplomacy, and a permanent geopolitical analysis capability. In a world dominated by large blocs, small states can only weigh in by pooling their forces.

Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Moving Beyond the Logic of Confrontation

The relationship between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is one of the most sensitive issues in the Caribbean. The two countries share the same island, a common land border, and important economic interdependencies. Yet their relationship remains marked by historical tensions, notably around migration, trade, and identity issues. This situation cannot be sustainable. The two countries have an interest in building a more pragmatic cooperation framework around several priorities: border security, the fight against criminal networks, orderly migration management, cross-border economic development, energy cooperation, and environmental protection. The stability of the island of Hispaniola will depend on the ability of the two states to move from a relationship dominated by mistrust to one based on common interests. The Dominican Republic cannot have lasting stability with a neighbor constantly in crisis. Haiti cannot rebuild its economy without a constructive relationship with its main geographic partner.

Maritime Security: A Regional Priority

The Caribbean is a strategic maritime space. Its trade routes connect North America, Latin America, and global markets. Its ports play an essential role in international trade. But these same spaces are also exploited by criminal networks. The region faces several threats: drug trafficking, arms trafficking, clandestine migration, illegal fishing, and organized crime. No Caribbean state alone possesses the means to effectively respond to these challenges. A regional strategy should include intelligence sharing, cooperation between navies and coast guards, joint maritime surveillance, technological cooperation, and partnerships with the United States, Canada, and Europe. Maritime security is no longer merely a military issue. It has become a condition for regional economic development.

Economic Diplomacy: Emerging from Dependence

For decades, Caribbean economies have rested on a few vulnerable sectors: tourism, traditional agriculture, diaspora transfers, and limited exports. This dependence exposes the region to external crises. The new geopolitics, however, offers opportunities. The Caribbean can become a space for investment in several areas:

• Renewable Energies: With significant potential in solar, wind, and marine technologies, the region could reduce its energy dependence.

• Digital Economy: Digital infrastructure can enable the development of remote services, technology companies, and new skilled jobs.

• Blue Economy: The oceans represent major potential: sustainable fishing, aquaculture, marine biotechnologies, ecological tourism, and maritime transport.

• Regional Value Chains: The region must also develop more internal economic complementarities. The objective is not to replace external partners, but to negotiate with them from a stronger position.

Diversification of Alliances: A Strategic Necessity

The competition among great powers places Caribbean states before a historic choice. They can become zones of exclusive influence of an external power, or build a diplomacy of balance. The second option seems most suited to their interests. The Caribbean must be able to cooperate simultaneously with the United States on security, trade, and investment; with the European Union on sustainable development and institutional cooperation; with China on infrastructure and certain investments; with India on technology and emerging partnerships; with Canada on regional cooperation; and with Latin American countries to strengthen South-South integration. Diversification is not an absence of loyalty. It is a strategy of sovereignty.

The Climate Challenge: Building Collective Resilience

Climate change likely represents the most important existential threat for small Caribbean states. Sea-level rise, more violent hurricanes, droughts, and agricultural disruptions directly affect populations, infrastructure, economies, and food security. The region must move from a logic of reaction to a logic of anticipation. This requires resilient infrastructure, regional early warning systems, scientific cooperation, international climate finance, and energy transition. Climate vulnerability must become a major diplomatic argument to obtain more international support.

Ten Strategic Priorities for the Caribbean by 2035

1. Restore regional security: Fight gangs, drug trafficking, and transnational criminal networks.

2. Rebuild fragile states: Strengthen institutions, justice, and public governance.

3. Diversify economies: Reduce dependence on vulnerable sectors and develop new growth drivers.

4. Modernize infrastructure: Ports, airports, roads, energy, and digital networks.

5. Strengthen climate resilience: Adapt territories to new environmental realities.

6. Develop the blue economy: Transform maritime resources into engines of sustainable development.

7. Mobilize diasporas: Make overseas communities economic and diplomatic partners.

8. Diversify international partnerships: Avoid excessive dependence on any single power.

9. Build a strong regional diplomacy: Give CARICOM and regional organizations more strategic capacity.

10. Defend democracy and the rule of law: Without credible institutions, no economic or geopolitical strategy is sustainable.

Making History Rather Than Suffering It: 2028, a Strategic Window for the Caribbean

The history of the Caribbean is one of a region that, for several centuries, has found itself at the crossroads of the ambitions of great powers. Colonization, imperial rivalries, struggles for independence, military interventions, ideological confrontations of the Cold War, economic globalization, and now strategic competition among powers: few spaces in the world will have experienced such a succession of upheavals. Yet, despite the crises, natural disasters, often unfinished political transitions, and persistent economic fragilities, the Caribbean peoples have constantly demonstrated a remarkable capacity for resilience. The challenge of the 21st century now consists of moving beyond this culture of survival to enter a logic of construction, projection, and power. It is no longer merely a question of resisting events, but of acquiring the means to influence their course.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election fits precisely into this dynamic. Its importance extends far beyond U.S. borders. The vote will determine the orientations of the world’s leading power on essential issues such as regional security, migration, trade, investment, international cooperation, or competition with China and Russia. The decisions made in Washington will have direct repercussions on the entire Caribbean basin. But reducing the region’s future to the sole outcome of a U.S. election would be an analytical error. The Caribbean’s evolution will depend just as much on the ability of its own states to define a common vision, strengthen their institutions, and defend their interests in an international environment that has become more complex and more competitive.

One of the main lessons of this study is precisely that the Caribbean is no longer a strategic periphery. For a long time, it was perceived as a simple extension of the U.S. sphere of influence, a secondary space whose balances seemed frozen since the end of the Cold War. This reading now belongs to the past. The rise of China, the diplomatic and security return of Russia, the growing engagement of the European Union, Canada, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers have profoundly modified the regional geopolitical configuration. The Caribbean has become a space again where the great rivalries of the 21st century intersect: energy security, control of sea routes, supply chains, climate transition, diplomatic influence, technological competition, and competition between development models.

In this recomposition, Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela hold a singular place. Together, they constitute a strategic triangle whose evolution will durably influence the balances of the Western Hemisphere. Haiti remains the symbol of the institutional challenge. Its future will depend on its ability to rebuild a functioning state, capable of ensuring security, restoring citizens’ trust, and creating a favorable environment for development. Cuba finds itself at a crossroads between economic adaptation, preservation of its political model, and the search for a new diplomatic balance with its traditional partners as well as with the United States. As for Venezuela, it illustrates the paradoxes of an energy power possessing immense natural resources but confronted with a profound political, economic, and social crisis. The future of these three states will extend far beyond their national borders. It will directly influence migration dynamics, energy balances, security strategies, and geopolitical competition throughout the Caribbean.

The analysis also shows that the very nature of the relationship between the United States and the region could evolve over the next decade. For more than a century, U.S. policy in the Caribbean has often relied on a logic of strategic preeminence, sometimes based on political, economic, or military pressure. Current changes, however, invite broader reflection. In an environment where states now have a more diverse range of international partners, lasting influence will likely no longer be able to rest solely on power dynamics. It will depend more on the ability to propose credible partnerships, competitive investments, technological cooperation, innovative financing mechanisms, and dialogue respectful of national sovereignties. International competition will not be won solely through military or economic power; it will also be played out on the quality of trust relationships that great powers can build with their partners.

This evolution opens new perspectives for Caribbean states. For the first time in several decades, they have greater diplomatic maneuvering room. The diversification of partnerships is no longer a simple option; it becomes a strategic necessity. Cooperating with the United States in the areas of security, trade, or investment, developing economic relations with the European Union, attracting some Chinese financing, strengthening exchanges with India, Canada, or emerging powers, while consolidating regional integration, now falls within a diplomacy of balance rather than a logic of alignment. Modern sovereignty no longer consists of choosing a side, but of preserving the freedom to choose one’s partners according to one’s national interests.

For this ambition to become reality, the Caribbean will however have to meet several structural challenges. The consolidation of the rule of law, the modernization of public administrations, the fight against corruption, the strengthening of judicial systems, the improvement of the business climate, the securitization of maritime spaces, adaptation to climate change, the diversification of economies, and the upskilling of human resources will constitute the true foundations of its future influence. No geopolitical strategy can produce lasting effects without solid institutions, without effective governance, and without political stability.

Beyond international power dynamics, this study finally recalls an essential truth: major geopolitical transformations always create periods where national trajectories can be redefined. The Caribbean finds itself today at one of these pivotal moments. The upheavals of the international system, global economic recompositions, energy transitions, technological mutations, and the new strategic priorities of the great powers open a historic window that will not remain open indefinitely. States that anticipate these evolutions will strengthen their autonomy and influence. Those that remain prisoners of their fragilities risk, once again, suffering decisions made elsewhere.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election thus constitutes much more than an electoral appointment. It represents a revealer of the profound transformations reshaping the Western Hemisphere and, more broadly, the international system. The election results will undoubtedly be important. But they will not, on their own, determine the future of the Caribbean. That will depend above all on the ability of the region’s leaders, institutions, economic actors, and civil societies to transform their vulnerabilities into development levers, their constraints into opportunities, and their diversity into collective strength.

At the end of this reflection, one conviction stands out. The Caribbean must no longer be envisaged as a simple space where the great powers project their rivalries. It possesses the human, geographic, economic, and cultural resources necessary to become a geopolitical actor in its own right. Its future will be neither exclusively written in Washington, nor in Beijing, nor in Moscow. It will be determined first by the will of the Caribbean peoples themselves to build stronger states, more competitive economies, and a diplomacy ambitious enough to make their voices heard in the new world order.

This is perhaps the true lesson of this study. Great powers will continue to shape the international environment. But the nations that durably mark history are those that know how to recognize moments when balances are transformed, in order to seize the opportunities they offer. For the Caribbean, 2028 could be one of those decisive moments. More than a U.S. electoral deadline, this year could mark the beginning of a new historical stage: that of a region that finally chooses to stop suffering the world’s recompositions, but to fully take its place in them.

THE VIEW OF CPGNNews

Reading America from the Caribbean, Understanding the World to Come

U.S. presidential elections are among the most observed political events in the world. Their reach extends far beyond the framework of U.S. domestic politics. In an international system where Washington remains the leading military, economic, financial, and technological power, each change in the White House influences diplomatic balances, security strategies, international markets, migration flows, trade policies, and the power dynamics that structure the world order.

For the Caribbean, this reality holds particular importance. Situated a few hundred kilometers from U.S. shores, at the crossroads of the major sea routes linking North America, Latin America, and the Atlantic, the region is in direct contact with the strategic priorities of the United States. Decisions made in Washington regarding security, immigration, regional cooperation, sanctions, investments, or trade policy produce immediate effects on the political, economic, and social trajectories of Caribbean states. Few regions of the world live with such proximity to the consequences of every shift in U.S. foreign policy.

The 2028 presidential election, however, occurs in an unprecedented context. The international system is undergoing a profound recomposition of power dynamics. The affirmation of China as a global actor, the strategic return of Russia, the emergence of new regional powers, the transformations of global value chains, the energy transition, the digital revolution, and competition for control of maritime spaces are gradually redrawing the geopolitical architecture of the 21st century. In this new configuration, the Caribbean ceases to be a simple peripheral space. It becomes a strategic territory again where the interests of the great powers converge and where some of the principal balances of the Western Hemisphere are played out.

It is in this perspective that CaribPulse Global News Network conceived this report. More than an electoral analysis, this study offers a prospective reading of the geopolitical consequences that the 2028 U.S. presidential election could produce. Our ambition is not to anticipate the result of a vote or to comment on a campaign. It is to understand how the strategic choices of the world’s leading power could reshape power dynamics in the Caribbean, influence the trajectories of Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, transform regional balances, and accelerate the recompositions of the new world order.

Our approach rests on a fundamental conviction: U.S. elections do not merely change a government; they can alter the strategic environment of dozens of states when decisions made in Washington concern international security, global trade, migration, investment, military alliances, or multilateral institutions. Understanding the 2028 U.S. election thus means analyzing the dynamics that will shape inter-American relations and the geopolitical balances of the next decade.

This approach reflects the editorial vocation of CPGNNews. Born in the heart of the Caribbean, our media defends a simple conviction: this region is not a periphery of international news. It constitutes one of the spaces where the great mutations of the world produce some of the fastest and most visible effects. Debates on regional security, migration, economic sovereignty, strategic investments, energy transitions, new technologies, or rivalry among great powers are not abstract questions. They directly determine the development prospects, stability, and sovereignty of Caribbean peoples.

Our ambition is therefore neither to reproduce the perspective of major international media, nor to defend an ideological reading of international relations. It is to bring an original contribution, based on analytical rigor, cross-referencing of sources, historical depth, and understanding of the realities specific to the Caribbean. Informing, from this perspective, does not mean merely reporting facts. Informing means giving decision-makers, researchers, diplomats, academics, entrepreneurs, and citizens the keys necessary to understand the transformations reshaping their strategic environment.

Through this report, CPGNNews also defends an essential idea: the Caribbean must no longer be analyzed solely as a space where the rivalries of great powers are exercised. It must be recognized as a geopolitical actor in its own right, capable of building its own strategies, diversifying its partnerships, and participating in the elaboration of new regional balances. The challenges it faces are immense, but the opportunities are equally so for states that will know how to anticipate the changes underway rather than suffer them.

Ultimately, this report does not solely deal with a U.S. presidential election. It questions a broader issue: what will be the place of the Caribbean in the new world order that is taking shape? Behind the choice of the next U.S. president looms a deeper recomposition of power dynamics in the Western Hemisphere. Understanding this transformation today is to allow decision-makers to better prepare for tomorrow’s choices. It is to this reflection that CaribPulse Global News Network intends to contribute, with independence, intellectual rigor, and strategic vision.

Yvon Bonhomme
Editor-in-Chief and Geopolitical Analyst
CaribPulse Global News Network (CPGNNews)
“From the Caribbean, understanding the world’s transformations to better anticipate those of our region.”

CPGNNews – CaribPulse Global News Network
From the Caribbean, thinking about the world with rigor, independence, and strategic vision.

Every great idea begins with a question. Every transformation is born from a dialogue. Behind every analysis published by CPGNNews, there is a deep conviction: knowledge has true value only when it is shared, challenged, enriched, and passed on.

If this Grand Report has struck a chord with you, if a reflection inspires you, if an experience deserves to be told, or if you wish to contribute to a better understanding of the major issues of our time, we would be honored to hear from you.

Researchers, academics, journalists, students, decision-makers, entrepreneurs, members of the diaspora, or simply engaged citizens, your voice matters. The Caribbean needs a space where ideas circulate freely, where analyses meet, where experiences are shared, and where perspectives from around the world cross paths in respect for facts, diversity of opinions, and intellectual rigor.

To foster a truly international dialogue, the main reports, investigations, analyses, and studies published by CPGNNews are released simultaneously in French, English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Portuguese, thus reaching the major linguistic communities of the Caribbean, the Americas, and an increasingly broad international public.

CPGNNews was born from a simple yet demanding ambition: to foster an independent Caribbean strategic thought, open to the world, and deeply committed to rigor, intellectual honesty, humanism, and the pursuit of the common good.

WU.S. ELECTION 2028: The Battle for the Post-Trump Era

The Caribbean at the Heart of the New World Order

How the 2028 U.S. presidential election could redefine power dynamics in the Western Hemisphere, reshape the geopolitical balance of the Caribbean, and open a new strategic chapter for Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and the island states in the face of the rise of China, Russia, and other emerging powers.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC REPORT │ Strategic Foresight • Geopolitics • International Relations • Security • Diplomacy • Strategic Economics

By the editorial staff of CaribPulse Global News Network (CPGNNews).

Why This Report?

The 2028 U.S. presidential election is about far more than the United States. It will influence the political, economic, and strategic dynamics of the entire Western Hemisphere, with direct repercussions for the Caribbean, Latin America, and, more broadly, the international system.

Since 2016, American politics has entered a period of sustained polarization. Successive changes in administration have profoundly altered the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, challenging policy orientations that were long considered stable. Today, each change in administration brings a reassessment of diplomatic priorities, international alliances, and geopolitical power dynamics.

The 2028 election falls within this broader dynamic. Well before the official launch of the campaign, the leading political figures are already preparing for the post-Trump era. Governors are raising their national profile, think tanks are developing new doctrines, major donors are reorganizing their influence networks, and potential candidates are testing their policy positions on key national and international issues.

The objective of this report is not to predict the outcome of the election. Rather, it is to identify trends, analyze power dynamics, and assess the most plausible scenarios based on currently available data. In geopolitics, uncertainty remains a constant. It does not prevent analysis; on the contrary, it is its very reason for being.

Why Is the Caribbean Already Affected?

The Caribbean occupies a strategic position that is often underestimated. Situated at the crossroads of the major maritime routes linking North America, Latin America, and Europe, it constitutes a vital space for regional security, international trade, migration flows, and digital infrastructure.

In recent years, the relative influence of the United States in the region has been progressively challenged by the growing presence of other powers, notably China, Russia, Turkey, India, and several Gulf states. This evolution is reshaping traditional balances and placing the Caribbean at the center of a strategic competition that is likely to intensify.

The future U.S. president will have to define the role this region will play in American foreign policy. Decisions made in Washington will have direct consequences for migration policies, security cooperation, investment, development assistance, and the political stability of Caribbean states.

Why Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela?

Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela occupy a unique place in American strategic thinking. Each represents a distinct challenge, yet their geographic proximity and political significance make them three closely interconnected issues. Cuba remains a major foreign policy challenge, shaped by more than six decades of tensions with Washington. Venezuela continues to be central to the region’s energy, migration, and security concerns. Haiti, meanwhile, remains a persistent humanitarian, political, and security challenge for the United States and its partners.

The evolution of these three issues will be a key indicator of the regional policy of the next U.S. administration. Beyond their respective national situations, they illustrate the strategic choices Washington will have to make in response to the new realities of the Western Hemisphere.

The Key Questions This Report Addresses

This report is structured around several questions that will shape the American strategic debate in the coming years and whose consequences will extend far beyond U.S. borders. The first concerns not so much the identity of the next president as the type of leadership the American political system is now capable of producing. In a landscape marked by polarization, the evolution of party primaries, the growing influence of major donors, and the transformation of the media ecosystem, what kind of political leadership is most likely to emerge by 2028?

The second concerns U.S. foreign policy. Will the next administration prioritize strategic competition with China, refocus on domestic priorities, or make a more assertive return to its immediate neighborhood? The answer will largely determine the diplomatic, economic, and security orientations of the Western Hemisphere.

The third examines the evolution of the triangle formed by Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela. Each of these countries represents a distinct challenge for Washington. Together, they constitute a laboratory for the contradictions of U.S. policy in the Caribbean, where migration, regional security, energy, political influence, and geopolitical rivalries intersect.

The fourth question analyzes the intensification of competition among the major powers in the region. The expansion of Chinese influence, Russia’s renewed presence, and the growing engagement of other actors such as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, India, and Brazil raise fundamental questions about the United States’ ability to preserve its strategic position in a region long regarded as part of its natural sphere of influence.

Finally, this report examines the room for maneuver available to Caribbean states. How can they strengthen their institutional resilience? How can they diversify their partnerships without compromising their strategic interests? How can they move from a position of dependence to a genuine capacity for diplomatic initiative in an increasingly multipolar international environment?

These questions do not claim to provide definitive answers. Rather, they constitute the analytical framework of this report. Its ambition is less to predict the future than to provide the keys to understanding, identify major trends, and shed light on the decisions that public and private actors will have to make in the years ahead.

The United States on the Threshold of a New Political Cycle

Before understanding what 2028 could mean for the Caribbean, it is first necessary to understand what the United States has become. Not the America of simplified representations—the America of skyscrapers, Silicon Valley, or bustling commercial districts—but the real America: a society shaped by deep divisions, persistent contradictions, and quiet political realignments.

The country preparing to enter a new electoral cycle is no longer the one that carried Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, nor even the one that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Today, it is more demographically diverse, older, more politically fragmented, and more distrustful of its institutions. This internal evolution directly influences how the United States defines its role in the world and, consequently, its relationship with its regional environment, particularly the Caribbean.

This first part establishes the general framework for the analysis. It examines the transformation of the two major American political parties, the evolution of American society, and the underlying forces that explain why the 2028 presidential race has already begun long before the official launch of the campaign. Understanding the international implications of this election first requires understanding the domestic dynamics that shape the choices of American voters.

From Reagan to Trump: Forty Years of Transformation in the Republican Party

To understand the Republican Party of 2028, one must return to 1980. That year, Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory over Democrat Jimmy Carter and ushered in a new conservative vision of America. His message rested on a central conviction: the United States is an exceptional nation destined to exercise global leadership, but its potential is weakened by a federal government that has become too large, too costly, and too deeply involved in the nation’s economic and social life.

In his inaugural address, Reagan delivered a phrase that would become one of the most iconic in American political history: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” This statement encapsulated a profound ideological transformation. The Republican Party, already engaged in a conservative shift for several years, gradually became the principal vehicle for challenging the role of Washington. It attracted suburban middle-class voters, Southern evangelicals, Western entrepreneurs, and a segment of the white working class that increasingly felt alienated from the Democratic Party.

This electoral coalition, often identified with the Reagan era, would shape American politics for decades. It led to the election of George H. W. Bush in 1988 and later George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, while serving as a powerful counterweight during the Democratic administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Yet this coalition rested on sometimes conflicting currents. Religious conservatives sought social policies rooted in traditional values. Business leaders advocated tax cuts and deregulation. Foreign policy hawks favored a strong and active American role on the international stage, while another segment of the conservative movement remained committed to a more cautious approach to overseas engagements. For many years, these different tendencies were held together by two powerful forces: opposition to Democratic liberalism and the ideological confrontation with the Soviet Union.

The end of the Cold War in 1989, followed by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, profoundly altered this equilibrium. The disappearance of the Soviet adversary deprived the Republican Party of one of its principal unifying forces, while the war on terror became America’s new strategic priority. Gradually, tensions among the party’s various factions became increasingly visible.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 marked another major turning point. Republicans lost the White House amid a severe economic crisis and witnessed the rise of a new generation of Democratic leaders who embodied a different vision of America: more diverse, more supportive of an expanded role for government in certain sectors, and more focused on social and environmental issues. For a significant portion of the American right, Obama symbolized a cultural transformation that they viewed as a challenge to the nation’s traditional foundations.

The reaction came swiftly. In 2009, the Tea Party movement emerged and gradually reshaped the Republican grassroots. It called for deep spending cuts, lower taxes, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and greater distrust of Washington’s political establishment. Beyond its economic agenda, the Tea Party reflected a broader sense of lost control among many voters confronting rapid demographic, cultural, and social change.

This evolution paved the way for a new phase with the emergence of Donald Trump. In 2015, the New York businessman and former Democrat launched a presidential campaign that upended the traditional norms of the Republican Party. When he declared, “I am your voice,” he presented himself not simply as Ronald Reagan’s political heir but as the representative of Americans who felt forgotten by political elites, disadvantaged by globalization, and marginalized by the country’s cultural transformations.

The break was profound. Whereas Reagan primarily advocated limiting the role of government, Trump proposed using the power of the state to defend American national interests. Whereas the traditional Republican Party strongly supported free trade and an interventionist foreign policy, Trumpism embraced economic nationalism, stronger border security, and a more transactional approach to international relations.

Many observers believed that Trump could not win the 2016 presidential election. Yet his victory fundamentally transformed the Republican Party. More than an electoral realignment, it represented a profound ideological reorientation. Republican leaders who initially opposed him largely ended up aligning themselves with his agenda or accepting his dominance. Conservative institutions gradually adapted their positions, and Trumpism became the party’s new ideological reference point.

As 2028 approaches, the Republican Party appears to have undergone a profound transformation. It is no longer the party of the Cold War, free trade, and military interventionism that dominated much of the second half of the twentieth century. It has become the party of economic nationalism, strengthened national sovereignty, and growing skepticism toward certain international institutions.

Domestically, it promotes a conservative vision of society and opposes progressive policies related to cultural and identity issues. Electorally, it remains deeply rooted in rural America, small towns, and among a significant segment of the white working class, while seeking to expand its appeal among parts of the Latino electorate, particularly Cuban American and Venezuelan American communities that are especially receptive to anti-communist and anti-socialist messages.

Yet this dominance remains fragile because it depends heavily on one exceptional political figure: Donald Trump himself. The question of succession has therefore become central. The Republican challenge is to preserve the electoral energy of Trumpism while preparing a new generation of leaders capable of carrying the movement beyond its founder.

This tension will lie at the heart of the 2028 Republican primary. Candidates will have to demonstrate loyalty to Trump’s political legacy while establishing their own identities. They will also have to navigate a media environment profoundly transformed by social media, political podcasts, and digital platforms, which have increasingly replaced traditional media as the principal channels of electoral mobilization.

Understanding this evolution helps explain the central paradox of the Republican Party in 2028: a powerful political force capable of mobilizing a cohesive electoral coalition built around shared identities and geographic strongholds, yet also vulnerable because much of its contemporary identity remains closely tied to a single political leader.

The following sections examine the leading Republican contenders for the White House, assessing their strengths, weaknesses, and political strategies. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to turn to the other major force in the American political system: the Democratic Party, which is itself undergoing a profound transformation.

From Clinton to Today: How the Democratic Party Has Been Transformed

If the Republican Party has undergone a spectacular transformation under the effect of Trumpism, the Democratic Party has evolved through a more gradual, less visible, but equally profound process. To understand the Democrats of 2028, one must return to another pivotal moment in American political history: the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.

After twelve years of Republican presidencies, Democrats understood they could no longer hope to regain power durably by remaining associated solely with the traditional left, unions, the expansion of social programs, and a historical distrust of the market. Clinton then proposed a new orientation, often called the “Third Way”: a centrist positioning that accepted part of the economic transformations underway since the Reagan era while maintaining a protective role for the state.

This strategy marked an important evolution of the party. Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, despite opposition from part of the labor movement. He reformed the welfare system, declaring he wanted to “end welfare as we know it.” He also adopted a firmer approach on issues of domestic security and crime, choices later criticized by some progressive sectors of the party. Ultimately, Clinton embodied a Democrat capable of governing on several economic and security issues in a spirit close to the American political center, while retaining a progressive identity on social and environmental questions.

This strategy worked electorally. Clinton won two presidential elections and helped reposition the Democratic Party at the center of American political life. After him, Al Gore narrowly lost in 2000, then Barack Obama came to power in 2008 with a promise of generational and political renewal. Obama embodied change, but his time in power was marked by institutional pragmatism. He saved the automobile industry after the financial crisis, passed the Affordable Care Act—known as Obamacare—which constituted a historic advance in health coverage while remaining far from the ambitions of the most radical Democratic left. Internationally, his administration continued several military engagements inherited from previous years, maintained certain contested surveillance practices, and defended trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), despite criticism from parts of his own camp.

During this period, the Democratic Party relied on a broad electoral coalition uniting minorities, younger generations, women, urban voters, graduates, and populations of major metropolitan areas. It gradually became the party of cultural diversity, international openness, trust in institutions, and support for scientific research. However, this coalition remained fragile as it rested on a permanent balance between several sensibilities: a progressive wing desiring a deeper transformation of the economic and social system, and a moderate wing attached to electoral credibility among the middle classes and independent voters.

The 2016 election profoundly disrupted this dynamic. Hillary Clinton’s defeat to Donald Trump was a major shock for Democrats, who were largely convinced of their victory. The explanations were numerous: some highlighted the limitations of the U.S. Electoral College, others denounced Russian interference in the campaign, while others pointed to the weaknesses of Clinton’s candidacy itself. But a more fundamental analysis eventually prevailed: the Democratic Party had gradually lost part of its historical connection to certain segments of the American working class, particularly in the industrial states of the Midwest, where a portion of voters turned to Donald Trump.

This realization opened a strategic debate that still pervades the party in 2028. For the progressive wing, notably represented by Bernie Sanders, the Democratic defeat resulted from abandoning the popular classes in favor of a party that had become too close to economic and financial elites. For the moderate wing, associated with Joe Biden, Democrats lost because they appeared too far removed from the daily concerns of voters and too focused on certain cultural issues at the expense of economic and social ones. This confrontation between two visions of the Democratic future remains one of the party’s main challenges.

Joe Biden’s election in 2020 aimed to address this identity crisis. His project was based on restoring institutions, returning to a more traditional foreign policy, and implementing ambitious but pragmatic economic and social programs. His administration achieved several important results, notably in investments related to infrastructure, industry, and the energy transition, while strengthening certain international alliances. However, it also faced major difficulties: inflation, the migrant crisis at the southern border, the political consequences of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a national polarization that became increasingly difficult to contain. Above all, Biden did not always succeed in embodying a generational vision capable of overcoming partisan divisions.

As 2028 approaches, the Democratic Party thus remains a party in search of balance. It is divided between a progressive wing calling for structural reforms, a more regulated economy, and a less interventionist foreign policy, and a moderate wing seeking to restore the trust of centrist voters on economic, social, and security issues. Between these two currents, a new generation of leaders is emerging who belong neither entirely to the Clinton era nor to the Obama era, and who seek to define a new Democratic identity adapted to the realities of the 21st century.

This rising generation may be the party’s primary opportunity for 2028. Figures like Gavin Newsom, Governor of California; Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan; or Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, represent this desire for renewal. Their challenge will be to demonstrate they can transcend their regional roots and build a national vision capable of uniting a sufficiently broad electoral coalition.

The Democratic Party must also respond to a profound transformation of its electoral base. Its traditional coalition, composed of minorities, young people, and women, remains important but is no longer as automatic as before. A portion of the Latino electorate, notably certain Cuban-American and Venezuelan-American groups, has moved closer to the Republican Party due to particular sensitivity to anti-communist and anti-socialist rhetoric. African American voters remain largely attached to Democrats, but their mobilization is no longer guaranteed without effort. As for younger generations, they manifest growing distrust of political institutions and may turn to alternative candidates or choose abstention.

In this context, the 2028 Democratic primary will be as much a competition among personalities as a debate on the ideological future of the party. Each candidate will have to propose a vision capable of responding to progressive aspirations while reassuring a centrist electorate concerned with economic stability, security, and governance capability. Understanding this evolution allows one to grasp the paradox of the 2028 Democratic Party: a formation weakened by its internal divisions and the loss of some traditional voters, but still possessing considerable assets thanks to a diversified electoral base, potential for generational renewal, and a historical capacity for reinvention.

An American Society Profoundly Reshaped

Political parties are never abstract constructions. They are the product of a society: its demographic evolutions, economic transformations, cultural tensions, and collective aspirations. To understand why the Republicans and Democrats of 2028 defend sometimes profoundly different visions of the American future, one must first understand what American society has become. In recent decades, the country has undergone considerable changes that have gradually redefined relations between generations, territories, social groups, and political institutions.

The America of 2028 is more diverse, more connected, and more open to the world than it was at the end of the 20th century, but it is also more politically and culturally fragmented. Demographic, economic, and technological transformations did not occur separately; they combined to create a society where old political categories have become less stable and electoral behaviors harder to predict.

The first major change concerns demographics. The United States remains a dynamically growing nation demographically, but it is also experiencing a gradual aging of its population. The baby boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964, dominated American political life for over half a century. This generation participated in the great cultural transformations of the 1960s before becoming one of the main pillars of political conservatism during the Reagan era. For a long time, it occupied a central place in the economic, media, and political institutions of the country.

However, as 2028 approaches, its relative weight is diminishing. Some baby boomers are now retired, while others are gradually passing away. Their electoral influence remains significant, but it is no longer sufficient to define the country’s political orientation on its own. In their place, Generations X, Y, and Z are emerging, whose historical experiences and social references differ profoundly from those of their predecessors.

Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, now constitute a major electoral generation. More diverse, more urban, and generally more educated than previous generations, they have however experienced an economic path marked by several crises: the 2008 financial crisis, rising housing costs, student debt, and a more uncertain job market. Their relationship to politics is thus marked by greater distrust of traditional institutions and a demand for deeper changes in the country’s economic and social functioning.

The second major transformation concerns American political geography. The United States has become an increasingly polarized society along territorial lines. Major metropolitan areas and their close suburbs now constitute the main Democratic strongholds, while rural areas and small towns remain largely favorable to the Republican Party. This territorial division sometimes gives the image of two distinct Americas: that of large coastal cities, more multicultural and progressive, and that of rural or industrial interior territories, more attached to conservative values and a traditional vision of national identity.

This geographic opposition remains more complex than it appears, however. The true electoral battlegrounds are often in the intermediate zones, notably the suburbs. Long considered naturally Republican territories, some suburbs have evolved under the effect of social transformations and the rejection by some moderate voters of Donald Trump’s political style. However, this electoral shift is not irreversible. Republicans are now seeking to win back these voters by placing greater emphasis on the economy, security, and the daily concerns of middle-class families. In 2028, suburbs could once again be among the main arbiters of the presidential election.

The third transformation is cultural. The United States has always had significant debates around national identity, religion, race, and social values, but these tensions have taken on a new dimension in recent years. Cultural issues have become factors of political mobilization as powerful as economic issues.

A significant portion of the conservative electorate considers recent cultural transformations a threat to the country’s traditional benchmarks. This perception fuels strong opposition to progressive policies related to identity, gender, or diversity issues, often grouped by their opponents under the term “woke.” Conversely, a portion of the progressive electorate believes the United States must continue its efforts to correct historical injustices and build a more inclusive society. For these voters, resistance to social change represents less a defense of traditions than a refusal to address persistent inequalities.

This opposition now transcends simple partisan differences. It touches on how each side imagines the country’s future. For conservatives, the central question is often the preservation of a national identity perceived as threatened. For progressives, it concerns more the transformation of a society still deemed marked by structural inequalities. This cultural fracture is one of the most visible elements of contemporary American polarization.

The fourth transformation is economic. The United States remains the world’s leading economic power, but this global wealth masks profound changes in the distribution of income and opportunities. Since the 1980s, the gaps between the most favored categories and parts of the middle and working classes have widened considerably. Globalization, automation, and industrial transformations have created winners and losers, fueling a feeling of downward mobility among a portion of the population.

This economic reality has a major political dimension. A significant portion of Americans feels the economic system functions in an unbalanced way, that large corporations and the wealthiest categories wield excessive influence, and that political leaders no longer sufficiently respond to citizens’ daily difficulties. This sentiment of frustration provides fertile ground for the rise of populist discourse, on both the right and the left.

On the right, it fuels criticism of globalization, defense of economic protectionism, and rejection of political and economic elites. On the left, it reinforces demands for increased regulation, redistribution, and reform of American capitalism. In both cases, it reflects the same question: whether the American economic model continues to benefit the entire population fairly.

The fifth transformation concerns the technological revolution. The United States has entered a new phase where digital technologies are profoundly changing how citizens work, communicate, and participate in public life. Social networks have gradually replaced some traditional media as primary sources of political information, creating an environment where opinions circulate faster but divisions can also deepen.

Digital algorithms have fostered the creation of separate informational communities, where citizens are often exposed to content reinforcing their initial beliefs. This fragmentation of the public sphere represents a major challenge for American democracy, as it reduces common spaces for discussion and makes political compromises harder.

Artificial intelligence adds a new dimension to this transformation. It will have significant consequences on employment, economic competitiveness, national security, and the very functioning of electoral campaigns. The 2028 election will likely be the first where artificial intelligence plays a central role in producing political content, electoral analysis, targeted communication, and risks related to disinformation.

Finally, the last major transformation is generational. The young Americans who will be under thirty in 2028 grew up in a historical environment profoundly different from that of their parents. They did not experience the Cold War as a central political reality and did not experience the September 11, 2001 attacks with the same perception as previous generations. Their world view has been shaped by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 financial crisis, debates on climate change, social mobilizations related to racial justice, and the explosion of digital technologies.

This generation has a more critical relationship with traditional institutions, but it is also more open to the world and more attentive to global issues. Its electoral behavior will be decisive in 2028, as it will represent a growing share of the U.S. electorate. It could contribute to accelerating the transformation of the political system by favoring new economic, social, and environmental priorities.

These different changes do not operate independently of each other. They reinforce each other and produce an American society that is more diverse yet more fragmented, richer yet more unequal, more connected yet also more politically isolated. They create a more volatile electorate in its choices, but also more attached to certain cultural, territorial, and generational identities. It is in this profoundly reshaped America that the 2028 presidential battle will unfold. A battle that will not be just about candidates or parties, but about two competing visions for the future of the United States and its place in the world.

Why the 2028 Presidential Campaign Has Already Begun

There is a widely held idea, fostered by some media and political observers, that U.S. presidential elections truly begin in the election year. This perception is nonetheless inaccurate. In the United States, preparation for a presidential election always starts well before the official campaign opening, but this phenomenon has become even more pronounced in the context of 2028. The next presidential battle began the day after the 2024 election, and some of its elements were visible even before.

Behind the apparent calm political period, considerable work is already underway. Potential candidates are assessing their chances, testing their messages with voters, meeting donors, building influence networks, and seeking to identify themes likely to define the next campaign. Think tanks are developing policy proposals, teams of advisors are beginning to take shape, and electoral strategies are often developed subtly before being officially unveiled.

This precocity is first explained by the financial factor. U.S. presidential campaigns are among the most costly political operations in the world. The scale of electoral spending imposes long-term preparation on candidates. Even before officially declaring, a contender must establish a donor network, create fundraising structures, develop support committees, and build an organization capable of operating on a national scale. In a system where fundraising ability often serves as an early indicator of political credibility, time becomes a major strategic advantage.

The second factor is the transformation of the media environment. American politics now operates in a permanent news cycle. Cable news channels, social networks, digital platforms, political podcasts, and specialized media have eliminated the old distinction between electoral and non-electoral periods. Every speech, every appearance, every statement, or every mistake can be instantly analyzed, amplified, or exploited politically.

In this environment, candidates can no longer wait for the official campaign opening to build their public image. They must progressively establish their political identity, develop national name recognition, and convince potential voters they embody a credible response to the country’s challenges. Contemporary American politics has become a permanent competition for public attention.

The third factor concerns the complexity of the primary system. Unlike many political systems where candidates are quickly designated by parties, the United States imposes a long internal selection process. Candidates must face a succession of electoral consultations in states with very different profiles, each with its own political culture, local media, and specific priorities.

The ability to navigate this process successfully requires considerable preparation. One must build a national organization, recruit local teams, establish activist networks, and adapt one’s message to the realities of each territory. A U.S. presidential campaign is therefore not built in a few months; it relies on gradual establishment that often begins several years before the final vote.

The fourth factor is the particular role played by think tanks, universities, and expert networks in shaping U.S. public policy. Unlike other democracies where political parties directly produce much of their doctrine, the United States relies heavily on research institutions that influence economic, social, military, and diplomatic debates.

These organizations produce reports, analyses, and proposals that subsequently feed into candidates’ platforms. Future political leaders thus begin very early to assemble their teams of experts, identify the major orientations of their potential administration, and establish the networks that could support them if they come to power.

The final factor is uncertainty. The 2028 election remains largely open. The Republican and Democratic candidates are not definitively known, the main campaign issues may still evolve, and no one can predict the national or international crises that could shift voters’ priorities. This uncertainty pushes contenders to prepare well ahead of the deadline. They must position themselves early enough to be identified by voters, build a coherent image, and be able to seize political opportunities when the context becomes favorable.

This dynamic is further reinforced by a central question: the legacy of Donald Trump. Regardless of his personal involvement in the 2028 campaign, Trump will likely remain one of the defining figures of the Republican Party. If he seeks to re-enter the presidential race, the Republican primary could be largely dominated by his candidacy, and the general election would then become a judgment on his political record. If he does not run, the Republican battle will take the form of an open succession where several candidates will try to present themselves as the legitimate heirs of the movement he profoundly transformed. In both scenarios, the competition will have begun well before the official opening of the polls.

Understanding this precocity allows one to understand the very nature of the 2028 election. It is not a political event that will suddenly appear at the time of the vote; it is a process already underway, gradually constructed through alliances, ideological repositioning, media strategies, and electoral calculations. It is already influencing the behaviors of American candidates, the expectations of voters, and even the strategies of foreign powers closely observing Washington’s political evolution. The 2028 presidential election has not arrived yet, but it is already shaping the future American political landscape.

The Ten Numbers That Explain the America of 2028

To conclude this first part dedicated to the internal transformations of the United States, ten figures summarize, through a few key indicators, the major demographic, economic, and social forces that will shape the American political landscape as the 2028 presidential election approaches.

1. Approximately 340 million inhabitants:

2. The U.S. population continues to grow, but at a slower pace than in previous decades. This demographic evolution marks a new stage for the United States, simultaneously facing the aging of its population and increasing diversification of its society.

3. Nearly a quarter of the population of Hispanic or Latino origin:

The growth of the Hispanic population is one of the major demographic transformations of the 21st-century United States. This evolution is gradually changing the country’s electoral composition and forcing the two major parties to adapt their strategies towards an electorate that has become essential.

4. Nearly half of voters identifying as independent:

The increase in the number of Americans who refuse to define themselves exclusively as Republicans or Democrats reflects growing distrust of the two major parties. This independent electorate represents a major issue in presidential elections, particularly in states where a few thousand votes can decide the outcome.

5. Approximately $30 trillion in public debt:

The historic level of U.S. federal debt constitutes one of the major economic challenges for future administrations. It will weigh on budgetary choices, social policies, public investments, and the federal government’s ability to respond to future crises.

6. Inflation persistently felt by households:

Even after the slowdown in price increases observed following the inflationary shock of the early 2020s, the cost of living remains one of the primary concerns of American voters. For many families, the central issue is not just the level of inflation, but the erosion of purchasing power accumulated over the years.

7. Tens of millions of Americans born abroad:

Immigration remains one of the country’s major political issues. The United States remains a nation built by successive waves of migration, but the scale and speed of recent migratory movements fuel intense debate over borders, integration, and national identity.

8. Approximately 80% of the population living in urban or peri-urban areas:

Urban concentration has profoundly transformed American political geography. Large cities and their suburbs now constitute the main economic, technological, and cultural centers of the country, but they have also become arenas of major electoral confrontation.

9. Approximately 12% African American population:

The African American community retains essential political weight, notably in several key states and major urban areas. Its level of electoral mobilization remains a determining factor for the Democratic Party, even if its political behavior evolves according to generations and territories.

10. Durably weakened institutional confidence:

A significant portion of Americans express growing distrust of the federal government and national institutions. This crisis of confidence spans both major parties and is one of the engines of contemporary American populism.

11. A majority of Americans believing the country is heading in the wrong direction:

Political pessimism has become one of the characteristic traits of contemporary America. Despite its economic and technological power, a significant portion of the population considers the country is going through a period of uncertainty, marked by social divisions, economic difficulties, and loss of trust in institutions.

These figures are not mere statistical data. They reveal the underlying forces shaping the America of 2028: a nation more diverse but more fragmented, more powerful but more anxious, more innovative but more distrustful of its institutions. It is upon this social, economic, and demographic reality that presidential candidates will build their speeches, strategies, and promises. These figures constitute the political backdrop for the battle ahead.

The Republican Party: Consolidating the Trump Legacy

The first part established the general framework: the America of 2028 is a profoundly transformed society, traversed by demographic, economic, cultural, and institutional fractures that are redefining its political landscape. In this new reality, the Republican Party occupies a particular position. After having been for several decades the party of Reagan, then that of institutional conservatism dominated by economic and diplomatic elites, it has become the political vehicle of a new movement embodied by Donald Trump.

This transformation constitutes one of the most significant political events in recent U.S. history. Trumpism has not only modified the discourse of the Republican Party; it has changed its priorities, social alliances, and vision of America’s role in the world. The central question of 2028 is therefore not only whether Republicans will retain power, but whether they will be capable of transforming a movement built around an exceptional personality into a lasting political doctrine.

The strength of the Republican Party today rests on a profoundly restructured electoral coalition: rural areas, part of the white working class, religious conservatives, but also a growing fraction of Latino voters sensitive to themes of order, immigration, and opposition to socialism. This coalition allowed Trump to reshape the party, but it also carries a fundamental fragility: its cohesion remains largely tied to the president’s personal legacy.

The major challenge of the period ahead is therefore that of succession. How can the political energy of Trumpism be preserved without Donald Trump? How can the loyalty of its base be maintained while expanding the Republican electorate towards independents and suburban middle classes? How can a revolt against the establishment be transformed into a sustainable governing vision?

This second part analyzes this historic mutation. It examines Trumpism as a political phenomenon, the particular role of Donald Trump in the balance of the Republican Party, and then the figures who could claim his succession. Beyond personalities, the objective is to understand which ideological orientation could define the American right in the coming years and what consequences this evolution could have on U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Caribbean space.

Trumpism: Electoral Phenomenon or Durable Political Doctrine?

The question of the nature of Trumpism has become one of the great political debates of 21st-century America. Is it a temporary movement built around an exceptional personality, destined to disappear with Donald Trump? Or does it represent a deeper transformation of American conservatism, comparable in its historical influence to the Reaganism of the 1980s?

The answer probably lies between these two analyses. Trumpism was born around a man, but it also responds to social and political evolutions that existed before him. It is the expression of accumulated discontent: a feeling of economic decline in certain regions of the country, distrust of institutions, rejection of a globalization perceived as unfair, anxieties about cultural transformations, and the sense that political elites no longer represent a significant portion of the population.

Observers use several concepts to define this current: populist nationalism, identity conservatism, economic sovereigntism, strategic isolationism, or anti-establishment reaction. Each of these definitions describes part of the phenomenon, but none alone suffices. The heart of Trumpism rests on a simpler idea: America must be protected.

This promise of protection is probably its most powerful element. Trump offered voters a direct response to several simultaneous anxieties: protecting American jobs from the effects of globalization, protecting borders from illegal immigration, protecting traditional values from rapid cultural changes, protecting American sovereignty from international institutions deemed constraining. For a segment of the electorate, this promise represented less a detailed political program than a recognition of their frustrations and anxieties.

Trumpism also rests on a particular political method: permanent rupture with established norms. Unlike traditional conservative leaders who generally sought to respect institutional codes, Trump built his relationship with voters around confrontation. His direct style, his attacks on the media, his criticisms of judicial institutions, and his rejection of classical political conventions were interpreted differently by each camp.

For his opponents, this approach represents a threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law. For his supporters, it constitutes precisely proof of his authenticity. Trump was perceived not as a traditional politician seeking to preserve the system, but as an outsider capable of defying a system considered closed and inefficient. Beyond the method, Trumpism also carries a particular vision of the world. Internationally, it questions several principles that had structured U.S. foreign policy since World War II: automatic support for multilateral alliances, the promotion of an international order based on institutions, and the idea that American leadership rests on permanent global engagement.

Against this approach, Trump opposed a more transactional conception of international relations. Alliances must, according to this logic, be evaluated based on the direct benefits they bring to the United States. Trade agreements must better protect American industry. International organizations must not limit national sovereignty. Foreign partners must contribute more to funding their own security. This vision has deeply worried many traditional U.S. allies, particularly in Europe and Asia. It has created a fundamental question about the reliability of U.S. engagement in the world. This question remains open in 2028: even after subsequent years, doubt about the permanence of the United States’ international role remains one of the most significant legacies of the Trump era.

The great question of 2028 is therefore the survival of Trumpism after Trump. Its disappearance is possible, as the movement remains strongly associated with a unique personality. Donald Trump never built a structured political doctrine comparable to Reaganism; he rather embodied a political intuition, a leadership style, and a direct relationship with his electorate. But its complete disappearance also seems unlikely, as he has durably transformed the expectations of the Republican base. His successors will now have to contend with voters who consider immigration, economic sovereignty, criticism of elites, and priority given to American interests as central elements of conservative identity.

The future of the Republican Party will therefore depend on its ability to institutionalize this legacy. Three paths are possible: complete fidelity to the Trump model, adaptation intended to make the movement more acceptable to the centrist electorate, or an attempt at synthesis between traditional conservatism and nationalist populism. It is precisely this battle of interpretation that will define the 2028 Republican primary. All candidates will be, in one way or another, heirs of Trump. But they will have to answer a fundamental question: should the movement be continued as it exists, or should its legacy be transformed to build the next generation of American conservatism?

Donald Trump: President, Arbiter, or Kingmaker?

Even after leaving the White House, Donald Trump remains the dominant figure of the Republican Party. His influence far exceeds that of a traditional former president. Where other former U.S. heads of state have gradually taken an institutional distance from their party, Trump continues to occupy a central position in defining Republican priorities, choosing candidates, and the ideological orientation of the conservative movement.

In 2028, the real question is therefore not only who will be the Republican candidate for president, but what role Donald Trump will choose to play in this new political battle. Will he himself be a candidate for another term? Will he become the arbiter of a succession among several heirs? Or will he seek to become the true “kingmaker” of the Republican Party, capable of imposing his successor while retaining decisive influence over the direction of the movement?

This uncertainty constitutes one of Trump’s main political strengths. By keeping open the possibility of a new candidacy, he retains considerable strategic power over potential contenders. As long as his intention remains ambiguous, Republican candidates must calculate their positions carefully. They seek the support of his electoral base without appearing as adversaries, they claim his legacy without giving the impression of being mere copies, and they try to prepare for the future while remaining loyal to the one who redefined the party.

Trump’s real power today rests less on an institutional function than on a personal political relationship with tens of millions of voters. This relationship is one of the major transformations of the contemporary American party system. A segment of his electorate no longer defines itself primarily by its affiliation with the Republican Party, but by its attachment to Trump himself and what he represents: opposition to political elites, an assertive defense of national sovereignty, and a willingness to break with the established order.

This personal loyalty gives Trump an exceptional capacity for influence. A candidate publicly endorsed by him can benefit from a considerable advantage in a Republican primary. Conversely, a candidate who directly confronts him risks losing a significant portion of the conservative base. This reality explains why most contenders for succession seek less to break with Trump than to present themselves as the true heirs of his movement.

However, this influence also has limits. Politics also relies on generational renewal, and no political figure can maintain the same level of dominance indefinitely. Age, electoral fatigue, media wear and tear, and accumulated controversies are factors that could gradually reduce Trump’s ability to impose his will.

The Trump paradox is therefore as follows: he remains indispensable to the Republican Party, but he also represents a question the party will have to answer sooner or later. Can a political movement survive durably when built around such a dominant personality? The answer will largely determine the future of American conservatism.

Succession thus represents the main strategic challenge for the Republican Party. If Trump chooses not to run again, he will have to decide which candidate can preserve his legacy while being capable of broadening the electoral coalition. This decision will be difficult, as the criteria may conflict. The most loyal successor is not necessarily the one with the best electoral capacity. The candidate most competent to win a national election is not necessarily the one who will most reassure the Trumpist base.

Several profiles could then emerge. Some will seek to extend the movement directly, taking up the central themes of Trumpism with a new generation of leaders. Others will attempt a strategic evolution: retaining the populist and sovereigntist energy of the movement while adopting a more institutional tone capable of attracting independent voters and moderate suburbs.

In all scenarios, Donald Trump will remain a major player in the 2028 presidential election. Even without being a candidate, he will influence debates, alliances, and internal power dynamics. His legacy will likely surpass the question of his own political career, as he will have profoundly changed how a significant portion of Americans perceive the role of government, the relationship between the people and elites, and the place of the United States in the world.

Internationally, this influence will also remain significant. Trump’s vision on China, military alliances, multilateral institutions, and foreign political regimes will continue to weigh on the American strategic debate. For U.S. partners, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, understanding the future of the Republican Party necessarily involves understanding the role Trump will continue to play, whether in the forefront or behind the scenes. In 2028, Donald Trump may no longer be the U.S. president, but he could remain the man who still defines the contours of the American right.

The Republican Contenders: The Battle for the Trump Legacy

The Republican Party of 2028 faces a historic paradox. It is more ideologically powerful than it has been for several decades, but it must resolve a fundamental question: how to transform a movement built around an exceptional leader into a political force capable of lasting beyond its founder? The next Republican primary will therefore not just be a competition among ambitious personalities. It will be a battle of interpretation over the Trump legacy. All candidates will have to answer the same question: should Trumpism be extended in its current form, modernized, or surpassed?

The difficulty is considerable. The Republican electoral base expects its leaders to demonstrate loyalty to the themes that enabled the party’s transformation: national sovereignty, immigration control, priority to American economic interests, criticism of progressive elites, and a more transactional foreign policy. But a national victory also requires convincing independent voters, suburban middle classes, and a portion of moderate voters who remain wary of the most divisive aspects of the movement.

The 2028 Republican primary will therefore be a search for balance between fidelity and renewal. The best-positioned candidates will not necessarily be those who imitate Trump the most, but those who understand how to transform his legacy into a new stage of American conservatism. Among the figures likely to play a major role in this competition, several profiles stand out:

J.D. Vance
The Intellectual Heir of Trumpism?

J.D. Vance represents one of the most visible attempts to transform Trumpism into a structured political doctrine. His trajectory symbolizes an important evolution of the American right: a conservatism that is no longer limited to reducing the state or traditional social issues, but places economic sovereignty, protection of the working class, and criticism of globalization at its center. Originally from Ohio, an industrial state that has become a symbol of the political shift of the white working class towards the Republican Party, Vance has a profile particularly suited to the political narrative of the new conservatism. His book Hillbilly Elegy gave him national visibility by describing the social and economic difficulties of a part of peripheral America, which constituted one of the main electoral supports for Donald Trump.

His political journey is also revealing of the Republican Party’s transformation. Initially critical of Trump, Vance became one of his most convinced defenders. This evolution allowed him to gain the trust of part of the Republican base, which sees in him a representative of a new generation capable of continuing the movement after Trump. His strengths are significant. He is young, media-savvy, capable of defending a coherent ideological vision, and has roots in a politically strategic state. He also benefits from a growing network of supporters in conservative and technological circles, notably among actors seeking to influence the country’s economic and regulatory future.

But his vulnerabilities also exist. His conversion to Trumpism remains a source of criticism among some traditional conservatives who accuse him of changing positions for electoral reasons. His Democratic opponents will likely seek to present his trajectory as political opportunism rather than a sincere ideological evolution. His other challenge will be national. A presidential candidacy requires going beyond the traditional Republican base. Vance will have to demonstrate he can attract independents, suburban voters, and social categories still hesitant about economic and cultural populism.

Internationally, J.D. Vance embodies a particularly important trend of the new Republican Party: a strategic nationalism more concerned with domestic U.S. priorities than with the permanent management of global affairs. He criticizes traditional military interventionism, wants to reduce certain foreign engagements, and considers competition with China to be the primary strategic priority for the United States.

Regarding the Caribbean, notably Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his likely approach would be more based on direct U.S. interests, regional security, and control of migration flows than on a traditional policy of democratic promotion or humanitarian intervention. His positioning could therefore represent a significant evolution in the relationship between Washington and its regional neighborhood. J.D. Vance thus appears as one of the candidates most representative of the 2028 Republican dilemma: he embodies the continuity of Trumpism, but he must still demonstrate he can become more than an heir—a genuine national leader.

Ron DeSantis

Institutional Conservatism After Trump?

Ron DeSantis represents another possible path for the future of the Republican Party: a conservatism strongly inspired by the Trump era on cultural and identity issues, but more structured around a classic governmental experience. Unlike some heirs of the movement, DeSantis does not present himself as a mere continuator of Trump; he rather seeks to demonstrate he can achieve Trumpism’s objectives with a more disciplined and more institutional approach.

Governor of Florida, a state that has become one of the most important bastions of the modern Republican Party, DeSantis built his national reputation around several themes: opposition to progressive policies in public institutions, defense of conservative values, immigration control, and affirmation of a strong executive. His political strategy rests on the idea that the American right can retain the cultural energy of Trumpism while reducing dependence on a unique personality.

His main advantage lies in his executive experience. Unlike several potential contenders, he has a concrete governmental record to present to voters. He can defend the idea that he has already administered a large American state, managed public crises, and implemented a coherent conservative program. This experience could be an important argument for voters who want ideological continuity but with a different leadership style. However, DeSantis also has a major weakness: his relationship with Donald Trump. When he tried to establish himself as an alternative to the outgoing president, he did not succeed in surpassing Trump’s personal influence with the Republican base. A portion of conservative voters perceived him not as a natural heir, but as a rival who had tried to replace the movement’s founder too quickly.

In 2028, his challenge will therefore be to convince that he is neither an adversary of Trump nor a mere copy of Trump. He will have to demonstrate he represents a new generation capable of continuing certain priorities of the movement while bringing superior governmental efficiency. Ideologically, DeSantis belongs to a more organized and more institutional right than original Trumpism. He attaches great importance to cultural issues, the sovereignty of federal states, and confrontation with what he considers the excessive influence of progressive elites in universities, media, and large corporations.

Economically, he generally defends a pro-business approach, combining deregulation and support for national industrial policies. He shares with Trump the criticism of certain effects of globalization, but his approach is more oriented towards American competitiveness than permanent rupture. In foreign policy, DeSantis represents an intermediate position. He is less isolationist than some heirs of Trumpism, but less interventionist than traditional post-Cold War Republicans. He considers China the main strategic challenge for the United States and advocates for a strengthening of American power, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

Regarding the Western Hemisphere, his approach would likely be marked by particular attention to regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests, notably Cuba and Venezuela. His policy towards Haiti could be more centered on regional security, migration, and institutional stability, with an approach less focused on traditional development aid programs.

DeSantis’s potential thus rests on a promise: retaining Trump’s political energy without depending entirely on Trump. But this very position constitutes his main challenge. He will have to convince an electoral base that still greatly appreciates the former president that a new generation can carry the movement without betraying it.

Nikki Haley

The Attempt at Reconciliation with Moderate America

Nikki Haley represents a different trajectory within the Republican Party. Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she embodies more of the party’s traditional internationalist conservative tradition: a Republicanism favorable to an active America in the world, attached to alliances, and closer to the diplomatic legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Her profile constitutes a possible response to the question many Republicans ask: how to broaden the party’s coalition beyond the Trumpist base? Haley seeks to present a more institutional right, capable of retaining certain conservative priorities while reassuring independent voters and U.S. international partners. Her diplomatic experience is her main asset. Unlike candidates whose international approach rests essentially on economic competition or national sovereignty, Haley defends a vision where American leadership abroad remains an essential instrument of power.

She notably insists on the need to maintain alliances, support U.S. strategic partners, and firmly respond to regimes considered adversaries of Washington. This position could appeal to Republican voters who desire a return to a more traditional foreign policy. But her main difficulty remains her relationship with the Trumpist base. Her past criticisms of Donald Trump could limit her acceptance among a segment of the Republican electorate. To succeed in a primary dominated by the Trump legacy, she will have to demonstrate she understands the frustrations that fueled the movement while offering a credible alternative. On the international stage, Haley likely represents the Republican current most favorable to active U.S. engagement. Her vision could lead to a more coordinated policy with allies and more attentive to democratic issues in the Western Hemisphere.

For Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this approach could mean a return to more classical diplomacy: pressure on authoritarian regimes, cooperation with regional partners, and use of American diplomatic instruments as tools of influence. The Haley candidacy would thus pose a fundamental question to the Republican Party: should the movement’s future remain centered on populist rupture, or regain an international dimension closer to traditional conservatism?

Marco Rubio

The Bridge Between Trumpism and the Republican Internationalist Tradition

Marco Rubio likely represents one of the most complex profiles in the Republican succession. Senator from Florida, former presidential candidate, and a major figure in conservative foreign policy, he embodies an attempt at synthesis between several currents of the Republican Party: traditional conservatism, the new populist right, and the strategic vision centered on competition with China.

His career is particularly interesting because it reflects the very evolution of the Republican Party over the past fifteen years. At the beginning of his national career, Rubio was considered one of the faces of the new conservative generation, favorable to free trade, international alliances, and an active U.S. foreign policy. But Donald Trump’s arrival profoundly changed the political environment in which he operated. Like several Republican officials, he had to adapt his positioning to remain connected to an electoral base that had become more distrustful of the traditional establishment.

This evolution is both his strength and his weakness. His strength, because he has significant experience of how Washington works, in-depth knowledge of international issues, and an ability to dialogue with several sensibilities within the party. His weakness, because he must convince two electorates sometimes hard to reconcile: Trumpist voters seeking loyalty and traditional conservative voters who value experience and institutional competence.

Originally from Florida, a strategic state for Republicans, Rubio also benefits from a particular advantage in Latin American politics. His political heritage and roots in a community highly mobilized on Cuba and Venezuela give him specific credibility on Western Hemisphere affairs. Ideologically, Rubio could represent an evolution of Trumpism towards a more structured doctrine. He shares with Trump several priorities: competition with China, criticism of certain economic dependencies, defense of American interests, and a firmer approach towards regimes considered adversaries. But he remains more attached to international alliances and the strategic use of American diplomacy. In a Rubio administration, foreign policy might therefore seek a balance between the relative withdrawal advocated by some Trump heirs and the traditional interventionism of post-Cold War Republicans.

Regarding Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be influenced by three factors: regional security, the migration issue, and the fight against the influence of rival powers in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba and Venezuela would likely occupy a central place due to their proximity to U.S. interests and their ties with Russia or China. Haiti, for its part, would be more addressed from the angle of regional stability, governance, and control of migration flows. Rubio’s challenge will therefore be to convince that he can be the candidate of a transformed Republican Party without being a prisoner of its contradictions. He must appear sufficiently close to the Trump legacy to gain the support of the base, while offering a presidential stature capable of reassuring the entire country and the United States’ international partners.

Vivek Ramaswamy

The New Technological and Generational Right

Vivek Ramaswamy embodies a different dimension of the Republican transformation: the emergence of a new generation right, stemming from the entrepreneurial and technological world, seeking to combine economic nationalism, criticism of traditional institutions, and intensive use of new media. An entrepreneur before becoming a politician, Ramaswamy made a name for himself through a particularly offensive discourse against what he considers the excessive influence of major cultural, economic, and academic institutions. His positioning echoes several themes of Trumpism: criticism of elites, opposition to cultural progressivism, defense of national sovereignty, and a willingness to break with traditional political norms.

His main advantage lies in his generational profile. Unlike a large part of the American political class coming from classical institutions, he represents a new generation of leaders who built their influence outside traditional structures. His mastery of digital platforms and his ability to communicate directly with voters correspond to the evolution of contemporary American politics. However, his lack of governmental experience also constitutes a major limitation. A presidential election requires not only an ability to mobilize an electoral base, but also credibility in state management, national security, and foreign policy.

Internationally, Ramaswamy shares several positions with the most sovereigntist wing of the Republican Party. He considers that the United States must reduce engagements deemed secondary and concentrate resources on national priorities, notably competition with China. His approach could therefore lead to a more selective foreign policy, where Washington would intervene less in peripheral crises but would seek to strengthen its economic and strategic influence in regions deemed essential.

In the Caribbean, this vision could mean prioritizing security, trade, immigration, and geopolitical competition with China. Haiti could be analyzed primarily through the prism of regional stability and migration consequences for the United States. Ramaswamy thus represents an important question for the Republican future: is the American conservative movement transitioning from a political generation dominated by former leaders towards a generation stemming from the digital economy and new forms of communication?

Kristi Noem

Territorial Conservatism and Rural America

Kristi Noem represents another important component of the modern Republican coalition: that of rural America, sparsely populated states, and voters attached to a traditional conception of public authority, individual liberty, and national identity. Governor of South Dakota, she fits the profile of a political leader capable of speaking directly to conservative voters in regions far from major urban centers. Her political image rests on defending individual liberties, reducing the role of the federal government, and valuing local communities. Her main asset is her proximity to an electoral base that still constitutes the heart of the Republican Party. She represents a cultural continuity with the electorate that brought Trump to power: rurality, social conservatism, distrust of Washington, and attachment to traditional values.

Her main difficulty, however, will be her national visibility. Unlike some other contenders with strong media or international recognition, she will have to demonstrate she possesses a stature capable of transcending her regional roots. Internationally, her approach would likely be close to pragmatic conservatism: priority to American interests, border control, and particular attention to the domestic consequences of international decisions. She could represent a more traditional wing of Trumpism, less ideological on the world stage but deeply attached to themes of sovereignty, order, and national identity.

The America of 2028 and the World: What Role for the World’s Leading Power?

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will not merely be a clash between two parties or two visions of American society. It will also be a decisive moment for the international order. Since 1945, the United States has held a unique place in the global system: dominant military power, leading technological economy, major financial center, and indispensable actor in major international institutions. Yet this position is now contested from within and without.

The fundamental question running through the 2028 campaign will therefore be this: which America do voters want to project into the world? A more cautious America, focused on its immediate national interests, wary of foreign commitments? Or an America that still considers its global influence an essential instrument of its security and prosperity? This question extends far beyond U.S. borders. It concerns Europe facing Russia, Asia facing China, the Middle East facing new power rivalries, but also the Western Hemisphere, where the Caribbean remains directly influenced by Washington’s strategic choices.

For the countries of the region, and particularly for Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Central American states, the 2028 U.S. election will therefore not be a mere foreign political event. It will be a determining factor in the migration, security, economic, and diplomatic policies that will shape the next decade.

After the Trump Era: The Redefinition of American Leadership

For nearly eight decades, U.S. foreign policy has rested on a fundamental conviction: America’s power depends on its ability to organize and influence the international order. After World War II, Washington built a system based on military alliances, economic institutions, and permanent global presence. This strategy, often called American liberal internationalism, survived political alternations. Democratic and Republican presidents could diverge on methods, but they generally shared the same idea: American withdrawal creates a vacuum that other powers immediately seek to fill.

Donald Trump’s arrival profoundly disrupted this consensus. For the first time in several generations, a U.S. president openly challenged the idea that the United States should bear the primary responsibility for world order. His “America First” doctrine asserted that international engagements should be evaluated not by their contribution to global stability, but by their direct benefit to American interests.

This rupture did not only concern international institutions. It also transformed the perception of alliances. Where previous administrations considered NATO, Asian partnerships, or relations with Western Hemisphere neighbors as power multipliers, Trump often presented them as costly arrangements requiring renegotiation.

In 2028, this transformation remains one of the great strategic debates of the Republican Party. Trump’s heirs are not all agreed on the future direction. Some want to continue the logic of selective withdrawal, considering the United States should avoid engagements that do not directly serve its security. Others believe the country risks losing its influence if it abandons its international responsibilities too quickly. This division reflects a deeper question: are the United States still willing to pay the price of global leadership?

China: The Central Strategic Rival of America

If there is a point of convergence among different American political sensibilities, it is the perception of China as the primary strategic challenge of the 21st century. Unlike debates on Russia, the Middle East, or military interventions, competition with Beijing now enjoys consensus in Washington. China represents a different threat from those encountered by the United States in the previous century. The Soviet Union was primarily a military and ideological power. China is simultaneously an industrial, technological, commercial, financial, and military power. It does not merely seek to challenge U.S. influence in a specific region; it aims to reshape the global balance.

The China question will therefore be at the heart of the 2028 election. Both Republican and Democratic candidates will have to answer several questions: should economic confrontation be prioritized? Strengthen alliances in Asia? Limit industrial dependencies? Continue cooperation on certain issues like climate and global health? For the Caribbean, this rivalry also has a particular dimension. Beijing has strengthened its economic presence in several countries in the region through investments in infrastructure, telecommunications, and trade. Washington watches this development closely, as Sino-American competition is no longer just about Asia: it is also playing out in the Western Hemisphere. The next U.S. administration will therefore have to define a strategy capable of responding to China’s rise without turning every diplomatic space into a permanent battlefield.

Russia, Ukraine, and the End of the Post-Cold War American Order

The relationship between the United States and Russia is one of the issues that most clearly reveals the internal divisions in U.S. foreign policy. Unlike China, which now enjoys relatively broad strategic consensus in Washington, Russia remains a subject of profound disagreement among different American political sensibilities.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has long considered Russia a weakened but nonetheless important power for international stability. Successive administrations have attempted to combine dialogue and firmness, seeking to integrate Moscow into an international order dominated by Western institutions while limiting its regional ambitions.

The 2022 invasion of Ukraine profoundly disrupted this approach. It marked the return of a direct confrontation between Russia and the West and placed the question of European security back at the center of U.S. strategy. For supporters of an interventionist policy, Ukraine represents a major issue: defending an attacked country, preserving the credibility of American alliances, and preventing a great power from changing borders by force.

Conversely, a growing portion of the American right considers that the United States has devoted too many resources to foreign conflicts and that Europe must assume more of its own security. This vision, notably borne by certain currents close to Trumpism, believes that the primary U.S. strategic priority should be competition with China and the reconstruction of domestic power.

This debate will be central in 2028. The Ukraine question will not merely be a foreign policy issue; it will have become a symbol of two opposing visions of the American role in the world. On one side, an America that considers its influence depends on its ability to defend its partners. On the other, an America that believes its primary duty is to protect its own interests before those of other nations.

Beyond Ukraine, this evolution poses a fundamental question: could a gradual American disengagement encourage other powers to test the limits of the international order? Or, conversely, would it allow the United States to concentrate its resources on what it considers priority challenges? The answer to this question will have consequences far beyond Europe. In a world where great powers seek to expand their influence, every region becomes a potential space for competition. The Caribbean itself is not exempt from this new reality.

The Caribbean in the New Power Competition: Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela at the Heart of the Stakes

For a long time, the Caribbean was considered by Washington as a zone of natural, almost exclusive, influence. Geographic proximity, historical ties, migration issues, and security interests made this region a particular strategic space for the United States. But this situation has changed. In the 21st century, the Caribbean is no longer just an American neighborhood. It has become a space where several influences converge: American, Chinese, Russian, European, and Latin American. Ports, digital infrastructure, natural resources, trade routes, and migration issues have transformed the region into a discreet theater of geopolitical competition.

Three countries hold a particular place in this equation: Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti. Each represents a different challenge for Washington.

Cuba remains the historical symbol of the confrontation between the United States and a communist regime located less than two hundred kilometers from American shores. Since the 1959 revolution, the relationship between Washington and Havana has oscillated between periods of confrontation and attempts at rapprochement. The Cuban question remains heavily influenced by U.S. domestic politics, notably by the electoral weight of the Cuban-American community in Florida.

In 2028, the Cuban debate could pit two approaches against each other. The first, inherited from the traditional Republican line, considers that economic and diplomatic pressure remains necessary to foster political change in Havana. The second believes an engagement strategy could better serve U.S. interests by reducing the influence of external actors like China and Russia. Venezuela represents another major issue. The political, economic, and humanitarian crisis that has marked the country for several years has transformed Caracas into a regional flashpoint. U.S. sanctions, the energy question, mass migration, and the growing presence of foreign actors have made Venezuela a strategic file.

For some U.S. officials, Venezuela is primarily a problem of regional security and democratic stability. For others, a more pragmatic approach could serve U.S. energy interests while reducing the influence of rival powers. But it is likely Haiti that represents the most complex challenge for the next U.S. administration. Unlike Cuba and Venezuela, Haiti is not perceived as an ideological adversary of the United States. Rather, it represents a multidimensional challenge combining institutional crisis, insecurity, poverty, migration, state weakness, and the growing influence of criminal networks.

The Haitian question illustrates an important evolution in U.S. policy in the Caribbean: security can no longer be separated from development. Political, economic, and social crises directly produce regional consequences, notably through migration flows and transnational threats.

In 2028, U.S. policy towards Haiti will largely depend on the strategic vision of the next president. A more interventionist administration might favor increased engagement in security and institutional reconstruction. A more nationalist administration might seek to limit direct commitments and favor targeted partnerships. In both cases, Haiti will remain a major test of the American capacity to exercise constructive influence in its immediate environment.

The Republican Contenders: The Battle for the Trump Legacy

The Republican Party of 2028 faces one of the most important questions in its recent history: how to transform Donald Trump’s legacy into a sustainable political force without depending exclusively on his personality? Since 2016, Trump has profoundly altered the party’s identity. He has shifted the Republican center of gravity toward economic nationalism, more restrictive immigration policy, criticism of international institutions, and a challenge to the old Washington consensus. But a question remains open: has Trumpism become a doctrine capable of surviving its founder, or does it remain a political movement attached to a man exceptionally capable of mobilizing an electoral base?

The 2028 Republican primary will therefore be much more than a competition among candidates. It will be a battle to define the ideological future of American conservatism. Several currents will clash.

The first is that of the direct heirs of Trumpism, who consider that the rupture initiated since 2016 must be pursued and deepened. For them, Trump did not merely win an election: he revealed a new political coalition based on the working class, rural voters, workers affected by globalization, and a portion of the middle class anxious about the country’s cultural transformations.

The second current is that of the power Republicans, who accept the populist transformation of the party but wish to preserve a more traditional vision of the American role in the world. They consider that the United States must remain a dominant power, maintain its alliances, and use its diplomatic and military influence to defend its interests.

The third current is that of the conservative renovators, who seek to retain Trump’s electoral gains while developing a discourse more capable of attracting independents, suburbanites, and younger generations.

The 2028 battle will therefore be a confrontation between several visions of America: a sovereigntist America wary of the outside, a conservative but globally engaged America, and an America seeking to move beyond the divisions of the Trump era.

J.D. Vance: The Ideological Heir of Trumpism

J.D. Vance appears as one of the most natural representatives of the new American right. His trajectory symbolizes the transformation of the Republican Party since Donald Trump’s arrival. A former critic of the Republican president, he became one of his most convinced defenders, to the point of embodying a new generation of political leaders who consider Trumpism not as an interlude, but as a historical reorientation of American conservatism. Senator from Ohio, a state emblematic of the Republican reconquest among the industrial working class, Vance has built an image as spokesman for a popular America that feels abandoned by economic, cultural, and political elites. His personal background, popularized by his book Hillbilly Elegy, gives him particular legitimacy with voters who see in his story that of a part of the country hit by deindustrialization, social crisis, and a feeling of decline.

His main advantage is his proximity to Trump’s electoral base. He masters the central themes of the movement: economic sovereignty, border control, criticism of elites, defense of traditional values, and a desire to place American interests at the center of national policy. He also benefits from the support of a new generation of conservative donors, particularly from the tech world, who wish to build a political movement different from the old economic conservatism based solely on tax cuts and deregulation.

But this proximity to the heart of Trumpism also constitutes his main challenge. A presidential election requires a broader coalition than a primary. Vance will have to convince independent voters, urban middle classes, and a portion of moderate voters who might be sensitive to his economic discourse but hesitant about his cultural conservatism. His political transformation is also a subject of debate. His opponents recall he was once a severe critic of Trump before becoming one of his most fervent defenders. His supporters reply that it is not a change of conviction, but an evolution linked to his analysis of American social transformation.

Internationally, J.D. Vance represents the wing closest to the modern isolationism of the Republican Party. He considers that the United States must avoid foreign engagements deemed costly and concentrate resources on its own economic and social priorities. This approach would challenge several decades of U.S. foreign policy based on global leadership.

Regarding the Western Hemisphere, his approach would likely favor a stricter national security logic, a reduction in foreign aid programs, and limited U.S. intervention to situations considered directly related to U.S. strategic interests. For Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this vision could mean a policy more centered on regional stability, migration, and security than on large-scale institutional transformation programs.

Marco Rubio: The Return of Internationalist Republicanism

Marco Rubio represents another possible path for the Republican Party of 2028. An experienced figure in the U.S. Senate and a major personality in Republican foreign policy, he embodies an attempt at synthesis between the economic populism that emerged with Trump and the American tradition of international leadership. His background gives him a considerable advantage. Unlike several younger contenders, Rubio knows U.S. institutions, diplomatic mechanisms, and major geopolitical balances deeply. He possesses international experience rare in a political generation more marked by domestic debates.

His roots in Florida also constitute a major strategic asset. This state has become a political laboratory of contemporary America: strong demographic growth, Latin American influence, considerable economic weight, and a central role in debates concerning Cuba, Venezuela, and the Caribbean. Rubio notably benefits from a privileged relationship with a significant portion of the Cuban-American and Venezuelan electorate, which sees the Republican Party as a bulwark against socialist regimes in the region. However, his main obstacle remains his image. A portion of the Republican base continues to see him as a representative of Washington’s old political system. His campaign will therefore have to demonstrate that he fully belongs to the post-Trump era and that he can defend a new conservative majority without returning to the Republicanism of pre-2016.

On foreign policy, Rubio represents a much more interventionist vision than that of J.D. Vance. He considers that American power rests on a network of alliances, a global presence, and the capacity to influence international events. He defends a hard line against China, traditionally supports Western alliances, and believes America must retain a driving role in the Western Hemisphere.

On Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach is more based on diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions against authoritarian regimes, and support for forces favoring a democratic transition. His vision therefore represents a stronger continuity with classical Republican foreign policy.

Ron DeSantis: The “Trump Without the Chaos”

Ron DeSantis likely represents the most structured attempt to move beyond Donald Trump’s personality while retaining a large part of his political legacy. Governor of Florida, former member of Congress, and rising figure in American conservatism, he has established himself as one of the first Republican leaders capable of transforming Trump’s popularity into a more institutional governmental doctrine. His supporters often present him as the “Trump without the chaos”: a leader who shares the major orientations of the movement—immigration control, defense of conservative values, opposition to progressive policies on cultural issues—but who intends to implement them with greater administrative discipline and institutional predictability.

His main advantage is his executive experience. Unlike several candidates from Congress or the media world, DeSantis can present a governor’s record. He can defend concrete management experience, particularly on economic, educational, and regulatory issues. In a presidential election, this dimension can be an important advantage for voters looking less for a figure of protest than a leader capable of governing. His roots in Florida also represent a strategic asset. The state has become a symbol of the new Republican coalition: traditional conservative voters, retirees, entrepreneurs, Latin American communities, and voters attracted by a discourse of low government intervention in the economy but firmness on cultural issues.

However, his trajectory also reveals several difficulties. His previous presidential candidacy showed the limits of an approach essentially based on competence and organization. Many voters considered him intelligent and prepared, but struggled to establish an emotional connection with him. Yet, the Trump era has profoundly changed the expectations of a segment of the Republican electorate: the ability to mobilize, create a political narrative, and embody a cause has become almost as important as governmental experience.

DeSantis will therefore have to solve a complex equation: remain sufficiently close to Trump to retain the movement’s base, while demonstrating he possesses his own political identity. On foreign policy, he occupies an intermediate position between J.D. Vance’s isolationism and Marco Rubio’s internationalism. He defends a policy centered on American interests, criticizes certain international engagements deemed excessive, but recognizes the importance of strategic competition with China and maintaining U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be dominated by three priorities: regional security, migration control, and protection of U.S. interests in the Caribbean. He might favor targeted cooperation with partner governments rather than a policy of large-scale political or institutional intervention.

Glenn Youngkin: The Moderate and Entrepreneurial Alternative

Glenn Youngkin represents another possibility for the Republican Party of 2028: a return to a more moderate form of conservatism, more oriented towards economic management and winning back independent voters. A former business executive turned Governor of Virginia, Youngkin built his political career by demonstrating that a Republican could still win in a politically competitive state by combining conservative economic discourse, pragmatic governance, and a cultural strategy capable of mobilizing the base without provoking mass rejection among moderate voters.

His success in Virginia attracted the attention of the Republican Party, as it showed a different path from the most confrontational Trumpism. Youngkin seeks less to embody a political revolution than to offer governmental efficiency, improvement of the education system, and a favorable environment for businesses. His main advantage is therefore his potential among voters who could be decisive in 2028: independents, suburban middle classes, educated voters, and entrepreneurs. But this position also constitutes his challenge. In a Republican primary heavily influenced by the Trump legacy, a candidate who is too moderate risks appearing insufficiently committed to the base. Youngkin will have to convince that he can defend conservative priorities without being seen as a return to pre-Trump Republicanism. His lack of national name recognition is also an obstacle. Unlike Trump, Rubio, or DeSantis, he does not yet have comparable political recognition across the country.

Internationally, Youngkin would likely defend a pragmatic approach: maintaining American leadership, supporting alliances when they serve U.S. interests, and seeking a balance between firmness and diplomacy. In the Caribbean, he might favor a policy combining security, economic development, and regional cooperation. Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, his approach would likely be less ideological than that of other candidates, seeking more concrete results on stability, migration, and economic opportunities.

Tim Scott: Optimistic and Unifying Conservatism

Tim Scott represents another facet of the contemporary Republican Party. Senator from South Carolina and one of the few African American Republicans at the national level, he embodies a vision of conservatism based on economic opportunity, individual responsibility, and the possibility of social progress through American institutions. His personal story is his main political argument. Coming from a modest background, he presents his trajectory as a demonstration of the American model’s capacity to enable social mobility. His message stands out from the confrontational rhetoric that often dominates contemporary American politics. Scott possesses several assets. He can speak to a segment of the traditional conservative electorate, but also attempt to broaden the Republican coalition among minorities and voters seeking a less conflictual discourse. His political style, marked by optimism and dialogue, could appeal to some independents tired of permanent polarization.

However, his challenge is considerable. In a primary dominated by questions of political identity and loyalty to Trump, he will have to demonstrate he is not merely a moderate alternative, but a true heir capable of mobilizing the Republican base. Some conservatives might also consider his approach too consensual in the face of the major cultural clashes structuring part of the American political debate.

On foreign policy, Scott belongs more to the Republican internationalist tradition. He supports American alliances, considers China a strategic adversary, and defends an active U.S. presence in the Western Hemisphere. For Haiti, he has historically favored an approach combining security, development aid, and institutional cooperation. On Cuba and Venezuela, he supports a line of firmness towards authoritarian governments while recognizing the need for a sustainable diplomatic strategy.

Kristi Noem: The Voice of Rural and Cultural Conservatism

Kristi Noem represents one of the most faithful expressions of the popular conservatism that has transformed the Republican Party since Donald Trump’s arrival. Governor of South Dakota, former member of the House of Representatives, she established herself as a national figure through her opposition to government restrictions, her defense of individual liberties, and her positioning very close to the concerns of the conservative base.

Her main asset is her political identity. In a Republican Party where a significant portion of voters seeks leaders capable of embodying resistance to cultural and institutional elites, Noem appears as a candidate authentically aligned with the philosophy of the Trump movement. She speaks particularly to rural voters, religious conservatives, and those who consider Washington exerts excessive influence on citizens’ daily lives.

She also has a significant symbolic advantage: she could become one of the first women to carry the Trumpist legacy at the presidential level. In a party seeking to broaden its base among female voters while maintaining its conservative coalition, this dimension could play a strategic role. But her profile also presents important limitations. South Dakota remains a sparsely populated state, which limits her national exposure compared to governors from more competitive states. She will have to demonstrate she can transition from a policy adapted to a rural state to a vision capable of meeting the challenges of a global power.

Her other difficulty will be convincing beyond the conservative base. Her very pronounced positioning on cultural issues could strengthen her support among the most engaged Republican voters, but complicate her ability to attract independents and voters from major urban areas. On foreign policy, Kristi Noem belongs to the most cautious wing of the Republican Party. She defends an approach centered on the direct interests of the United States, a reduction of foreign engagements, and greater demands regarding the use of American resources abroad.

Concerning Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, this philosophy could lead to a more restrictive policy on international aid, favoring security, the fight against irregular migration, and the protection of American interests rather than large-scale institutional assistance programs.

Other Emerging Personalities: A Competition Still Open

Beyond the most visible candidates, the Republican Party has a significant reservoir of personalities likely to alter the dynamics of the 2028 primary. American political history regularly shows that candidates considered secondary can benefit from an unexpected event, a political crisis, or a shift in public opinion to become serious contenders.

Among them is Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He represents a Republican wing very attached to American power, strategic competition with China, and assertive foreign policy. His governmental experience is a major advantage, but his highly ideological image could limit his appeal to a broader electorate.

Nikki Haley represents another path. Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she embodies a more internationalist and more institutional conservatism. Her profile—woman, minority, executive and diplomatic experience—could enable her to attract some moderate voters. However, her difficult relations with Trump and part of his base could be a major obstacle.

Tucker Carlson, for his part, represents a particular evolution of American politics: the rise of media figures capable of transforming a cultural audience into political force. Without electoral experience, he nevertheless has considerable influence among a segment of the conservative electorate. His candidacy would depend on his ability to transform media popularity into political organization.

Josh Hawley belongs to the same generation as J.D. Vance and shares several themes of the new conservative populism: criticism of major tech companies, defense of the working class, and skepticism towards certain foreign interventions. He could represent a more combative alternative within the same ideological family.

Finally, Sarah Huckabee Sanders embodies another possibility: that of an institutionalized Trumpism in feminine form. Former White House Press Secretary under Donald Trump, she benefits from strong recognition among the conservative base and a privileged political relationship with the former president.

These figures show that the Trump succession will not simply be a competition among a few favorites. It will be a battle between several visions of American conservatism.

Money, Networks, and the Invisible Battle of the Primary

A U.S. presidential election is not won on ideas or personality alone. It is also won with organization, networks, and considerable financial resources. The 2028 Republican primary will also be a competition between different political infrastructures. Super PACs, major private donors, conservative religious networks, economic groups, and media platforms will play a determining role in candidates’ ability to reach voters.

The Trump movement has profoundly changed the relationship between money and politics. For a long time, the Republican establishment rested mainly on major donors from finance, industry, and traditional business circles. The new Republican Party functions more as a hybrid coalition associating working class, technology entrepreneurs, alternative media, and activist networks. This transformation opens a new battle: who will control the political apparatus capable of replacing Trump? A candidate with a strong popular base but limited financial organization could be overtaken by a better-structured competitor. Conversely, a candidate with significant resources but unable to mobilize the Trumpist electorate could fail. The 2028 primary will therefore be a confrontation between personalities, but also between political machines.

Strategic Overview: The Six Main Paths of Trumpism’s Succession

Candidate	Political Current	Main Advantage	Main Risk
J.D. Vance	Ideological Trumpism	Loyalty to the base and doctrinal coherence	Difficulty broadening the coalition
Marco Rubio	Internationalist Republicanism	Experience and global credibility	Image of former establishment
Ron DeSantis	Institutional Trumpism	Executive experience and organization	Difficulty creating emotional connection
Glenn Youngkin	Moderate Conservatism	Ability to attract independents	Low national profile
Tim Scott	Unifying Conservatism	Positive image and broadening potential	Risk of being seen as too moderate
Kristi Noem	Rural Populist Conservatism	Strong proximity to the base	Difficulty winning urban electorate

The Battle for the Trump Legacy

Ultimately, the question of Donald Trump’s succession extends far beyond the choice of a candidate. It concerns the very nature of the Republican Party. Trump succeeded in transforming an electoral coalition into a political movement. But a movement built around a personality must always face the moment when that personality disappears or loses its influence. The candidate who wins the 2028 Republican primary will have to accomplish an almost contradictory task: be sufficiently loyal to retain the Trump legacy, but sufficiently different to demonstrate he or she can build the future. The real battle will therefore not only be for the White House. It will be to define what it means to be conservative in 21st-century America.

The Economic Challenges: Americans’ Pocketbooks at the Heart of the 2028 Battle

The economy will likely be the primary arbiter of the 2028 U.S. presidential election. Behind the great ideological confrontations, cultural debates, and international issues, the fundamental question will remain the one voters have always asked: has their standard of living improved or deteriorated? In a democracy where economic perception often plays a determining role in electoral choice, housing prices, food costs, access to healthcare, wage levels, and opportunities for new generations will weigh more heavily than abstract discourse.

The America of 2028 will inherit a decade of profound economic upheavals. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of global supply chains; the war in Ukraine accelerated energy and food tensions; rivalry with China transformed industrial policy into a national security issue; while artificial intelligence is beginning to profoundly alter the organization of work. The American economic debate will therefore not only be about growth or taxation. It will address a much broader question: what strategy will allow the United States to maintain its economic power in a world that has become more competitive, more fragmented, and more technological?

This question will be at the heart of the confrontation between the two major parties. Republicans will seek to convince that the American renaissance lies in domestic production, reducing the weight of the state, lowering taxes, and a more offensive trade policy. Democrats will defend the idea that American competitiveness will depend on public investment, education, infrastructure, the energy transition, and regulation of new strategic sectors. But beyond this partisan opposition, both camps will have to answer the same concern: how to ensure that the benefits of growth truly reach the entire population.

Inflation and the Cost of Living: The Economic Fracture Still Marking Minds

Even if inflation slows before 2028, its political impact will remain lasting. The experience of the 2020s will have profoundly marked American households, because a decrease in the rate of price increases does not mean a return to previous prices. For a large part of the population, especially the middle classes and modest workers, the dominant sentiment will remain one of a loss of purchasing power.

Housing will likely be one of the main sources of frustration. In several major urban areas, homeownership will have become more difficult for younger generations, while rents will continue to represent a significant share of income. Added to this will be healthcare costs, higher education, and essential services, which remain structural concerns of American society.

Republicans will present inflation as the result of an overly spendthrift economic policy and excessive public intervention. Their argument will be that sustainable growth can only come from a favorable environment for businesses, private investment, and domestic production. In this logic, reducing public spending, deregulation, and lowering tax burdens will be presented as necessary instruments to restore economic confidence.

However, the Republican Party of 2028 will no longer be simply the party of traditional economic conservatism. Under the influence of Trumpism, a significant part of the party will defend a more nationalist approach: protection of American industries, tariffs on certain foreign products, fight against offshoring, and priority given to American workers. This evolution represents a significant break with the old Republican consensus favorable to free trade.

Democrats, for their part, will explain that American inflation was largely influenced by international factors: global logistical disruptions, the energy crisis, geopolitical tensions, and rapid economic recovery after the pandemic. Their response will rely more on public investment, support for households, competition against monopolies, and the development of a more inclusive economy.

For the Caribbean, this American economic debate will have direct consequences. The region’s economies depend heavily on imports, international prices, and financial transfers sent by diasporas living in the United States. A stable U.S. economy fosters regional stability; a weakened U.S. economy quickly reverberates across Caribbean societies.

Public Debt: The Invisible Limit of American Power

The second major economic challenge will be public debt. For several decades, American power has rested on an exceptional ability to simultaneously finance defense, innovation, infrastructure, social programs, and its role as the world’s leading power. But the continuous accumulation of debt now raises a fundamental strategic question: how far can the United States pursue its ambitions without undertaking a profound reform of its budgetary model?

As of November 2025, federal debt outstanding had crossed the historic threshold of $38 trillion, or about 124% of GDP, before approaching $39.1 trillion in early 2026. For fiscal year 2026, the deficit is estimated at nearly $1.9 trillion, equivalent to 5.8% of GDP. Debt held by the public now represents more than 101% of GDP and, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, could reach nearly 120% by 2036 and about 175% over the next thirty years if no structural correction is undertaken. More than $8 trillion of this debt is held by foreign investors, including over $800 billion by China, while the overall weight of indebtedness now represents a theoretical burden of over $112,000 per capita.

Republicans will generally view this trajectory as a threat to national competitiveness, financial stability, and future generations. Their response will rest on gradual deficit reduction, limiting the growth of federal spending, and reforming major social programs. A large part of the party will believe American prosperity depends above all on a leaner federal state, more competitive taxation, and a private sector capable of sustainably stimulating investment and growth.

Democrats will defend a different approach. They will argue that debt must be controlled without compromising the investments essential to the United States’ future competitiveness. Their strategy will favor increasing targeted tax revenues on large corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers, while preserving spending on infrastructure, research, education, the energy transition, and cutting-edge technologies.

Beyond national considerations, this debate will have major geopolitical significance. Washington’s budgetary choices will directly determine its capacity to finance its military apparatus, alliance network, international aid, and economic and security cooperation programs. For Caribbean countries, a sustained tightening of U.S. public finances could translate into a reduction in resources allocated to regional security, development, public health, humanitarian assistance, and economic stabilization mechanisms.

Reindustrialization: Rebuilding American Productive Power

The industrial question will be one of the great symbols of American political transformation. For several decades, globalization allowed American consumers to benefit from cheaper products, but it also led to the disappearance of many manufacturing jobs in certain regions of the country. This economic fracture fueled a feeling of abandonment among part of the working class and contributed to the emergence of the economic populism championed by Donald Trump.

In 2028, the question will no longer simply be whether the United States should produce more, but how it should rebuild its industrial power in an environment dominated by competition with China. The populist wing of the Republican Party will defend a policy of economic sovereignty based on tariffs, incentives for industrial repatriation, and protection of strategic sectors. Republicans closer to business circles will, however, seek to avoid overly protectionist policies that could reduce the competitiveness of American companies.

Democrats will advocate a new industrial policy based on public investment, vocational training, modern infrastructure, and clean technologies. Their goal will be to create a new generation of industrial jobs linked to future-oriented sectors. For the Caribbean, this transformation represents both an opportunity and a risk. A U.S. strategy aimed at diversifying supply chains could strengthen partnerships with neighboring countries. But a strongly protectionist trade policy could also limit the access of certain Caribbean economies to the U.S. market.

Artificial Intelligence: The Economic Revolution Redefining Work

Artificial intelligence will likely be the most profound economic challenge of the late 2020s. Unlike previous technological revolutions, it will not only concern industrial or repetitive jobs. It will also affect skilled professions in finance, law, communication, administration, research, and certain medical sectors. The political debate will therefore center on an essential question: how to benefit from the productivity gains linked to artificial intelligence while avoiding a new explosion of inequalities?

Republicans will generally favor an approach favorable to rapid innovation. They will consider the priority must be to allow American companies to stay ahead of their Chinese competitors and avoid excessive regulation that would slow technological progress. Democrats will place greater emphasis on the need to regulate artificial intelligence to protect workers, limit abuses, and ensure better distribution of economic benefits. For them, the question will not only be technological, but social. This battle will extend far beyond U.S. borders. Dominance in artificial intelligence will become a central element of global competition between Washington and Beijing. The United States will seek to maintain its lead in semiconductors, data, digital infrastructure, and AI systems.

For the Caribbean, this transformation represents a considerable challenge. Economies dependent on remittances from diasporas could be affected if certain employment sectors in the United States undergo rapid automation. But it can also create new opportunities in digital services, technological training, and the remote economy.

The Choice Between Two Models of America’s Future

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will therefore be largely structured by a fundamental economic question: what form will American power take in the 21st century? The first model considers that the United States must regain its strength by protecting its industry, reducing external dependence, and prioritizing national interests. The second believes America’s future will depend more on innovation, investment, education, and the ability to lead new technological revolutions.

This confrontation will transcend U.S. borders. Washington’s economic choice will influence the Caribbean, Latin America, and the global economic balance. In 2028, American voters will therefore not only choose a president; they will also choose a vision of America facing the economic transformations of the century.

The Social Issues: America Facing Its Internal Fractures

Beyond economic performance and international rivalries, the 2028 U.S. presidential election will be deeply marked by social issues that touch upon the very identity of the country. Immigration, healthcare, education, justice, public safety: these subjects are not merely technical debates. They represent different visions of America’s future, the role of the state, the function of the national community, and how the United States should respond to the profound transformations of its society.

These issues are all the more important as they cut across traditional partisan lines. They pit Republicans and Democrats against each other, but they also reveal internal divisions within each camp. In 2028, voters will not only choose between two political programs; they will choose between two conceptions of the American model.

For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, these debates will have direct consequences. U.S. immigration policy, cooperation programs, health policies, or security strategies will impact millions of people linked to the United States through migration, investment, or economic exchange.

Immigration: Between Border Control and Humanitarian Responsibility

Immigration will likely remain one of the most sensitive issues of the 2028 presidential election. For several years, the migration question has become a symbol of American political divisions. For a segment of the Republican electorate, it represents a question of national sovereignty and state control. For Democrats, it also constitutes a humanitarian and economic issue requiring comprehensive reform.

In 2028, the southern border will remain at the center of the debate. Migration flows, asylum applications, and pressure on reception infrastructure will fuel criticism of successive migration policies. Republicans will likely defend a security-based approach: strengthening the border, increasing control means, limiting certain immigration pathways, and accelerating the expulsion of undocumented migrants.

Democrats will propose a different approach, more oriented towards system reform: modernizing asylum procedures, creating legal immigration pathways, regularizing certain categories of long-established migrants, and cooperating with countries of origin to reduce the root causes of departures.

For Haiti, this debate will be particularly strategic. Haitian migrants are among the populations most exposed to changes in U.S. migration policy. Many flee a combination of factors: persistent poverty, insecurity, institutional instability, and natural disasters. An exclusively restrictive policy could accentuate the vulnerability of thousands of Haitians and create new social tensions in an already fragile country. Conversely, a policy combining control, humanitarian protection, and support for development could contribute to a more sustainable approach to the migration crisis.

Healthcare: The Debate Over the American Model

The healthcare system will remain one of the great social debates of 2028. The United States has some of the most advanced medical technologies in the world, but its system remains one of the most costly and unequal among major developed economies. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the structural flaws of the American model: disparities in access to care, vulnerability of precarious populations, and dependence on private insurance. Despite progress made since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, several million Americans remain inadequately covered.

Republicans will defend a more market-oriented approach: reducing regulations, competition among insurers, patient choice, and tax incentives for individuals and businesses. Democrats will instead seek to strengthen the role of the state: extending existing coverage, increasing public aid, and possible debate around a public option or a more universal system.

For the Caribbean, the issue transcends U.S. borders. Millions of citizens from the region live in the United States and depend directly on the American healthcare system. Furthermore, several Caribbean countries benefit from U.S. health cooperation programs. A reduction in U.S. engagement could weaken some essential programs, while strengthened cooperation could further support regional health systems.

Education: Preparing the America of Tomorrow

Education will be another major battleground. The United States has some of the world’s most prestigious universities, but its education system faces considerable challenges: inequalities between schools, relative decline in academic performance, high cost of higher education, and the weight of student debt.

The university question will be particularly sensitive among young voters. Student debt, accumulated by millions of Americans, has become a symbol of the economic difficulties faced by a generation confronted with a high cost of living and more difficult access to homeownership. Republicans will generally favor an approach based on individual responsibility, competition between institutions, the development of vocational training, and a reduced federal role in education. Democrats will defend greater public investment, student aid, reducing the cost of higher education, and increased federal intervention.

For Haiti, this debate has a strategic dimension. Rebuilding a country cannot be done without human capital. Access to quality education, technical training, and university development are essential conditions for strengthening the Haitian state. A U.S. policy more oriented towards training and human development could have a lasting effect in the region.

Justice and Crime: Public Safety vs. Institutional Reform

The question of justice and public safety will also remain central in 2028. The United States continues to face complex debates around crime, the role of police, judicial reform, and social tensions related to inequality. Republicans will emphasize state authority: increased police resources, stricter penalties for criminals, and enhanced security in major cities. Democrats will favor an approach combining security and reform: improving police practices, reducing judicial inequalities, crime prevention, and reintegration programs.

This debate will have particular resonance in Haiti. The country is going through a major security crisis marked by the expansion of armed groups, the weakening of judicial institutions, and the loss of control over certain urban areas. Washington’s orientation on international security could directly influence U.S. cooperation with Haiti, notably in the areas of police training, intelligence, and institutional strengthening.

The social issues of 2028 will therefore be much more than a series of internal electoral debates. They will reveal the great question running through contemporary America: how to reconcile a more diverse, more technological, and more globalized society with the expectations of a portion of the population that demands more protection, control, and stability?

For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, this election will be decisive. Decisions made in Washington will directly influence migration, economic cooperation, regional security, and development prospects.

International Challenges: America Facing the New World Order

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will not only be a clash over domestic issues. It will also be a strategic choice on the place of the United States in a profoundly transformed world. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the international order built after World War II has been progressively challenged by the rise of new powers, the return of military rivalries, economic fragmentation, and the emergence of new fields of confrontation like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and space. The next U.S. president will have to respond to several simultaneous challenges: competition with China, the relationship with Russia, the future of Ukraine, stability in the Middle East, the role of NATO, security in the Indo-Pacific, and the transformation of global trade.

Behind these major issues lies a fundamental question: should the United States continue to play the role of the leading power of the international system, or should it favor a strategy of restraint, more centered on its immediate national interests? This question deeply divides the Republican Party. It pits a more nationalist and cautious tendency, embodied by some heirs of the “America First” current, against a more interventionist tradition attached to historical American alliances. Democrats, for their part, remain broadly favorable to active international engagement, even if debates also exist within their ranks.

For the Caribbean, this evolution will be strategic. An America more focused on major geopolitical confrontations could reduce its attention to its immediate neighborhood. Conversely, a policy that recognizes the importance of the Western Hemisphere could open a new phase of regional cooperation.

China: The Great Competition of the 21st Century

The rivalry between the United States and China will likely be the main international issue of the 2028 presidential election. This competition extends far beyond the military domain. It concerns the economy, advanced technologies, supply chains, artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and diplomatic influence.

China has considerably strengthened its global presence over recent decades. Through its investments in infrastructure, ports, technology, and natural resources, Beijing has developed growing influence in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Republicans will likely defend a firmer approach: limiting economic dependencies, controlling Chinese investments in strategic sectors, technological restrictions, and strengthening military alliances in the Indo-Pacific. Democrats will seek more of a balance between competition and cooperation. They will consider China a strategic rival, but will continue to defend the need for international coordination on certain issues like climate, global financial stability, or technological regulation.

For the Caribbean, this Sino-American duel represents a major issue. Several countries in the region have benefited from Chinese investments in infrastructure, telecommunications, or energy. Increased confrontation between Washington and Beijing could transform the Caribbean into a new space for geopolitical competition. States will then have to find a balance between their development needs and the preservation of their strategic autonomy.

For Haiti, this competition could also create opportunities, provided the country is capable of presenting a clear international partnership strategy based on its national interests.

Russia: Between Confrontation and Geopolitical Reshaping

Russia will remain another major challenge for U.S. foreign policy. The war in Ukraine has profoundly altered relations between Moscow and Washington, reviving a confrontation many thought belonged to the past. Russia remains a major nuclear power, with significant military capability and a network of influence that extends beyond its regional environment. It also seeks to strengthen its relations with several countries opposed to U.S. influence, notably in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Within the Republican Party, the Russian question is a significant fault line. A portion of the party believes the United States should limit its foreign engagements and concentrate its resources on national priorities. Another tendency considers Washington must continue to defend its alliances and prevent the expansion of rival powers. Democrats remain broadly favorable to a policy of firmness towards Moscow, considering that the defense of Ukraine contributes to preserving the international order based on certain rules.

For the Caribbean, the Russian question has a particular dimension. Moscow’s diplomatic and military presence in certain countries of the region, notably Cuba and Venezuela, reminds us that the rivalries of great powers can also reach the Caribbean space.

Ukraine: The Debate on American Engagement

The future of Ukraine will be a major test for U.S. foreign policy. After several years of war, the question will no longer be just about immediate military support, but about the overall strategy of the United States facing international conflicts. Republicans will be divided between two visions. The first considers Washington should reduce its financial involvement and encourage a diplomatic solution. The second believes abandoning Ukraine would weaken U.S. credibility with its allies. Democrats will likely continue to defend significant support for Kyiv, believing European stability and the defense of democracies depend on America’s ability to respond to foreign aggression.

For the Caribbean, the impact of this war is primarily economic. Disruptions related to energy, grains, and international markets have affected the region’s vulnerable economies. A durable resolution of the conflict could contribute to global economic stabilization, but it could also accelerate a new redistribution of international alliances.

The Middle East: Influence, Energy Security, and Regional Balance

The Middle East will remain another major dossier of U.S. foreign policy. Despite the rise of China and concerns related to the Indo-Pacific, the region remains strategic due to its energy importance, persistent conflicts, and geopolitical influence. Republicans will remain broadly favorable to strong support for Israel, a policy of firmness towards Iran, and a U.S. presence capable of containing rival powers. Democrats will seek more of a balance between support for traditional allies, defense of human rights, and pursuit of diplomatic solutions.

For the Caribbean, the Middle East may seem distant, but its consequences are real. Energy fluctuations directly affect island economies dependent on imports. Furthermore, investments from Gulf countries represent a potential source of financing for certain regional projects.

NATO and the Indo-Pacific: The Future of American Alliances

The question of alliances will be at the heart of the 2028 international debate. Since its creation, NATO has represented the main collective security instrument led by the United States. But its future is now the subject of significant discussions within the Republican Party. Some consider European allies must assume a greater share of their own defense and that the United States must reduce its permanent commitments. Others believe an American withdrawal would weaken the entire Western system and give more strategic space to Russia and China. In the Indo-Pacific, the American consensus is broader: China’s rise is pushing Washington to strengthen its partnerships with Japan, Australia, India, and other regional actors.

For the Caribbean, this strategic focus on Europe and Asia poses an essential question: will Washington continue to consider its own neighborhood a priority? A decrease in U.S. attention could leave more space to other external powers.

Global Trade, Technology, and Cybersecurity: The New Battlefields

Economic and technological issues will complement the major international debates of 2028. Global trade has entered a new phase marked by the return of protectionism, the securitization of supply chains, and competition for strategic technologies. Republicans will likely favor an approach privileging U.S. economic sovereignty: tariffs, control of foreign investments, and protection of national industries. Democrats will seek more to maintain an open trade framework governed by international rules and social protections.

Simultaneously, cybersecurity will become a central issue of national security. Cyberattacks on infrastructure, businesses, and public institutions now represent a threat comparable to traditional conflicts. For the Caribbean, these transformations present both risks and opportunities. The region’s economies depend heavily on international trade and remain vulnerable to external crises. But digital development can also offer new growth levers, notably in services, education, and innovation.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election will therefore also be a referendum on the place of the United States in the world. Behind the debates on China, Russia, Ukraine, or the Middle East lies a fundamental question: should America continue to lead the international order or redefine its role around a more national approach? This decision will have consequences far beyond U.S. borders. For the Caribbean, and particularly for Haiti, the issue will be whether Washington will still consider this region a strategic space or merely a periphery.

In a world marked by great power competition, small states can no longer simply wait for others’ decisions. They must develop their own strategies, strengthen their institutions, and transform their geographic position into a diplomatic advantage.

The Electoral Weight of the Caribbean Diaspora in 2028

The Caribbean diaspora in the United States constitutes one of the most underestimated electoral factors in contemporary American politics. For a long time, electoral analyses focused on traditional large groups—white voters in rural areas, suburbs, African Americans, unions, or urban youth—neglecting the growing role of communities from the Caribbean. Yet, these populations now represent a political force capable of influencing decisive states, particularly when electoral margins are counted in a few thousand votes.

This reality is particularly visible in Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Georgia, where significant Cuban, Haitian, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Jamaican, Dominican, and Trinidadian communities are concentrated. These groups do not form a homogeneous political bloc. Their historical trajectories, migration experiences, and concerns differ profoundly. Some remain attached to Democrats due to their history with the party’s social and migration policies. Others have moved closer to Republicans due to their opposition to socialism, security concerns, or a desire for more conservative economic policy.

The 2028 presidential election could therefore confirm a major transformation: U.S. Caribbean policy will no longer be determined solely by Washington’s strategic interests in the region, but also by the electoral weight of Caribbean communities established on U.S. soil. Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela thus become issues with a double dimension: foreign policy issues, but also subjects of domestic electoral mobilization.

Florida: The Political Center of Gravity of the American Caribbean

Florida remains the state where the electoral dimension of the Caribbean is most visible. With its thirty electoral votes, it has for decades represented a strategic territory for any presidential campaign. Its large and politically active Caribbean population makes it a veritable laboratory of American electoral transformations.

Cuban Americans have historically been the most influential Caribbean group in Florida. Concentrated mainly in Miami-Dade County, they have long been associated with the Republican Party due to their opposition to the Cuban regime and their distrust of socialist policies. This political identity, built around the experience of exile and the fight against Castroism, has deeply marked Florida politics.

However, this community is evolving. New generations born in the United States sometimes have a different relationship with the Cuban question. For a portion of young Cuban Americans, economic issues, housing, education, healthcare, and the cost of living now occupy a place as important as foreign policy towards Havana. This evolution could make their vote more competitive in 2028, even if Republicans retain a significant lead among this community.

Haitian Americans represent another essential component of the Florida electoral landscape. Settled mainly in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties, they constitute a community deeply linked to migration, humanitarian, and security issues concerning Haiti. Historically close to the Democratic Party, many Haitian Americans have mobilized around the defense of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), the question of deportations, and the political situation in their country of origin.

However, this community is not politically static. A growing portion of Haitian-American voters express concerns similar to those of other immigrant groups: security, entrepreneurship, taxation, access to housing, and economic opportunities. Candidates who manage to articulate a credible policy both on Haiti and on the daily concerns of immigrant families could alter traditional balances.

Venezuelans in Florida also represent an expanding electoral group. Their experience of the political and economic crisis in Venezuela has brought them closer to the Republican Party, notably due to the anti-socialist discourse carried by several conservative leaders. For them, U.S. policy towards Caracas is not an abstract question: it directly touches their family history, their security, and their perception of the American political model.

Finally, the Puerto Rican community occupies a particular place in this electoral recomposition. Long associated with the Democratic Party, it has experienced political evolution in recent years, notably among voters settled in Florida after the economic crises and natural disasters that affected Puerto Rico. Economic issues, the reconstruction of the island, political recognition, and family values are becoming important factors in their electoral behavior.

Thus, in 2028, Florida could be one of the states where the presidential battle is played out as much on national themes—inflation, immigration, security—as on the candidates’ ability to understand the specific realities of Caribbean communities.

New York: The Historical Heart of the Haitian Community

If Florida represents the political center of the American Caribbean, New York remains its historical and cultural heart. The metropolis is home to one of the largest Haitian communities in the United States, concentrated notably in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and certain areas of New York State.

The New York Haitian community has a long tradition of political engagement. It has played a major role in defending interests related to Haiti, mobilizing around migration issues, and the emergence of several local political leaders. Its electoral orientation remains largely Democratic, but its political behavior is more complex than simple partisan alignment. The concerns of this community extend far beyond traditional ideological boundaries. The protection of TPS, Haiti’s stability, the security of relatives back home, remittances, access to healthcare, housing, and the economic success of new generations are determining issues.

This evolution opens a political space for both parties. Democrats have a historical advantage due to their position on immigration and social programs. But Republicans could seek to gain ground by developing a discourse more centered on entrepreneurship, security, and the reconstruction of Haiti. The issue extends beyond the presidential election alone. In a state like New York, traditionally Democratic, the mobilization of the Caribbean diaspora also influences local elections, primaries, and political representation in Congress.

Massachusetts and Georgia: The New Mobilization Territories

Massachusetts constitutes another important hub of the Caribbean diaspora. The Boston area has hosted a significant Haitian community for decades, as well as Jamaican, Trinidadian, and Dominican populations. As in New York, these communities remain predominantly Democratic, but their priorities are evolving with new generations.

The economic question is progressively becoming central. The cost of housing in major American cities, access to higher education, business creation, and social mobility are now as important as traditional migration issues. Georgia represents a more recent phenomenon. Atlanta has become one of the preferred destinations for Caribbean populations, attracted by its economic dynamism, job market, and relatively more accessible cost of living. In a state that has become highly competitive since 2020, even a relatively limited electoral community can play a decisive role when results are decided by a narrow margin.

Democrats have invested heavily in mobilizing urban and immigrant minorities in Georgia. Republicans, for their part, seek to broaden their coalition by emphasizing the economy, security, and family values. The Caribbean diaspora could therefore become one of the groups courted by both camps in this new electoral battle.

Puerto Rico: An American Political Singularity

Puerto Rico holds a unique place in the relationship between the United States and the Caribbean. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but those residing on the island do not directly participate in the U.S. presidential election. However, Puerto Ricans settled on the mainland can vote and particularly influence states where their presence is significant, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, or New York.

This situation creates a democratic contradiction often debated: U.S. citizens fully participate in national political life when they live on the mainland, but do not have the same electoral power when they reside on the island. The question of Puerto Rico’s political status—U.S. statehood, independence, or maintenance of the current status—could become an issue in the 2028 campaign. Democrats are generally favorable to a clarification of status through a democratic process. Republicans are divided between those who support potential statehood and those who prefer to maintain the status quo.

For presidential candidates, Puerto Rico therefore represents both an institutional and an electoral question. How they address this issue could influence the Puerto Rican vote in several decisive states.

The American Caribbean diaspora no longer constitutes a mere cultural extension of the Caribbean region. It has become a political actor in its own right. Its influence rests not only on its numbers, but on its geographic concentration in states where every vote can count.

In 2028, presidential candidates will therefore have to understand a new reality: talking about the Caribbean no longer means only talking about diplomacy, security, or international aid. It also means talking to millions of American voters whose family histories, identities, and concerns cross borders.

For Haiti in particular, this evolution is strategic. The Haitian-American community could become a major intermediary between Washington and Port-au-Prince, provided its concerns are integrated into a broader vision of partnership, security, and development. The 2028 American electoral battle will therefore also be, in part, a battle to understand and mobilize the American Caribbean.

The Caribbean Becomes a Major Geostrategic Space Again

For several decades, the Caribbean occupied a marginal place in the United States’ international strategy. Caught in a vision inherited from the Cold War, often reduced to an American “backyard,” the region was progressively relegated behind other priorities: Middle Eastern wars, China’s rise in Asia, European tensions with Russia, or major global economic challenges. This relative strategic indifference nonetheless created a vacuum that other powers gradually sought to fill. China developed a growing economic presence through investments in infrastructure, ports, telecommunications, and energy. Russia strengthened its diplomatic and military relations with certain governments in the region. Other actors, like Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or India, also identified the Caribbean as a space of economic opportunities and influence.

The transformation of the international environment now compels Washington to review its approach. The Caribbean is no longer just a zone of geographic proximity; it has become a space where several major 21st-century issues intersect: migration, maritime security, the fight against transnational criminal networks, energy transition, climate change, and great power rivalry. This evolution is particularly important as the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches. The future occupant of the White House will have to answer a fundamental question: does the United States still consider the Caribbean a strategic periphery, or an essential component of its national security and global influence?

The answer to this question will have direct consequences for the countries of the region, notably Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, three states that occupy a central place in Washington’s geopolitical calculations. It will also determine how the United States manages its relations with other Caribbean partners, like the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Barbados, or Guyana.

Why Washington Is Rediscovering Its Caribbean Neighborhood

The return of the Caribbean to American priorities is not the result of a simple shift in political perception. It stems from a profound transformation of the regional and international environment. Several dynamics, long considered separate, now converge and place the region at the center of American strategic concerns.

Migration, organized crime, competition with China, energy security, and the consequences of climate change no longer constitute isolated issues. They form an interdependent whole that directly affects U.S. internal security and the stability of the Western Hemisphere.

Migration Pressure: A Domestic Issue That Has Become Strategic

The first reason for the Caribbean’s return to Washington’s agenda is migration. For several years, migratory movements from the region have taken on major political significance in the United States. Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans, Dominicans, and nationals of other Caribbean countries participate in complex migratory flows that combine economic factors, political crises, natural disasters, and insecurity.

For Washington, this issue now goes beyond simple border management. It touches on the American state’s ability to control its borders, define its immigration policy, and respond to the expectations of an electorate deeply divided on this issue. The Haitian crisis illustrates this evolution. The rapid deterioration of the security, economic, and institutional situation has pushed thousands of Haitian citizens to seek alternatives abroad. Some take dangerous sea routes, others cross several Latin American countries before reaching the U.S. border. This dynamic transforms a national crisis into a regional issue.

Republicans generally approach this issue from the angle of national security and border control. Their approach favors strengthening surveillance means, limiting irregular immigration, and a stricter deportation policy. Democrats place greater emphasis on the root causes of migration: poverty, political instability, climate change, and institutional weakness. They defend an approach combining border control, creation of legal migration pathways, and cooperation with countries of origin. Beyond the partisan debate, one reality remains: U.S. migration policy will increasingly depend on the stability of its Caribbean environment. As long as economic and institutional crises persist in several countries of the region, migration pressure will remain a major issue in American policy.

Drug Trafficking: A Transnational Threat

The second factor explaining renewed American interest in the Caribbean is the rise of transnational criminal networks. The region has long been a transit zone for traffics originating in South America and destined for North American and European markets. The Caribbean geography—with its thousands of islands, maritime spaces difficult to control, and proximity to major consumer markets—offers criminal organizations significant logistical possibilities. Sea routes are used for transporting narcotics, weapons, illicit capital, and, in some cases, human trafficking.

This criminality directly weakens the states concerned. It fuels corruption, weakens public institutions, and contributes to the establishment of lawless zones. Haiti today represents one of the most worrying examples of this dynamic, with armed groups capable of challenging state authority and controlling strategic territories.

For the United States, this situation represents a threat at several levels. It affects their internal security, fuels criminal networks present on their territory, and threatens the political stability of their immediate neighborhood. Republicans generally favor a more security-oriented approach: military cooperation, reinforced maritime operations, sanctions against criminal organizations, and increased support for security forces. Democrats defend a more global approach combining the fight against organized crime, institutional strengthening, economic development, and social prevention. The central debate for 2028 will therefore be less about whether to act, but rather how to act: through a primarily coercive approach or through a strategy combining security, development, and institutional reconstruction.

Sea Routes: The New Battle of Strategic Spaces

The third reason for the Caribbean’s return to American calculations concerns the maritime dimension. The region is located at the crossroads of several essential trade routes linking North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia.

The Panama Canal holds a particular place in this architecture. A veritable artery of global trade, it allows for considerably reducing distances between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Its strategic value extends far beyond the purely economic domain: it represents an essential passage point for trade, supply chains, and maritime projection.

The rise of Chinese influence around port and commercial infrastructure in the region has heightened American concerns. Washington now considers that the economic presence of a rival power in its immediate environment can have security implications. The question is therefore no longer solely commercial. It concerns control of critical infrastructure, security of logistics chains, and the balance of influences in the Western Hemisphere.

For Caribbean countries, this competition represents both an opportunity and a risk. Foreign investments can contribute to economic development, but they can also create new strategic dependencies.

Cuba: Between Revolutionary Heritage and Geopolitical Realignment

Cuba remains one of the most persistent paradoxes of the Western Hemisphere. Less than 150 kilometers from U.S. shores, the island remains both a living legacy of the Cold War and a contemporary issue of geopolitical competition. For over six decades, Washington and Havana have maintained a relationship dominated by confrontation: economic embargo, diplomatic ruptures, migration crises, and ideological clashes. Yet, behind this historical opposition lies a more complex reality: Cuba is a regional actor whose stability, or instability, directly influences Caribbean security.

In 2026, the island is going through one of the most difficult periods since the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The combination of the internal economic crisis, the decline in Venezuelan support, the tightening of U.S. sanctions, and rising social tensions places the regime before its greatest challenge in several decades. The Cuban question is therefore no longer just about the survival of a political system. It has become about its evolution in a profoundly transformed international environment.

An Economy on the Brink

The Cuban economy is going through a structural crisis. For several decades, the country benefited from Venezuelan energy support, which provided a significant portion of its oil needs. But the Venezuelan economic collapse progressively reduced this assistance, worsening the island’s energy difficulties. The decrease in fuel supplies triggered a succession of crises: power outages, partial transport paralysis, industrial slowdown, and increased difficulties for agricultural and tourism sectors.

To this internal fragility were added U.S. sanctions reinforced in recent years. Washington claims these measures aim to exert pressure on the Cuban government to obtain political and economic reforms. Cuban authorities, in turn, consider the embargo a major factor in the economic crisis. The reality is more complex. Cuba’s difficulties result from a combination of factors: inefficiency of the economic model, low productivity, excessive import dependence, demographic aging, lack of foreign investment, and constraints related to U.S. sanctions.

The social consequences are visible. Food shortages, difficulties accessing medicines, frequent power interruptions, and massive emigration have profoundly affected Cuban society. Faced with this situation, the government has begun to introduce certain economic reforms. The stated objective is to attract more investment, broaden the role of the private sector, and modernize certain economic mechanisms inherited from the traditional socialist model. But these changes remain limited. The central question remains: how far is the regime willing to go without challenging the political foundations of the system?

A Regime Facing a New Generation of Protest

The economic crisis has progressively transformed the relationship between the Cuban state and its population. For a long time, the regime was able to maintain a certain stability thanks to several factors: the memory of the revolution, the institutional organization of the Communist Party, political control, and the ability to provide certain essential social services. But this historical legitimacy has gradually eroded. A new generation of Cubans, born after the Cold War, has a different relationship with power. It judges the regime less on its revolutionary heritage than on its ability to offer economic prospects, freedom of expression, and improved living conditions.

The protests of recent years have illustrated this evolution. Demands are no longer solely ideological. They also concern daily life: access to electricity, food, wages, mobility, and economic future. The Cuban government continues to attribute a large part of the national difficulties to U.S. sanctions. But this explanation no longer suffices to meet the expectations of a population facing a prolonged crisis.

The question of political succession also remains central. Since Raúl Castro’s departure, Miguel Díaz-Canel embodies a different generation of Cuban leaders. However, his power remains limited by the weight of the Party’s historical structures and the security apparatus. Havana’s challenge is now twofold: preserve political stability while responding to a society progressively demanding more openness.

Washington Facing the Cuban Dilemma: Pressure or Engagement?

For six decades, U.S. policy towards Cuba has oscillated between two major visions. The first considers that economic and diplomatic pressure is the best means of obtaining political change. This approach, historically supported by a significant portion of the Republican current, believes any opening without Cuban concessions would strengthen the regime.

The second favors diplomatic engagement. Its defenders consider isolation has not succeeded in provoking political transformation and that a more open relationship could foster internal evolution. The Trump administration favored the first approach: reinforced sanctions, limited exchanges, and increased diplomatic pressure.

This strategy has nonetheless produced a paradoxical result. If it limited certain economic capabilities of the Cuban government, it did not lead to its collapse. It also created a diplomatic space from which other actors, notably China and Russia, have benefited. A future Democratic administration might seek to resume an opening policy similar to the one initiated under Barack Obama starting in 2014: restoration of diplomatic dialogue, relaxation of certain restrictions, and encouragement of economic reforms. But the context of 2028 will be different. Strategic competition with Beijing and Moscow will weigh more heavily in American calculations.

Cuba in the Caribbean Strategic Triangle: Historical Heritage, Internal Crisis, and New Power Balance

Cuba remains one of the most singular actors in Caribbean geopolitics. Few states in the region concentrate such historical, symbolic, and strategic weight. Since the 1959 revolution, the island has held a particular place in the international political imagination: for some, it represents one of the last vestiges of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere; for others, it constitutes an example of resistance to U.S. influence. But beyond ideological perceptions, Cuba today represents a major geopolitical issue in a Caribbean that has become a space of competition among great powers.

Within the framework of this report, Cuba constitutes one of the three vertices of the Caribbean strategic triangle formed with Haiti and Venezuela. This triangle rests not only on geographic proximity. It reflects a deeper reality: these three states hold a particular position in the political, economic, and security dynamics of the region. Cuba through its historical weight and diplomatic influence, Venezuela through its energy resources and role in international rivalries, Haiti through its demographic, migratory, and humanitarian importance.

Cuba’s position is also determined by its complex relationship with the United States. A few hundred kilometers from U.S. shores, the island remains an issue where historical memory, American electoral considerations, and regional strategic issues meet. For several decades, U.S. policy towards Havana has oscillated between two approaches: that of maximum pressure aimed at provoking internal political transformation, and that of diplomatic engagement aimed at fostering a gradual evolution of Cuban society.

As the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches, the Cuban question could enter a new phase. The issue will probably no longer be solely how to contain the influence of the Cuban government, but also how to prevent a strategic space at the heart of the Caribbean from becoming more accessible to rival powers like China and Russia.

Cuba and Venezuela: A Historical Alliance Weakened by Regional Transformations

The relationship between Cuba and Venezuela constitutes one of the major axes of contemporary Caribbean geopolitics. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Caracas and Havana have built a partnership based on political convergence, energy cooperation, and diplomatic solidarity.

Under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela became an essential economic supporter for Cuba, notably through energy agreements allowing the island to obtain oil on preferential terms. In exchange, Cuba provided significant cooperation in several sectors, notably health, education, and professional services. This relationship deeply marked the regional balance. It allowed Cuba to reduce its international isolation after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and offered Venezuela a network of ideological and diplomatic influence in several Latin American countries.

However, the Venezuelan economic crisis has considerably weakened this model. The decline in Caracas’s financial capabilities, the fall in oil production, and U.S. sanctions have reduced Venezuela’s ability to maintain the same level of economic support for Cuba. This evolution has forced Havana to seek new economic partners and diversify its international relations. China, Russia, and several European actors now occupy a growing place in Cuba’s economic survival strategy.

Cuba and Haiti: A Historical Relationship Beyond Regional Politics

The relationship between Cuba and Haiti has a particular dimension in Caribbean history. The two nations share geographic proximity, a history marked by colonial and revolutionary upheavals, and common belonging to a complex Caribbean cultural space.

In recent decades, Cuban medical cooperation has constituted one of the main elements of this relationship. Cuban doctors and professionals have participated in several health programs in Haiti, notably in community care, medical training, and the fight against certain epidemics. Beyond this cooperation, Cuba and Haiti illustrate two different trajectories in facing the challenges of postcolonial development. Cuba has maintained a strongly centralized state with significant capabilities in certain social sectors, notably health and education, while Haiti has experienced deep institutional fragility.

In the new strategic configuration of the Caribbean, the relationship between Port-au-Prince and Havana could evolve. The stabilization of Haiti, migration issues, regional security, and new U.S. policies towards the region could create space for renewed cooperation between the two countries.

The Cuban Crisis: Between System Resistance and Social Pressure

Despite its historical resilience, Cuba is today going through one of the most difficult economic periods in several decades. The combined effects of the global economic crisis, trade restrictions, the decline in tourism revenues after the pandemic, and internal structural difficulties have caused a significant deterioration in living conditions.

Shortages of essential products, energy difficulties, massive emigration, and demographic aging now constitute major challenges for the country’s future. The Cuban question cannot, however, be analyzed solely through an economic lens. The Cuban political system retains institutional mechanisms capable of maintaining a certain stability, but it faces growing pressure from a population more connected to the outside world and confronted with new economic expectations. The great question for the coming years will therefore be whether Cuba can proceed with a gradual adaptation of its model without provoking a major political rupture.

The Three Possible Trajectories for Cuba After 2028

Several scenarios can be envisioned regarding Cuba’s future. The first scenario would be one of gradual adaptation. In this hypothesis, the Cuban government would pursue certain limited economic reforms, further encourage foreign investment, and seek to improve economic efficiency without deep political transformation. This path would allow for controlled evolution of the system.

The second scenario would be one of a gradual transition. The combination of economic difficulties, generational changes, and social pressures could lead to a more significant political evolution. Such a transition could open a period of international rapprochement and economic reconstruction, but it would require extremely careful management to avoid institutional instability.

The third scenario would be one of a worsening crisis. Prolonged economic deterioration could accelerate emigration, strengthen social tensions, and create a period of political uncertainty. In this scenario, the Cuban question would become not only a domestic problem, but also a major regional issue.

Cuba and the Future of U.S. Strategy in the Caribbean

Cuba’s evolution will be an important test for the next U.S. administration. The traditional policy of confrontation has maintained pressure on the Cuban government, but it has not prevented the emergence of other international actors in the Caribbean space. China considers Cuba a strategic partner due to its geographic position and economic needs. Russia, for its part, sees in Havana a historical symbol of its ability to maintain a presence in a region long considered the American strategic space.

For Washington, the issue will therefore be to define a new approach capable of combining national security, diplomatic influence, and economic cooperation. The 21st-century Cuban question will probably no longer be only: how to limit Havana’s influence? It will also become: how to prevent a strategic vacuum at the heart of the Caribbean from being durably occupied by rival powers?

Venezuela: Oil, Political Crisis, and Great Power Rivalry in the Western Hemisphere

Venezuela holds a unique place in the geopolitics of Latin America and the Caribbean. Few countries illustrate the contradictions of the contemporary world with such force: a territory possessing the largest known oil reserves in the world, but facing one of the deepest economic and social crises in the region’s recent history; a state located strategically close to the United States, which has become a symbol of political confrontation; a country where the interests of Washington, Beijing, and Moscow now intersect.

As the 2028 U.S. presidential election approaches, Venezuela will remain one of the major dossiers of U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. Its importance extends far beyond national borders. The Venezuelan situation simultaneously touches several strategic issues for Washington: energy security, regional stability, migration, competition with external powers, and the future of the Latin American political order.

For more than a decade, Venezuela has been going through a multidimensional crisis characterized by economic collapse, political polarization, institutional weakening, international sanctions, and massive human exodus. Several million Venezuelans have left their country in recent years, causing one of the most significant migration crises in the recent history of Latin America and exerting considerable pressure on neighboring countries as well as on the United States.

Venezuela therefore represents a strategic paradox. For some U.S. officials, it embodies a political challenge related to governance, democracy, and the influence of rival powers. For other analysts, it also constitutes an example of the limits of a policy based primarily on economic pressure and diplomatic isolation. The central question for Washington after 2028 will therefore be: how to favor political and economic evolution in Venezuela without provoking a new period of instability that could affect the entire Caribbean?

The Venezuelan Paradox: A Weakened Energy Power

Venezuela’s recent history is one of the most striking examples of dependence on natural resources. For several decades, oil revenues allowed the country to finance ambitious social programs, develop significant regional influence, and play a major role in Latin American politics. Under Hugo Chávez, and then Nicolás Maduro, oil became much more than an economic resource. It was used as an instrument of domestic policy, regional diplomacy, and international projection. Thanks to its energy revenues, Caracas was able to establish political alliances, support certain regional partners, and increase its influence within several Latin American organizations.

However, this excessive dependence on hydrocarbons also created great vulnerability. The fall in international oil prices, difficulties in managing the energy industry, corruption, loss of technical skills, and internal political tensions gradually weakened the national oil sector. The state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), once considered one of the world’s most important energy companies, experienced a considerable decline in its operational capabilities. Oil production fell sharply, reducing the country’s main source of revenue. This economic degradation led to major social consequences. Inflation, the decline in purchasing power, difficulties accessing essential products, infrastructure degradation, and energy supply problems have profoundly affected the population.

The Venezuelan crisis thus illustrates a reality common in states heavily dependent on natural resources: abundant wealth does not automatically guarantee sustainable development. Without solid institutions and economic diversification, resources can become a source of fragility rather than a strategic advantage.

U.S. Sanctions: Political Pressure or Factor of Economic Weakening?

U.S. policy towards Caracas is one of the most controversial subjects of Washington’s regional strategy. For several years, the United States has adopted an approach based on economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to obtain political changes in Venezuela.

Washington claims these measures aim to encourage respect for democratic processes, promote transparent elections, and exert pressure on officials accused of institutional violations or human rights abuses. Venezuelan authorities and their international partners present a different reading. They consider sanctions a form of economic pressure intended to provoke regime change and accuse Washington of using its financial influence to weaken the Venezuelan state.

The geopolitical reality is more complex. Sanctions have indeed reduced the Venezuelan government’s financial capabilities and limited its access to international markets. They have also contributed to isolating Caracas diplomatically. However, their effects on the national economy are the subject of significant debate. Several analyses emphasize that these measures have also limited foreign investment, complicated the modernization of the energy sector, and worsened certain economic difficulties directly affecting the population. This question should remain at the heart of the U.S. political debate during the 2028 presidential campaign.

Two visions will likely continue to oppose each other:

• The first will favor a policy of maximum pressure, considering any opening would weaken the U.S. ability to obtain political concessions.

• The second will defend a more pragmatic approach, believing that a strategy of economic and diplomatic engagement could reduce the influence of rival powers and favor gradual stabilization.

• Behind this debate lies a broader question: is isolation or influence the best way to defend U.S. interests in the region?

The Venezuelan Political Transition: Reconstruction or Risk of Instability?

Venezuela’s political future remains deeply uncertain. The country is still marked by a lasting confrontation between the Chavista government and a fragmented political opposition. Electoral institutions, justice, security forces, and economic structures remain at the center of this power struggle. A political transition could open a new historical period. It could favor the return of international investment, economic reconstruction, improved diplomatic relations, and Venezuela’s gradual reintegration into regional mechanisms.

A controlled political change could also have positive consequences for the migration crisis. The economic and institutional stabilization of the country would likely reduce pressure on neighboring countries and on the United States. But an ill-prepared transition would also carry considerable risks.

Venezuela has fragile institutions, a powerful security apparatus, and economic actors whose interests are linked to the current system. An abrupt rupture could provoke a struggle for control of the state, institutional fragmentation, or a new migration wave. For Washington, the strategic challenge is therefore particularly complex: encouraging political evolution without provoking the collapse of a state located at the heart of the American regional environment.

Venezuela at the Center of the Washington-Beijing-Moscow Competition

The Venezuelan crisis has transformed the country into a secondary space for global rivalry among great powers. For the United States, the Chinese and Russian presence in Venezuela represents an extension of strategic competition into the Western Hemisphere. After several decades during which Washington considered Latin America and the Caribbean its privileged sphere of influence, the arrival of new actors is progressively modifying regional balances.

China has developed an important economic relationship with Caracas, mainly around the energy sector. Beijing primarily seeks to secure its economic interests, maintain commercial partnerships, and preserve its energy supplies. Russia, for its part, has developed a more political and security-oriented relationship. Moscow has supported Caracas diplomatically and strengthened its military cooperation with the Venezuelan government. However, this foreign presence must be analyzed with nuance. China and Russia do not have the same capabilities or objectives in the region. Beijing primarily favors economics and infrastructure, while Moscow uses political and security cooperation more as an instrument of influence.

Venezuela thus illustrates a major transformation: the Caribbean and Latin America no longer constitute solely a space of American influence, but are gradually becoming a theater where several powers seek to defend their interests.

Venezuela in the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Strategic Triangle

In the new Caribbean geopolitics, Venezuela constitutes the third vertex of the strategic triangle with Cuba and Haiti. With Cuba, Caracas shares an alliance built around energy, political, and diplomatic cooperation since the beginning of the 21st century. This relationship remains one of the symbols of regional political recomposition. With Haiti, historical relations rest more on regional cooperation, Latin-Caribbean mechanisms, and diplomatic ties developed over recent decades. Even if these relations have been less structuring than those between Cuba and Venezuela, Caracas’s evolution can indirectly influence Haiti’s strategic environment.

With the United States, Venezuela represents an issue where energy, security, migration, and international competition intersect. Caracas’s evolution will therefore have significant regional consequences. Stabilization could contribute to reducing migration tensions, strengthening regional economic integration, and opening a new phase in inter-American relations. Conversely, a prolonged new crisis could increase instability and offer more space to external powers.

What Future for Caracas After 2028?

Three main scenarios can be envisioned.

• The first scenario would be a negotiated transition. A political agreement would allow gradual opening, accompanied by an improvement in international relations, a partial lifting of sanctions, and a progressive return of foreign investment.

• The second scenario would be authoritarian stabilization. The power would retain political control while implementing certain limited economic reforms to ensure the system’s survival.

• The third scenario would be a prolonged crisis. The absence of political compromise would maintain a fragile economy, prolong migration pressure, and reinforce competition among foreign powers around Venezuela.

Regardless of the scenario, one conclusion is clear: Venezuela will not be merely a Latin American issue. It will be a major test of the American ability to manage its own strategic environment. The Caribbean, long considered peripheral, has become a central space where some of the great transformations of the 21st century are unfolding.

Other Strategic Actors in the Caribbean: A Region Between Sovereignty, Vulnerabilities, and Global Competition

The Caribbean cannot be understood solely through the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela strategic triangle. While these three countries hold a central place in current geopolitical dynamics due to their history, geographic position, and particular relationship with the great powers, the Caribbean space remains a much vaster and more complex reality. The region is composed of a mosaic of states and territories whose economic, diplomatic, and security trajectories directly influence the regional balance. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Puerto Rico, as well as regional organizations like CARICOM and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), each play a specific role in this new strategic configuration. These actors share several common challenges: vulnerability to climate change, external economic dependence, migration pressure, transnational crime, energy security, and the need to preserve their autonomy in an environment marked by the return of great power competition.

The 21st-century Caribbean is therefore no longer merely a peripheral zone between North America and Latin America. It is gradually becoming a strategic space where several global dynamics converge: Sino-American rivalry, Russian repositioning, energy transition, new trade routes, and transforming diplomatic balances. In this context, every Caribbean state, regardless of size, becomes an actor whose choices can contribute to modifying the regional balance.

The Dominican Republic: Haiti’s Indispensable Neighbor and a Strategic Partner for Washington

The Dominican Republic today holds a particular place in Caribbean geopolitics. Located on the same island as Haiti, it represents both a major economic actor in the region and a central element of U.S. security concerns in the Caribbean. With a population exceeding eleven million, an economy among the most dynamic in the region, and growth sustained by tourism, industrial free zones, infrastructure, and foreign investment, Santo Domingo has become one of the most important economic hubs in the Caribbean space.

This evolution contrasts sharply with the multidimensional crisis in Haiti. The coexistence of two radically different trajectories on the same island creates a deeply asymmetric bilateral relationship, marked both by economic interdependence and recurrent political tensions. The migration issue remains the main point of friction between the two countries. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians live or work in the Dominican Republic, contributing to several essential sectors of its economy, notably agriculture, construction, and services. However, Dominican migration policies towards Haitian workers and people of Haitian descent regularly draw international criticism regarding human rights and deportation conditions.

For the United States and regional organizations, the stability of the island of Hispaniola depends largely on the ability of the two states to build a more predictable relationship, based on cooperation, border security, and shared development. The Dominican Republic thus represents an important strategic partner for Washington. Its economic stability, diplomatic positioning, and regional role make it an actor whose decisions will have a direct influence on Haiti’s future and the overall balance of the Caribbean.

Jamaica: The Diplomatic Voice of the Anglophone Caribbean

Jamaica remains one of the most influential countries in the Anglophone Caribbean. Its importance rests not only on its population or economy, but also on its historical heritage, cultural influence, and regional diplomatic role. A major member of CARICOM, Kingston has traditionally played a mediating role in regional affairs. The country maintains close relations with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, while seeking to preserve a margin of diplomatic autonomy.

Its economy relies primarily on tourism, services, mining exports (notably bauxite), as well as financial transfers from its diaspora. However, like several Caribbean countries, Jamaica faces significant challenges. Organized crime, violence linked to criminal networks, social inequalities, and climate vulnerability are major obstacles to its sustainable development. Regional security has become a growing priority for Kingston. The circulation of arms, drug trafficking, and the expansion of transnational criminal networks now represent threats that extend far beyond national borders.

Jamaica also plays an important role in the Haitian question. Its involvement in regional stabilization initiatives reflects a desire to preserve the collective security of the Caribbean while maintaining a balanced approach between regional solidarity and strategic interests. In a region where small states seek to strengthen their collective influence vis-à-vis the great powers, Jamaica should continue to play a major diplomatic role.

Guyana: The New Energy Power of the Wider Caribbean

Guyana likely represents one of the most spectacular geopolitical changes in the region in the 21st century. Long considered one of the poorest countries in South America, this English-speaking state is now undergoing a historic transformation thanks to its immense offshore oil discoveries.

The exploitation of these resources has profoundly modified its economic prospects. Guyana has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, attracting the attention of the United States, China, Europe, and major international investors. This new energy wealth offers the country an exceptional development opportunity. It could allow for the modernization of infrastructure, improvement of public services, and deep economic transformation.

However, international experience also recalls the risks associated with excessive dependence on natural resources. Georgetown’s challenge will be to avoid the “resource curse” by transforming its oil revenues into sustainable development. To this economic dimension is added a major geopolitical issue: the territorial dispute with Venezuela over Essequibo, a resource-rich region claimed by Caracas.

This conflict now goes beyond the simple border issue. It has become a strategic dossier directly involving the great powers. The United States has strengthened its cooperation with Georgetown, while Venezuela seeks to maintain its historical claims. Guyana has thus become a new space where energy, regional security, and international competition intersect.

Suriname: Between Energy Potential and the Need for Economic Diversification

Located between Guyana and French Guiana, Suriname holds a particular position in the geopolitics of the wider Caribbean. A small multicultural state of about 600,000 inhabitants, it possesses significant natural resources, notably in the mining and energy sectors, which could profoundly transform its economic future.

Like neighboring Guyana, offshore oil discoveries are opening new development prospects. They could allow the country to attract more foreign investment, modernize its infrastructure, and increase its regional economic weight. However, the experience of other producer countries reminds us that the discovery of natural resources is not automatically a guarantee of development. The real challenge for Paramaribo will be to transform this potential wealth into sustainable growth, improved living standards, and strengthened institutional capacities.

Suriname must also avoid excessive dependence on hydrocarbons. In a global context marked by the energy transition, producer countries must now prepare for the future beyond oil and gas. Economic diversification, education, infrastructure, and technological innovation will become essential factors of national sovereignty. Diplomatically, Suriname seeks to maintain a balance between its traditional partners and the new powers showing growing interest in the region. Like several small Caribbean states, it attempts to benefit from international competition while preserving its strategic autonomy.

Trinidad and Tobago: The Energy Giant of the Caribbean

Trinidad and Tobago holds a particularly strategic place in the Caribbean space. Thanks to its natural gas resources, developed petrochemical industry, and level of industrialization above the regional average, the country has for decades been one of the main economic engines of the Caribbean. Its geographic proximity to Venezuela also reinforces its strategic importance. Located at the crossroads of South America and the insular Caribbean, the archipelago has particular value in energy, commercial, and security matters.

Port of Spain plays an important role within CARICOM and traditionally seeks to maintain regional influence based on its economic and diplomatic weight. The country also participates in discussions concerning regional energy security, notably in a context where global markets are undergoing profound transformations. However, like several hydrocarbon-producing economies, Trinidad and Tobago faces a major challenge: preparing for the post-oil era. The global energy transition, the evolution of international markets, and the rise of renewable energies compel the country to accelerate its economic diversification. Its future will depend on its ability to transform its current energy revenues into investments in future-oriented sectors: technology, modern industry, the digital economy, and human capital. In the new Caribbean geopolitical competition, Trinidad and Tobago thus represents an essential actor both as an energy power and as a potential strategic partner for the great powers.

Puerto Rico: The American Exception at the Heart of the Caribbean

Puerto Rico holds a unique position in the regional geopolitical balance. A U.S. territory since 1898, the island represents a particular institutional situation: its inhabitants possess U.S. citizenship, but Puerto Rico residents do not participate in the U.S. presidential election through popular vote and do not have representatives with full voting rights in Congress. This situation has been a major political debate for several decades around three main options: maintaining the current status, attaining U.S. statehood, or independence.

The Puerto Rican question could regain particular importance in the context of the 2028 U.S. election, notably due to the growing weight of the Puerto Rican community in several strategic American states, including Florida. But beyond U.S. domestic politics, Puerto Rico has major geopolitical importance. Its geographic position in the center of the Caribbean makes it an important element of the U.S. economic, military, and diplomatic apparatus in the region.

The island also represents a privileged observation point for regional transformations: migration, maritime security, transnational trafficking, relations with Cuba and Venezuela, as well as competition among great powers. Thus, Puerto Rico illustrates a fundamental reality of the contemporary Caribbean: political boundaries do not always correspond to strategic realities. Although legally linked to the United States, its future remains deeply connected to Caribbean regional dynamics.

CARICOM and the OECS: Towards a Collective Diplomacy of Small States

Faced with the rise of international rivalries, Caribbean states are seeking to strengthen their collective capacity for action. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) today constitutes the central political and economic organization of the region. It represents an essential coordination mechanism in the areas of trade, diplomacy, security, and development.

The importance of CARICOM now goes beyond mere economic cooperation. In an international environment marked by competition among great powers, it becomes an instrument allowing small states to collectively defend their interests. The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) plays a similar role for the small island states of the Eastern Caribbean. These countries, often particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and economic constraints, seek to strengthen their collective voice on the international stage.

Their common priorities are now clearly identified: climate adaptation, access to international finance, regional security, sustainable development, energy transition, and reform of international institutions. The Haitian crisis has also reinforced the diplomatic importance of these organizations. Haiti’s stability has gradually become a collective issue for the entire Caribbean, as its instability affects migration, maritime security, economic exchanges, and the regional political balance. However, Caribbean organizations still face a major difficulty: transforming their collective weight into genuine strategic capacity. Their influence will depend on their ability to overcome national divisions and build a common vision in the face of the great powers.

Panama: The Strategic Corridor Between Two Oceans

Although not an insular Caribbean state, Panama holds an essential place in the geopolitics of the wider Caribbean. Its canal is one of the world’s most important maritime infrastructures. Connecting the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, it plays a major role in international trade and the organization of global logistics chains. Approximately 5% of world maritime trade transits through this strategic infrastructure, which explains the particular attention given to it by the great powers.

But the Panama Canal faces several challenges today. Climate change is a growing threat, notably due to drought periods that reduce the water reserves necessary for lock operation. Simultaneously, the canal has become a symbol of competition between Washington and Beijing. China’s economic presence in certain Panamanian port infrastructures is observed closely by the United States, which considers this area essential to its economic and strategic security.

For Beijing, Panama represents an important point in global trade networks. For Washington, it remains a historical space where the question of external influence is of particular importance. Panama thus illustrates a major transformation of contemporary geopolitics: civil infrastructure is no longer only an economic tool. It is also becoming an instrument of power.

A Caribbean That Has Become a Global Strategic Space

The 21st-century Caribbean can no longer be considered a simple collection of islands dependent on the great powers. It has become a strategic space where several major dynamics converge: competition between Washington and Beijing, Moscow’s political return, energy transition, new trade routes, migration issues, and climate challenges. The diversity of national trajectories shows, however, that the regional future will not be determined solely by the great powers. It will also depend on the ability of Caribbean states to transform their resources, geographic positions, and alliances into genuine national strategies.

The new strategic question for the Caribbean is therefore no longer only which power will exert the greatest influence. It is rather to determine whether the states of the region will know how to use current international competition to strengthen their collective sovereignty, accelerate their development, and become themselves actors capable of weighing in on the emerging world order. The Caribbean is no longer a periphery of the international system. It is progressively becoming one of the spaces where a significant part of the geopolitical recomposition of the 21st century is playing out.

China in the Caribbean: The Economic Power Transforming the Regional Order

The rise of China in the Caribbean constitutes one of the most significant geopolitical changes of the early 21st century. For a large part of the previous century, the region was considered a space falling almost exclusively within the strategic influence of the United States. Geographic proximity, economic ties, migratory relations, and the historical legacy of the Monroe Doctrine had helped maintain a dominant American presence in regional affairs.

This reality has, however, begun to evolve with the emergence of China as a global power. Unlike Russia, whose presence in the Caribbean rests mainly on political, military, and symbolic considerations, Beijing is developing a much broader strategy, based on economic investment, trade, infrastructure, technology, diplomacy, and institutional cooperation. China is not necessarily seeking to establish a direct confrontation with Washington in the Western Hemisphere. Its strategy relies more on a logic of progressive influence: creating economic dependencies, strengthening diplomatic partnerships, and participating in the strategic sectors that will determine the region’s economic future.

The Caribbean represents for Beijing a limited space economically, but considerable geopolitically. Its position at the heart of the American hemisphere, close to the world’s major trade and energy routes, gives it particular strategic value in the global competition among great powers.

The Chinese Strategic Logic in the Caribbean

China’s presence in the region responds to several complementary objectives:

• The first objective is economic. China seeks to develop new markets for its companies, secure its supply chains, and participate in major infrastructure projects necessary for the development of Caribbean economies. In several countries of the region, infrastructure needs remain considerable: port modernization, energy networks, telecommunications, transport, housing, and public facilities.

• The second objective is diplomatic. The Caribbean has particular importance in international institutions due to the number of sovereign states it represents at the United Nations. Beijing therefore seeks to strengthen its relations with these countries to increase its diplomatic influence and progressively reduce the international space still occupied by Taiwan with certain Caribbean states.

• The third objective is strategic. China’s presence in a region historically considered the United States’ privileged sphere of influence is also a means of affirming the global dimension of Chinese power. Even without seeking a military presence comparable to Washington’s, Beijing wishes to demonstrate that no region of the world can henceforth be considered as belonging exclusively to a single power.

Infrastructure: The New Instrument of Power

One of the central elements of Chinese strategy relies on infrastructure. In several Caribbean countries, difficulties in accessing international financing have created a space favorable to Chinese investment. Beijing often offers rapid, visible projects directly linked to the immediate economic needs of partner governments. This approach appeals to several states seeking concrete solutions to improve their infrastructure and accelerate their development.

However, this presence also raises strategic questions. Modern infrastructure is no longer merely an economic tool. Ports, digital networks, power plants, or communication systems can also become instruments of political and strategic influence. It is precisely this dimension that concerns Washington. U.S. officials consider that certain Chinese investments could, in the long term, offer Beijing an additional capacity for economic, technological, or informational influence in a region located in the immediate vicinity of U.S. territory.

However, a balanced analysis also requires recognizing that China’s expansion partly responds to a reality created by the unmet needs of Caribbean states. When traditional partners do not offer sufficient investment or suitable solutions, regional governments naturally seek other alternatives.

The Panama Canal: An Infrastructure at the Heart of Global Competition

Panama holds a particular place in this new geopolitical competition. The Panama Canal remains one of the world’s most important maritime infrastructures. Connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, it constitutes an essential passage for international trade and a major element of global logistics chains. China’s economic presence around Panamanian port infrastructure has therefore acquired significant strategic importance. For Beijing, participating in Panama’s logistical development represents an opportunity for further integration into major international trade networks.

For Washington, this presence is much more sensitive. The canal has particular historical and strategic value in American memory. The United States built it at the beginning of the 20th century and administered it for several decades before its final transfer to Panama in 1999. The central question is therefore not solely economic. It also touches on the ability of a rival power to develop influence around an infrastructure considered essential to U.S. economic and strategic security.

The Panama Canal thus illustrates a major transformation of the 21st century: civil infrastructure is progressively becoming an instrument of geopolitical power.

China, Cuba, and Venezuela: A Strategy with States Under U.S. Pressure

China has also strengthened its relations with certain Caribbean states that have faced tensions with Washington for several decades, notably Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba represents a symbolically important partner. Since the 1959 Cuban revolution, the island remains one of the most sensitive issues in relations between the United States and the Caribbean. Faced with U.S. economic restrictions, Havana has long sought to diversify its international partners.

China has progressively developed cooperation with Cuba in several sectors, notably trade, energy, telecommunications, and certain infrastructures. For Havana, this relationship constitutes a source of economic support and a means of reducing its international isolation. For Beijing, Cuba also has particular political value. Its geographic proximity to the United States and its diplomatic history make it a partner whose importance extends far beyond the economic dimension.

Venezuela represents another major pillar of Chinese strategy. Before the worsening of its economic crisis, Caracas had become one of Beijing’s main energy partners in Latin America. China had granted significant financing to Venezuela and developed deep cooperation in the oil sector. After the imposition of U.S. sanctions, Beijing became an essential actor allowing Venezuela to maintain certain international economic relations. This situation illustrates an important characteristic of Chinese strategy: taking advantage of periods of crisis to gradually strengthen its influence.

The Technological Battle: Telecommunications, Digital Sovereignty, and the New Infrastructure Competition

Beyond physical investments, the competition between China and the United States in the Caribbean is progressively moving towards another strategic field: technology. The digital transformation of Caribbean economies creates new needs in connectivity, cybersecurity, data storage, and digital infrastructure. Chinese companies have sought to participate in this transformation by offering solutions in telecommunications, digital networks, and technological equipment. For several Caribbean states, these partnerships represent an opportunity to accelerate their digital modernization in a context where national financial resources remain limited.

But this technological dimension extends far beyond the commercial question. In a world where data, communication networks, and digital infrastructure become essential elements of national sovereignty, the choice of a technology provider also constitutes a strategic decision. Washington thus considers that the presence of Chinese companies in certain sensitive sectors could have implications for security, data protection, and the capacity for external influence. The question is therefore no longer only who builds digital infrastructure, but also who controls the technologies that will enable Caribbean societies to function in the 21st-century economy.

This technological competition should become one of the main axes of indirect confrontation between Beijing and Washington in the coming years. For Caribbean states, the challenge will be to benefit from the opportunities offered by the digital transformation while preserving their strategic autonomy.

The Limits of China’s Strategy in the Caribbean

Despite its rapid expansion, China’s influence in the Caribbean remains confronted with several important limits. The first limit concerns the historical depth of relations. The United States has a structural advantage in the region related to its geographic proximity, economic ties, diasporic communities, and cultural influence. This historical presence cannot be rapidly replaced by an external power.

The second limit concerns local perception. While Chinese investments are often welcomed by governments seeking alternative financing, certain questions also arise regarding contract transparency, project financial conditions, local labor participation, and risks of excessive debt.

The third limit lies in the desire of Caribbean states to preserve their autonomy. The majority of governments in the region do not wish to substitute American dependence for Chinese dependence. Their objective is rather to benefit from competition among great powers to obtain more investment, partnerships, and diplomatic space. The new Caribbean geopolitical reality therefore rests less on replacing one influence with another than on the emergence of a multipolar environment in which small states seek to maximize their interests.

China and the 2028 U.S. Election: What New Influence Model for Washington?

The rise of Chinese influence in the Caribbean should become an important subject of the American strategic debate during the 2028 presidential election. The fundamental question for Washington will be: how to preserve its historical influence in the region without pushing Caribbean states further towards alternative partners?

A policy based solely on confrontation could strengthen China’s attractiveness to governments wishing to diversify their international relations. Conversely, a purely defensive approach could allow Beijing to gradually consolidate its economic and diplomatic positions. The real challenge for the United States will therefore be to propose a more ambitious regional strategy, combining security, economic development, energy cooperation, digital transition, and support for democratic institutions.

The competition with China will likely not be won solely through diplomatic or military pressure. It will also depend on America’s ability to demonstrate that its partnership with the Caribbean remains more advantageous, more sustainable, and more respectful of the aspirations of local populations.

China, an Indispensable Power in the New Caribbean

China has become an indispensable actor in Caribbean geopolitics. Its power rests not primarily on a military presence, but on its ability to finance, build, invest, and develop long-term political relations. Its objective is not necessarily to provoke a direct confrontation with the United States in the Western Hemisphere. Its strategy consists rather of gradually transforming a space historically dominated by Washington into a region where several powers can now exercise influence.

For Caribbean states, this evolution represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The arrival of new partners can offer more economic possibilities, but it also exposes the region to the strategic rivalries of the great powers. The central question for the coming years will therefore not simply be which power will dominate the Caribbean, but rather whether the states of the region will be capable of using this new competition to strengthen their sovereignty, development, and collective decision-making capacity.

Russia in the Caribbean: The Return of a Strategic Power in the American Space

Unlike China, whose influence rests mainly on economic power, Russia’s presence in the Caribbean remains essentially political, diplomatic, and security-oriented. Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow had considerably reduced its engagement in the region, gradually allowing the United States to regain a dominant position in its immediate strategic environment.

This period of relative withdrawal has, however, begun to evolve in recent years. Russia has progressively reactivated its relations with several historical partners, mainly Cuba and Venezuela, in a logic that combines Soviet heritage, international projection, and a desire to demonstrate that Moscow retains a capacity for action beyond its immediate regional environment.

Russia’s presence in the Caribbean obviously does not represent a threat comparable to that posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow does not have the same economic resources or the same global alliance network. However, its influence has important symbolic value: it reminds us that the Caribbean is no longer a space exclusively controlled by Washington. For the United States, the Russian question in the region therefore concerns not only Moscow’s military capability. It also touches on diplomatic competition, American international credibility, and Washington’s ability to maintain its influence in its own strategic environment.

The Soviet Legacy: Cuba and the Memory of the Cold War

The relationship between Moscow and Havana remains the historical symbol of Russia’s presence in the Caribbean. After the 1959 Cuban revolution, the Soviet Union became Cuba’s main economic, military, and political partner. For several decades, the island held an exceptional place in Soviet strategy due to its geographic proximity to the United States. The 1962 missile crisis represented the most spectacular moment of this confrontation. For the first time in modern history, the rivalry between two superpowers risked provoking a direct nuclear confrontation.

After the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the Russo-Cuban relationship lost some of its intensity. However, it never completely disappeared. The gradual rapprochement between Moscow and Havana in recent years fits into a historical logic: maintaining a political presence in a region that retains strong symbolic value vis-à-vis the United States. For Cuba, Russia represents a partner allowing it to diversify its international relations. For Moscow, Cuba remains a strategic actor whose importance extends far beyond its geographic size.

Venezuela: Russia’s Main Strategic Partner in the Caribbean

Venezuela today constitutes the second pillar of Russia’s presence in the Caribbean, after Cuba. Since Hugo Chávez came to power in the early 2000s, Caracas and Moscow have progressively built a relationship based on military cooperation, energy exchanges, economic partnerships, and diplomatic rapprochement marked by common opposition to U.S. influence.

This relationship developed in a context of rising tensions between Venezuela and the United States. For Caracas, the partnership with Moscow represented a way to diversify its international alliances and reduce its historical dependence on Washington in strategic and security areas. For Russia, Venezuela constituted an opportunity to maintain a political presence in the Western Hemisphere and demonstrate that Moscow retained a capacity for action in a region traditionally considered to fall under U.S. influence.

Military cooperation has been one of the most visible aspects of this relationship. Russia has provided Venezuela with various defense equipment, including military aircraft, air defense systems, and surveillance technologies. These exchanges have strengthened Venezuelan military capabilities while giving Moscow an additional means of maintaining a strategic relationship with Caracas.

However, this cooperation must be analyzed with nuance. Venezuela has not become a Russian military base comparable to U.S. installations present in different regions of the world. The Russo-Venezuelan relationship rests more on political cooperation, diplomacy, and strategic symbolism than on a permanent military capability.

A Military Presence with High Symbolic Value

The military dimension nonetheless remains an important element of Russia’s strategy in the Caribbean. Moscow has regularly sought to demonstrate its capacity for international projection through naval visits, military exercises, or cooperation initiatives with its regional partners. These actions have a significance that goes beyond their operational dimension. They constitute above all political messages addressed to Washington: Russia wishes to show that it retains the capacity to act in spaces historically considered close to the United States.

However, an essential distinction must be made between symbolic presence and real strategic capability. Unlike the Soviet period, present-day Russia does not have in the Caribbean a military apparatus comparable to that which the Soviet Union possessed during the Cold War. Its economic resources are more limited, its projection capabilities are concentrated on other international priorities, and its military engagement remains constrained by its own geopolitical challenges.

Russia’s influence in the region therefore rests less on material domination than on its ability to exploit existing tensions, maintain political partnerships, and offer a diplomatic alternative to governments wishing to reduce their dependence on Washington.

Russia and Anti-Sanctions Diplomacy: Exploiting Regional Frustrations

One of Russia’s main instruments of influence in the Caribbean is its opposition to U.S. sanctions policies, particularly towards Cuba and Venezuela. Russia regularly presents these measures as instruments of political pressure that limit the economic sovereignty of the states concerned. This discourse finds some echo among several governments and regional actors who consider that international sanctions can have significant social consequences on civilian populations.

In this perspective, Moscow seeks to appear as a defender of an international order based on national sovereignty and non-interference. This strategy allows it to strengthen its relations with certain states that wish to diversify their international partnerships and avoid exclusive dependence on Western powers. However, Russian influence also remains limited by a major economic reality. Unlike China, Moscow does not possess the financial capacity necessary to propose massive investment or development programs in the region. Russia can offer political, security, and diplomatic support, but it does not have the same economic means to durably transform regional structures.

The Limits of Russian Influence in the Caribbean

Despite its strategic return to the region, Russia remains confronted with several important constraints.

• The first is economic. Russian power rests mainly on its energy, military, and diplomatic capabilities. It does not have the same financial weight as China to finance major infrastructure projects or support the economic development of Caribbean states.

• The second limit is diplomatic. The majority of Caribbean countries have deep economic relations with the United States and do not wish to transform the region into a zone of confrontation between great powers.

• The third limit is geopolitical. Moscow’s international priorities are multiple, notably in Europe and other strategic spaces. The Caribbean constitutes an important area of interest, but it does not represent the main center of Russian global strategy.

Thus, Russia can influence certain regional issues, but it does not currently have the means to single-handedly alter the strategic balance of the Caribbean.

The Russo-American Rivalry in the Caribbean: A New Form of Competition

For Washington, Russia’s presence in the Caribbean represents less a direct military threat than a challenge of influence. The American objective is mainly to prevent a rival power from using the region as a political, diplomatic, or strategic platform against American interests. This situation recalls certain elements of the Cold War, but the current context is different. Contemporary competition is less ideological than in the 20th century. It concerns more diplomatic influence, access to resources, economic partnerships, technology, and the ability to influence states’ strategic choices.

The Caribbean thus becomes a space where the great powers seek less to directly control territories than to influence governments’ decisions. For the small Caribbean states, this new reality represents a major challenge. Their objective will be to avoid becoming mere instruments in a rivalry that exceeds their own national interests.

Russia and the 2028 U.S. Election: What Strategic Choice for Washington?

The Russian question could become an important element of the American strategic debate during the 2028 presidential election. Three broad orientations could emerge:

• The first approach would consist of increasing pressure on Moscow’s partners in the region. According to this vision, Cuba and Venezuela must be isolated to limit Russia’s ability to develop its influence in the Western Hemisphere. This strategy would favor economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and support for political forces favorable to a rapprochement with Washington.

• The second approach would advocate a different strategy of influence. According to this perspective, sanctions alone are not enough to reduce Russian influence. The United States should rather propose a more attractive regional alternative based on economic cooperation, investment, energy partnerships, and a renewed diplomatic approach. The objective would be to reduce the political space available to Moscow by strengthening the attractiveness of the American partnership.

• The third question will concern the risk of a new militarization of the Caribbean. Increased confrontation between Washington and Moscow could transform the region into a space of permanent strategic tension. For Caribbean states, the danger would be to become indirect actors in a rivalry between great powers whose consequences could far exceed their own interests.

Russia: A Power Returning, But Not a Dominant Power

Russia has become a visible actor again in the Caribbean, but its influence remains profoundly different from that exerted by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moscow is not seeking today to rebuild a global ideological bloc comparable to that of the past. Its strategy consists rather of demonstrating that it retains a capacity for international action and that no strategic region can be considered exclusively reserved for a single power.

Its influence rests mainly on a few key partners, notably Cuba and Venezuela, as well as its ability to exploit existing tensions between certain regional governments and Washington. However, Russia neither possesses the economic resources nor the alliance network necessary to become the dominant power in the Caribbean. It nevertheless represents an important strategic factor. Its presence forces the United States to rethink its regional policy and confirms a fundamental transformation: the Caribbean is no longer merely a space of historical American influence, but a theater where the major dynamics of global competition now meet.

Other International Actors in the Caribbean: A Region Becoming a Multipolar Diplomatic Space

Competition in the Caribbean is no longer limited to the face-off between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. Other international actors are now seeking to strengthen their presence in a region whose strategic importance is growing: the European Union, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers. Their objectives are different. Some prioritize trade and development, others energy security, diplomatic cooperation, or access to emerging markets. This multiplication of actors offers new opportunities to Caribbean states. But it also creates a more complex environment, where small states must navigate between several influences without losing their strategic autonomy.

The European Union: The Partner of Development and International Norms

The European Union remains one of the most important historical partners of the Caribbean. Its influence rests less on military power than on three main instruments: economic cooperation, development aid, and trade relations. Through its cooperation programs, Brussels finances projects related to the energy transition, climate adaptation, institutional governance, education, health, and economic resilience. The European Union also shares with several Caribbean states a political proximity based on the defense of multilateralism, human rights, and the rule of law. In the Haitian dossier, it remains a major actor of international support, notably in the humanitarian, institutional, and security fields.

The Limits of Europe

Despite its considerable economic weight, the European Union suffers from a strategic handicap: it does not have the same projection capability as the United States or the same speed of action as China. Its financing procedures are often longer and more complex. In an environment where Beijing quickly proposes visible infrastructure and Washington favors security partnerships, Europe must find a new method to maintain its influence. Its challenge is to transform its economic power into genuine geopolitical influence.

Canada: An Engaged Middle Power

Canada holds a particular place in the Caribbean. Its influence rests mainly on historical ties with English-speaking countries, development cooperation, multilateral diplomacy, and the presence of large Caribbean diasporas. Ottawa also plays an important role in regional security issues, notably in Haiti. Canada is often perceived as a less interventionist actor than the United States, which sometimes allows it to maintain a capacity for dialogue with different governments.

The Canadian Challenge

Canada has a positive image in the region, but its means remain limited. Faced with China’s rise and U.S. weight, Ottawa must define a more ambitious strategy if it wishes to retain significant influence. Its main advantage remains the political trust it inspires among many regional partners.

Brazil: The Return of a Latin American Power

Brazil represents a natural actor of the wider Caribbean due to its demographic, economic, and diplomatic weight. The leading economy in Latin America, it has historically sought to play a role of regional leadership. Its influence rests on South-South cooperation, trade, multilateral diplomacy, and development programs. Brazil also has particular experience in relations with Haiti, notably through its past participation in international stabilization operations.

Brazilian Ambitions

Brasilia seeks to defend a vision of a multipolar world where countries of the Global South have greater autonomy. This approach can bring Brazil closer to certain Caribbean states wishing to reduce their dependence on traditional great powers. However, its investment capabilities remain inferior to those of China or the United States.

Mexico: A Regional Power Under Construction

Mexico holds a strategic position between North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. Its geographic proximity to the United States gives it particular importance in migration, trade, and security matters. Mexico maintains important relations with several Caribbean states and seeks to strengthen its diplomatic role. Its regional priorities notably concern energy cooperation, migration management, the fight against criminal networks, and economic integration.

The Mexican Dilemma

Mexico must constantly balance two realities: its indispensable economic partnership with the United States and its desire to affirm Latin American diplomatic autonomy. This intermediate position sometimes limits its influence, but also gives it a mediation capacity.

India: An Emerging Power Seeking Opportunities

India is beginning to strengthen its presence in the Caribbean. Its strategy rests mainly on trade, digital technologies, energy cooperation, and historical ties with certain communities of Indian origin. New Delhi also seeks to broaden its influence within the framework of its global competition with China. The Caribbean represents for India a space where it can develop a diplomatic presence without direct confrontation with established great powers.

Still Limited Influence

India has significant potential, but its presence remains modest compared to that of China. Its challenge will be to transform its diplomatic relations into concrete economic partnerships.

Turkey: An Expansion Diplomacy

Turkey has developed a more active diplomacy in recent years in regions traditionally dominated by other powers. In the Caribbean, Ankara seeks to develop trade, investment, diplomatic relations, and humanitarian cooperation. This strategy is part of a broader desire to become an independent global actor. However, its regional influence remains limited.

The Gulf Powers: Investments and Strategic Diversification

The Gulf countries, notably the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, are showing growing interest in the Caribbean. Their objectives are primarily economic: infrastructure, energy, tourism, logistics, and financial investments. These states have considerable resources they seek to invest in new markets.

The Gulf Model

Unlike traditional powers, the Gulf monarchies generally favor a pragmatic economic approach. They seek less to export a political model than to establish commercial partnerships. This approach can be attractive to several Caribbean governments seeking investments without strong ideological conditions.

The New Reality: A Multipolar Caribbean

The arrival of new actors is profoundly transforming the region. For a long time, the central question was: What was the relationship between each Caribbean country and the United States? Today, a new question arises: How can each state manage several partnerships simultaneously?

This evolution offers considerable opportunities: diversification of investments, access to new markets, competition among partners, increased bargaining power. But it also carries major risks: creation of multiple dependencies, importation of international rivalries, political instrumentalization, and regional fragmentation.

Caribbean countries must therefore navigate this new environment with a keen awareness of their national interests. A passive diplomacy will expose them to being overwhelmed by the logics of the great powers. An active diplomacy, on the contrary, will allow them to transform international competition into a lever for development.

The Caribbean has entered a new historical period. It is no longer simply a zone of American influence. It has become a space where several powers seek to build economic, diplomatic, and strategic relations. The United States remains the dominant actor, but it must now contend with a more competitive environment. China brings capital and infrastructure. Russia provides limited but symbolic political and security support. Europe and Canada offer cooperation and development. Emerging powers seek new opportunities. For Caribbean countries, the major challenge will be to transform this international competition into a lever for development rather than a new form of dependence. The great battle of the 21st century in the Caribbean will not only be a battle to control the region. It will be a battle to gain influence among peoples who seek above all stability, prosperity, and sovereignty.

Haiti at the Heart of Regional Recomposition: From Vulnerability to Strategy

Among all the states of the Caribbean, Haiti holds a paradoxical position. It is both the most fragile country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most symbolic. Its geographic situation, in the center of the Caribbean and close to U.S. shores, makes it a point of permanent attention for Washington. Its diaspora, one of the most dynamic in the region, constitutes a considerable economic and political asset.

Yet, for decades, this potential importance was not transformed into real power. Chronic political instability, weak institutions, security degradation, and humanitarian dependence have reduced Haiti to the status of an international problem rather than a strategic actor. This situation is not inevitable. It is the result of political choices, historical legacies, and an unfavorable power dynamic that the country can begin to reverse.

Fragility as an Issue of Regional Security

The first reality to understand is that Haitian fragility is no longer a purely national problem. It has become a regional security issue. The insecurity spreading in Port-au-Prince and certain provinces fuels migration flows, transnational trafficking, and diplomatic tensions between neighboring countries. The Dominican Republic, the United States, Canada, and the CARICOM Caribbean states are all directly affected by what happens in Haiti.

This recognition is both a danger and an opportunity. A danger, because it can lead to increased interference by foreign powers. An opportunity, because it gives Haiti a negotiating lever: the international community needs stability in Haiti as much as the country itself. The stabilization of Haiti cannot therefore be solely a humanitarian objective. It must become a shared political, security, and economic project. International actors wishing to maintain their influence in the region have every interest in contributing to this reconstruction. It is up to Haiti to define the conditions for this cooperation.

Refounding the State: A Prerequisite for Any External Strategy

The absence of a state is the main obstacle to the emergence of a coherent Haitian foreign policy. A country whose institutions are paralyzed, whose administration is failing, and whose justice system is incapable of exercising its prerogatives cannot negotiate with the great powers on an equal footing. It can only implore or endure.

The absolute priority must therefore be institutional refoundation:

• Security: Restore a legitimate monopoly on force. This presupposes a profound reform of the police, a justice system capable of judging criminals, and regional security cooperation based on respect for sovereignty.

• Governance: Re-establish a functioning public administration, capable of collecting taxes, managing basic services, and executing development projects.

• Justice: Fight impunity, restore confidence in the judicial system, and offer guarantees to investors and citizens alike.

• Planning: Define a long-term national vision, beyond electoral cycles and humanitarian emergencies.

• These reforms are not merely internal requirements. They are the conditions for any international credibility. A Haiti that controls its territory, protects its citizens, and administers its resources can negotiate with Washington, Beijing, or Brussels. A Haiti that remains in institutional incapacity can only be assisted, never truly associated.

Diaspora and Soft Power: Haiti’s Overlooked Assets

Haiti possesses assets that most analyses neglect. Its diaspora is one of the largest in the region, representing several million people spread across the United States, Canada, France, the Caribbean, and Latin America. This diaspora is a considerable economic reservoir: remittances represent a massive share of Haiti’s GDP. But it is also a political and cultural lever.

Haitian citizens abroad can influence migration policies, defend the country’s interests in foreign capitals, and facilitate access to influence networks. A coherent national strategy must integrate this diaspora as a full-fledged actor, not merely as a source of revenue. Furthermore, Haiti remains a global symbol. The first independent black republic, born from a successful slave revolt, the country carries a historical memory that resonates far beyond its borders. This memory is a diplomatic asset. It can be mobilized to obtain special treatment on the international stage, draw attention to historical injustices, or justify requests for reparations and enhanced cooperation.

Haiti’s Strategic Choices in the Face of the Great Powers

For Haiti, the issue is not choosing a side. It is learning to practice a modern diplomacy of balance, capable of profiting from external rivalries without being trapped by them.

1. The United States: Indispensable Partner, but Not Exclusive

The United States is the historical and geographical principal partner. Their economic, diplomatic, and security influence is considerable. A realistic Haitian strategy cannot ignore this reality. But Washington has often oscillated between indifference and interference. Haiti must learn to manage this relationship: accept support and cooperation, but refuse tutelage. The United States needs a stable Haiti. It is this American vulnerability, paradoxically, that gives Port-au-Prince leverage.

2. China: The Infrastructure Partner

China offers financing and infrastructure. Its projects for roads, ports, energy, or telecommunications can accelerate Haiti’s economic development. Several other Caribbean countries have already made this choice. But China imposes its conditions: cost, limited transparency, Chinese employees, and sometimes disputed debts. Haiti must learn to say yes to China, but by negotiating balanced contracts, protecting its long-term interests, and diversifying its partners.

3. The European Union and Canada: The Governance Allies

These partners offer cooperation based on values, norms, institutional programs, and humanitarian aid. They are often less politically constraining than Washington or Beijing. Their support is essential for institutional reconstruction, justice, and governance. But their aid is sometimes slow, conditional, and less visible. Haiti must learn to mobilize it effectively.

4. CARICOM: The Regional Collective as a Shield

CARICOM offers important diplomatic protection. It allows for defending common positions, weighing collectively in international negotiations, and benefiting from neighborhood solidarity. Haiti must invest in this regional framework and make it a priority coordination space.

Haiti and the Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Triangle: A Strategic Solidarity

The three countries of the strategic triangle share common challenges: relative isolation from Washington, institutional and economic crises, and migratory and symbolic importance. Haiti can and must strengthen its relations with Cuba and Venezuela. Not to oppose the United States, but to diversify its alliances, build regional solidarities, and defend common interests. Cuba brings its experience of resilience in the face of sanctions, its model of medical cooperation, and its historical diplomatic influence. Venezuela, despite its crisis, retains energy resources, political weight, and historical ties with Haiti via regional cooperation programs. The reconstruction of an active solidarity between these three countries would strengthen each of them. It would allow them to speak with one voice in negotiations with the great powers.

Avoiding Automatic Alignment, Practicing the Diplomacy of Balance

The great challenge for Haiti, as for other Caribbean states, is to learn to navigate between powers without automatically aligning with any. A diplomacy of balance means: accepting cooperation from all, without depending exclusively on any; negotiating concrete, transparent agreements beneficial to the population; refusing to be instrumentalized in rivalries between great powers; defending its sovereignty without isolating itself diplomatically; using regional organizations to strengthen its collective weight. This approach is demanding. It requires analytical capacity, political stability, and professional institutions. But it is the only one that will allow Haiti to leave the position of object of geopolitics to become an actor in its own future.

Cuba: Between Revolutionary Heritage and the Necessity of Transformation

Cuba holds a unique place in the strategic triangle. Long considered the symbol of anti-American resistance in the hemisphere, the island is today confronted with an existential challenge: how to preserve its political and social model while adapting to new economic, demographic, and geopolitical realities?

The Cuban regime has demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience. It has survived the collapse of the USSR, the persistence of the U.S. embargo, the economic crisis of the 1990s, and the political tensions of the 21st century. But this resilience has a cost. The Cuban economy is drained. Infrastructure is aging. The population faces recurrent shortages and very low purchasing power. Emigration is reaching historic levels, draining the country of its lifeblood.

The Cuban question is therefore not only political. It has become a question of economic and social survival. The Havana regime must find a new balance between political control and economic openness, between its historical alliance with Moscow and Beijing and the need to renew pragmatic ties with Washington.

Scenarios for Cuba After 2028

1. Gradual Adaptation: Havana undertakes limited economic reforms, allows more foreign investment, partially liberalizes certain sectors. The political system remains unchanged, but Cuban society benefits from a gradual improvement in living conditions. This scenario assumes a relaxation of U.S. sanctions and a certain internal political stability. It is the most likely if Washington adopts a pragmatic approach.

2. Controlled Transition: Under pressure from economic and social difficulties, the Cuban regime accepts deeper political reforms. A gradual opening occurs, accompanied by stability guarantees. The United States and the European Union support this process. This scenario requires strong political will on both sides and careful management of tensions. It is possible but difficult.

3. Worsening Crisis: The economy continues to deteriorate, emigration intensifies, social tensions increase. The regime hardens its position, U.S. sanctions strengthen. Cuba enters a phase of prolonged instability. This scenario is the most dangerous for the region. A major Cuban crisis would cause a massive migration wave, tensions in the Caribbean, and increased competition among great powers on the island.

The Cuban Choice

For Cuba, the issue is clear. It is no longer possible to maintain the status quo. The country must choose a path. Either a controlled opening that preserves the essence of the system while adapting it. Or a prolonged crisis that risks destroying what the regime has built. The United States has a role to play in this choice. A policy of maximum pressure could accelerate collapse but also provoke regional instability. A policy of conditional dialogue could offer a way out, provided Havana shows its willingness to reform. Cuba’s future is therefore intimately linked to the 2028 U.S. election. The next president will have to decide whether he wants a stable Cuba or whether he accepts the risk of a major crisis 150 kilometers from the Florida coast.

Venezuela: The Energy Power in Suspense

Venezuela remains one of the most complex cases in contemporary geopolitics. Endowed with the world’s largest oil reserves, it is nonetheless mired in a historic economic and social crisis. A country once the engine of regional integration, it is now diplomatically isolated, but remains a central issue for the great powers.

Venezuelan oil is not disappearing. It awaits. It awaits political and economic conditions allowing a resumption of massive exploitation. This reality gives Venezuela a strategic weight that its current situation seems to contradict. The United States, China, Russia, and even India or Turkey closely monitor the country’s evolution. Whoever can secure access to Venezuelan resources will have a considerable advantage in the decades to come.

Venezuelan Scenarios

1. Negotiated Transition: A political agreement between the government and the opposition allows gradual opening, a partial lifting of sanctions, and the return of foreign investment. Venezuela regains economic growth and reintegrates the international community.

2. Authoritarian Stabilization: The conservative government maintains political control while accepting limited economic reforms to ensure its survival. The situation remains tense but manageable.
3. Prolonged Collapse: The absence of political compromise, maintenance of sanctions, collapse of institutions, and mass emigration. Venezuela becomes a fragile state, a terrain of competition among foreign powers.

The Issue for the Caribbean

A stable Venezuela would reduce migration pressures on neighboring countries, stabilize part of the region’s energy supply, and allow for diplomatic reintegration beneficial to the entire Caribbean. A Venezuela in crisis would amplify regional tensions, fuel insecurity, and reinforce the presence of external actors.

What Strategy for Haiti and the Caribbean Facing the America of Tomorrow?

The previous chapters have shown that the 2028 U.S. presidential election could constitute a moment of rupture for the Western Hemisphere. The Caribbean has become a space of strategic competition where the interests of the United States, China, Russia, and other emerging powers clash. Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela are at the center of this recomposition. Their internal instability, geographic importance, and complex relations with Washington make them territories where power dynamics unfold that far exceed their borders.

But the Caribbean must not be reduced to the role of a battleground between external powers. It has its own capacity for action. Its states can choose their alliances, defend their interests, and build a collective strategy adapted to a world that has become multipolar. This final part explores the possible choices for Haiti and the region: rebuilding states, mobilizing diasporas, diversifying economic partnerships, strengthening regional cooperation, and transforming current vulnerabilities into strategic levers.

Building a Caribbean Strategy for the 21st Century

The Caribbean can no longer simply wait for the great powers to decide its future. It must develop a collective vision and coherent national strategies. This strategy rests on several pillars:

1. Strengthened regional integration: CARICOM and the OECS must be strengthened. Diplomatic coordination, common commercial policy, regional security, crisis management, and defense of collective interests are absolute priorities.

2. Diversification of partnerships: Caribbean countries must multiply their alliances. The United States remains the principal partner, but China, Europe, Canada, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers offer opportunities to seize.
3. Strengthening national institutions: A state that does not control its territory, does not administer justice, does not collect taxes cannot be a strategic actor. Institutional refoundation is the basis of any credible foreign policy.

4. Mobilization of diasporas: Caribbean diasporas are major economic and diplomatic assets. They must be integrated into national strategies as full-fledged partners, not merely as sources of financing.

5. Defense of sovereignty in a multipolar world: Caribbean states must learn to navigate between powers without automatically aligning with any. Sovereignty does not mean isolation. It means the ability to choose one’s partners and negotiate one’s alliances.

Haiti: Transforming a Historical Vulnerability into a Geostrategic Advantage

Haiti is generally described as one of the most fragile states in the international system. This reality is undeniable: security crisis, institutional weakness, massive poverty, political instability, and external dependence. But this reading has a limit. It presents Haiti solely as a problem to be solved, never as an actor capable of weighing on its regional environment. Yet Haiti has several strategic advantages rarely exploited: a central geographic position in the Caribbean, an influential global diaspora, a young population, underutilized economic potential, and a history that gives it unique symbolic importance in the international space.

The challenge is therefore not only to emerge from the crisis. It is to reposition Haiti as a regional actor.

The Diaspora: The Forgotten Strategic Capital

The Haitian diaspora represents one of the country’s main assets. Present mainly in the United States, Canada, France, and several Caribbean countries, it constitutes a considerable economic, intellectual, and diplomatic network. Financial transfers sent by Haitians living abroad have for several years represented an essential source of revenue for the national economy. But reducing the diaspora to its financial role would be a strategic error. It also represents human capital: entrepreneurs, qualified professionals, academics, scientists, investors, and community actors.

A modern national policy towards the diaspora should go beyond the traditional logic of financial solicitation. It should create a genuine strategic partnership: dedicated investment mechanisms, temporary return programs for skills, innovation networks, participation in major national projects, and diplomatic mobilization in host countries. In the United States notably, the Haitian community can become a relay for political, economic, and cultural influence. The diaspora must no longer be considered an external extension of Haiti. It must become one of its main instruments of power.

Geography: Transforming a Position into an Advantage

Haiti occupies an exceptional geographic position at the heart of the Caribbean. Located close to the United States, on one of the main maritime routes of the Western Hemisphere, the country could become a regional commercial, logistical, and digital hub. This position is today largely underutilized. The development of modern infrastructure could transform Haiti into a regional platform: competitive international ports, special economic zones, trade corridors, digital infrastructure, and logistics platforms connecting the Caribbean to the Americas.

Proximity to the Dominican Republic is also a strategic factor. Despite historical tensions, the two countries share a common geographic reality and could develop economic complementarities in energy, transport, agriculture, tourism, and regional production chains. Geography is never a guarantee of power. It becomes an advantage only when accompanied by a political vision and institutions capable of transforming it.

Rebuilding the State: The Prerequisite

No geopolitical strategy is possible without a functioning state. The Haitian crisis is not solely an economic or security crisis. It is above all an institutional crisis. The weakness of the state has created a vacuum progressively occupied by armed groups, criminal networks, and special interests. Reconstruction must therefore begin with three priorities:

1. Restoring security: The fight against gangs cannot be only a one-off police operation. It requires a profound reform of security forces, effective border control, the fight against arms trafficking, and structured international cooperation. Security is the primary condition for any economic reconstruction.

2. Reforming institutions: A modern state requires a professional administration, an independent judiciary, a credible electoral system, and effective anti-corruption mechanisms. Without solid institutions, investments and international programs remain temporary.

3. Re-balancing the territory: The excessive centralization of Port-au-Prince has aggravated national imbalances. Reconstruction must involve genuine decentralization: development of secondary cities, regional investments, strengthened local autonomy, and creation of territorial economic hubs. A strong state is not only a state present in the capital. It is a state present everywhere.

Economic Potential: Emerging from Dependence

Haiti can no longer build its future solely around international aid, traditional agriculture, and diaspora transfers. The country must develop strategic sectors: modern agriculture and agro-industry, cultural and ecological tourism, the digital economy, renewable energies, light industry, and regional financial services. The economic transition must also integrate the new geopolitical reality: global production chains are now seeking to reduce their excessive dependence on certain Asian hubs. Geographic proximity to the United States could allow Haiti to become a proximity partner in certain regional value chains. But this requires a fundamental condition: stability.

Cuba and Venezuela: Between Adaptation and Strategic Repositioning

Cuba and Venezuela hold a particular place in the geopolitical balance of the Caribbean. For decades, these two countries constituted the main points of resistance to U.S. influence in the region. Their political, energy, and diplomatic alliance allowed the Cuban regime to survive after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and Venezuela to maintain regional influence despite its economic collapse. But this model is reaching its limits. The economic crisis, the evolution of the international system, and the rise of a multipolar world force Havana and Caracas to rethink their strategies. Their survival will depend less on their ability to resist external pressures than on their aptitude to transform their own internal structures.

Cuba: Between Economic Opening and Political Transition

Cuba is going through one of the most difficult periods in its recent history. After surviving the end of Soviet support in the 1990s, then several decades of U.S. sanctions, the island faces a multidimensional crisis: energy shortages, food difficulties, demographic aging, mass departure of part of its youth, and loss of confidence of a population facing economic stagnation. The Cuban economic model, based on strong state centralization, is showing its limits. The government has gradually recognized the need for adaptation, authorizing more private initiatives and seeking new foreign investment. But the issue goes beyond mere economic reform.

The Need for a New Economic Architecture

Cuba has several assets: a high level of education, recognized medical expertise, a strategic geographic position, and considerable tourism potential. However, these advantages remain insufficiently exploited due to structural constraints: low productivity, excessive bureaucracy, lack of investment, restrictions on entrepreneurship, and limited access to international markets. A sustainable transformation would require a deeper evolution: development of the national private sector, creation of an environment favorable to foreign investment, agricultural modernization, reform of the energy system, and greater integration into regional trade. The objective would not be to completely abandon the Cuban social model, but to create a more flexible economy capable of meeting the population’s needs.

The American Question: Confrontation or Normalization?

The relationship with Washington remains the most determining external factor for Cuba’s future. For over sixty years, U.S. policy has oscillated between two strategies: maximum pressure to provoke political change and diplomatic engagement to encourage gradual evolution. Historical experience shows that economic isolation did not lead to the collapse of the Cuban regime. It rather contributed to reinforcing certain defensive reflexes of the power and increasing Cuba’s dependence on other partners like Russia and China. A new U.S. approach could therefore favor a gradual economic opening, academic and cultural exchanges, health cooperation, and dialogue on migration and security issues. The Cuban question could become an important issue in the 2028 U.S. presidential election: between those who favor ideological firmness and those who consider U.S. influence passes more through engagement than isolation.

Cuba in a Multipolar Environment

Cuba must also review its external dependencies. For a long time, the island benefited from the support of a dominant partner: the Soviet Union before 1991, Venezuela during the Chávez-Maduro era, and today a more diverse set including China and Russia. But no foreign power can durably replace a national development strategy. Cuban diplomacy will therefore have to seek a balance: preserve its historical relations, attract Western investment, strengthen its regional ties, and avoid excessive dependence on a single partner. Cuba’s future will depend less on the survival of the current system than on its ability to evolve.

Venezuela: Rebuilding After the Crisis

Venezuela represents one of the greatest paradoxes in Latin America. The country has the world’s largest oil reserves, but it has experienced one of the most spectacular economic collapses in contemporary history. The Venezuelan crisis is the result of a combination of factors: excessive dependence on oil, poor economic management, corruption, institutional weakening, political tensions, and international sanctions. The central question is therefore not only the recovery of oil production. It is the reconstruction of a state capable of using its resources for national development.

Oil: An Opportunity to Rebuild

Venezuela has an advantage that few countries possess: its energy resources. But oil can no longer be considered a sole solution. A modern strategy should combine modernization of the oil industry, economic diversification, agricultural development, technological investment, and professional training. Venezuela must emerge from the rent model that made it extremely vulnerable to international fluctuations. Energy revenues should finance an economic transformation, not simply maintain a political system.

Institutional Reconstruction

Venezuela’s stabilization also requires political reconstruction. Without credible institutions, no sustainable investment will be possible. Priorities should include: restoration of electoral confidence, judicial independence, protection of public freedoms, national reconciliation, and the gradual return of international investors. Venezuela still has significant human resources: engineers, entrepreneurs, academics, and a large diaspora. Their mobilization will be essential to rebuild the country.

A New International Positioning

Venezuela will also have to redefine its alliances. In recent years, Caracas has strengthened its ties with Moscow and Beijing to compensate for its Western isolation. This strategy allowed the Venezuelan government to survive, but it also limited its economic options. A more balanced foreign policy could consist of maintaining relations with China and Russia, re-establishing economic ties with the United States and Europe, strengthening cooperation with Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, and participating more in regional mechanisms. Venezuela could become a major actor in the Caribbean and South America again, but only if it transforms its potential into solid institutions.

The Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Triangle: A New Strategic Reading

These three countries are often analyzed separately. Yet, they form a particular geopolitical ensemble. Haiti represents the issue of institutional and security stability. Cuba represents the ideological and diplomatic issue. Venezuela represents the energy issue. Their evolution will directly influence the regional balance. For Washington, Beijing, and Moscow, this triangle remains strategic. For the peoples concerned, it represents above all a fundamental question: how to transform historical vulnerabilities into development opportunities?

Towards a More Coordinated Caribbean Diplomacy?

For a long time, the Caribbean was considered a collection of scattered, vulnerable states dependent on external great powers. This perception has often limited the region’s ability to defend its own interests in major international debates. Yet, the challenges Caribbean countries face are largely common: climate change, transnational crime, migration, energy dependence, economic vulnerability, and competition among powers. Faced with these issues, a new approach becomes necessary: moving from fragmented diplomacy to more coordinated regional diplomacy. The Caribbean will not be able to influence the world order by remaining divided. It will have to build a collective negotiation capacity, capable of dialoguing with Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Brussels, or New Delhi without losing its strategic autonomy.

CARICOM: From Economic Integration to Diplomatic Power

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) remains the most important institutional instrument of regional cooperation. Created to foster economic and political integration, it has gradually expanded its role to include security, climate change, and international diplomacy. But its influence remains limited by several factors: weak institutional resources, divergent interests among member states, differences in economic size, and excessive dependence on external partners.

CARICOM must take a new step. It can no longer be merely a consultation space. It must become a genuine geopolitical actor. This implies more systematic coordination of international positions, common representation in certain strategic negotiations, regional economic diplomacy, and a permanent geopolitical analysis capability. In a world dominated by large blocs, small states can only weigh in by pooling their forces.

Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Moving Beyond the Logic of Confrontation

The relationship between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is one of the most sensitive issues in the Caribbean. The two countries share the same island, a common land border, and important economic interdependencies. Yet their relationship remains marked by historical tensions, notably around migration, trade, and identity issues. This situation cannot be sustainable. The two countries have an interest in building a more pragmatic cooperation framework around several priorities: border security, the fight against criminal networks, orderly migration management, cross-border economic development, energy cooperation, and environmental protection. The stability of the island of Hispaniola will depend on the ability of the two states to move from a relationship dominated by mistrust to one based on common interests. The Dominican Republic cannot have lasting stability with a neighbor constantly in crisis. Haiti cannot rebuild its economy without a constructive relationship with its main geographic partner.

Maritime Security: A Regional Priority

The Caribbean is a strategic maritime space. Its trade routes connect North America, Latin America, and global markets. Its ports play an essential role in international trade. But these same spaces are also exploited by criminal networks. The region faces several threats: drug trafficking, arms trafficking, clandestine migration, illegal fishing, and organized crime. No Caribbean state alone possesses the means to effectively respond to these challenges. A regional strategy should include intelligence sharing, cooperation between navies and coast guards, joint maritime surveillance, technological cooperation, and partnerships with the United States, Canada, and Europe. Maritime security is no longer merely a military issue. It has become a condition for regional economic development.

Economic Diplomacy: Emerging from Dependence

For decades, Caribbean economies have rested on a few vulnerable sectors: tourism, traditional agriculture, diaspora transfers, and limited exports. This dependence exposes the region to external crises. The new geopolitics, however, offers opportunities. The Caribbean can become a space for investment in several areas:

• Renewable Energies: With significant potential in solar, wind, and marine technologies, the region could reduce its energy dependence.

• Digital Economy: Digital infrastructure can enable the development of remote services, technology companies, and new skilled jobs.

• Blue Economy: The oceans represent major potential: sustainable fishing, aquaculture, marine biotechnologies, ecological tourism, and maritime transport.

• Regional Value Chains: The region must also develop more internal economic complementarities. The objective is not to replace external partners, but to negotiate with them from a stronger position.

Diversification of Alliances: A Strategic Necessity

The competition among great powers places Caribbean states before a historic choice. They can become zones of exclusive influence of an external power, or build a diplomacy of balance. The second option seems most suited to their interests. The Caribbean must be able to cooperate simultaneously with the United States on security, trade, and investment; with the European Union on sustainable development and institutional cooperation; with China on infrastructure and certain investments; with India on technology and emerging partnerships; with Canada on regional cooperation; and with Latin American countries to strengthen South-South integration. Diversification is not an absence of loyalty. It is a strategy of sovereignty.

The Climate Challenge: Building Collective Resilience

Climate change likely represents the most important existential threat for small Caribbean states. Sea-level rise, more violent hurricanes, droughts, and agricultural disruptions directly affect populations, infrastructure, economies, and food security. The region must move from a logic of reaction to a logic of anticipation. This requires resilient infrastructure, regional early warning systems, scientific cooperation, international climate finance, and energy transition. Climate vulnerability must become a major diplomatic argument to obtain more international support.

Ten Strategic Priorities for the Caribbean by 2035

1. Restore regional security: Fight gangs, drug trafficking, and transnational criminal networks.

2. Rebuild fragile states: Strengthen institutions, justice, and public governance.

3. Diversify economies: Reduce dependence on vulnerable sectors and develop new growth drivers.

4. Modernize infrastructure: Ports, airports, roads, energy, and digital networks.

5. Strengthen climate resilience: Adapt territories to new environmental realities.

6. Develop the blue economy: Transform maritime resources into engines of sustainable development.

7. Mobilize diasporas: Make overseas communities economic and diplomatic partners.

8. Diversify international partnerships: Avoid excessive dependence on any single power.

9. Build a strong regional diplomacy: Give CARICOM and regional organizations more strategic capacity.

10. Defend democracy and the rule of law: Without credible institutions, no economic or geopolitical strategy is sustainable.

Making History Rather Than Suffering It: 2028, a Strategic Window for the Caribbean

The history of the Caribbean is one of a region that, for several centuries, has found itself at the crossroads of the ambitions of great powers. Colonization, imperial rivalries, struggles for independence, military interventions, ideological confrontations of the Cold War, economic globalization, and now strategic competition among powers: few spaces in the world will have experienced such a succession of upheavals. Yet, despite the crises, natural disasters, often unfinished political transitions, and persistent economic fragilities, the Caribbean peoples have constantly demonstrated a remarkable capacity for resilience. The challenge of the 21st century now consists of moving beyond this culture of survival to enter a logic of construction, projection, and power. It is no longer merely a question of resisting events, but of acquiring the means to influence their course.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election fits precisely into this dynamic. Its importance extends far beyond U.S. borders. The vote will determine the orientations of the world’s leading power on essential issues such as regional security, migration, trade, investment, international cooperation, or competition with China and Russia. The decisions made in Washington will have direct repercussions on the entire Caribbean basin. But reducing the region’s future to the sole outcome of a U.S. election would be an analytical error. The Caribbean’s evolution will depend just as much on the ability of its own states to define a common vision, strengthen their institutions, and defend their interests in an international environment that has become more complex and more competitive.

One of the main lessons of this study is precisely that the Caribbean is no longer a strategic periphery. For a long time, it was perceived as a simple extension of the U.S. sphere of influence, a secondary space whose balances seemed frozen since the end of the Cold War. This reading now belongs to the past. The rise of China, the diplomatic and security return of Russia, the growing engagement of the European Union, Canada, India, Turkey, and the Gulf powers have profoundly modified the regional geopolitical configuration. The Caribbean has become a space again where the great rivalries of the 21st century intersect: energy security, control of sea routes, supply chains, climate transition, diplomatic influence, technological competition, and competition between development models.

In this recomposition, Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela hold a singular place. Together, they constitute a strategic triangle whose evolution will durably influence the balances of the Western Hemisphere. Haiti remains the symbol of the institutional challenge. Its future will depend on its ability to rebuild a functioning state, capable of ensuring security, restoring citizens’ trust, and creating a favorable environment for development. Cuba finds itself at a crossroads between economic adaptation, preservation of its political model, and the search for a new diplomatic balance with its traditional partners as well as with the United States. As for Venezuela, it illustrates the paradoxes of an energy power possessing immense natural resources but confronted with a profound political, economic, and social crisis. The future of these three states will extend far beyond their national borders. It will directly influence migration dynamics, energy balances, security strategies, and geopolitical competition throughout the Caribbean.

The analysis also shows that the very nature of the relationship between the United States and the region could evolve over the next decade. For more than a century, U.S. policy in the Caribbean has often relied on a logic of strategic preeminence, sometimes based on political, economic, or military pressure. Current changes, however, invite broader reflection. In an environment where states now have a more diverse range of international partners, lasting influence will likely no longer be able to rest solely on power dynamics. It will depend more on the ability to propose credible partnerships, competitive investments, technological cooperation, innovative financing mechanisms, and dialogue respectful of national sovereignties. International competition will not be won solely through military or economic power; it will also be played out on the quality of trust relationships that great powers can build with their partners.

This evolution opens new perspectives for Caribbean states. For the first time in several decades, they have greater diplomatic maneuvering room. The diversification of partnerships is no longer a simple option; it becomes a strategic necessity. Cooperating with the United States in the areas of security, trade, or investment, developing economic relations with the European Union, attracting some Chinese financing, strengthening exchanges with India, Canada, or emerging powers, while consolidating regional integration, now falls within a diplomacy of balance rather than a logic of alignment. Modern sovereignty no longer consists of choosing a side, but of preserving the freedom to choose one’s partners according to one’s national interests.

For this ambition to become reality, the Caribbean will however have to meet several structural challenges. The consolidation of the rule of law, the modernization of public administrations, the fight against corruption, the strengthening of judicial systems, the improvement of the business climate, the securitization of maritime spaces, adaptation to climate change, the diversification of economies, and the upskilling of human resources will constitute the true foundations of its future influence. No geopolitical strategy can produce lasting effects without solid institutions, without effective governance, and without political stability.

Beyond international power dynamics, this study finally recalls an essential truth: major geopolitical transformations always create periods where national trajectories can be redefined. The Caribbean finds itself today at one of these pivotal moments. The upheavals of the international system, global economic recompositions, energy transitions, technological mutations, and the new strategic priorities of the great powers open a historic window that will not remain open indefinitely. States that anticipate these evolutions will strengthen their autonomy and influence. Those that remain prisoners of their fragilities risk, once again, suffering decisions made elsewhere.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election thus constitutes much more than an electoral appointment. It represents a revealer of the profound transformations reshaping the Western Hemisphere and, more broadly, the international system. The election results will undoubtedly be important. But they will not, on their own, determine the future of the Caribbean. That will depend above all on the ability of the region’s leaders, institutions, economic actors, and civil societies to transform their vulnerabilities into development levers, their constraints into opportunities, and their diversity into collective strength.

At the end of this reflection, one conviction stands out. The Caribbean must no longer be envisaged as a simple space where the great powers project their rivalries. It possesses the human, geographic, economic, and cultural resources necessary to become a geopolitical actor in its own right. Its future will be neither exclusively written in Washington, nor in Beijing, nor in Moscow. It will be determined first by the will of the Caribbean peoples themselves to build stronger states, more competitive economies, and a diplomacy ambitious enough to make their voices heard in the new world order.

This is perhaps the true lesson of this study. Great powers will continue to shape the international environment. But the nations that durably mark history are those that know how to recognize moments when balances are transformed, in order to seize the opportunities they offer. For the Caribbean, 2028 could be one of those decisive moments. More than a U.S. electoral deadline, this year could mark the beginning of a new historical stage: that of a region that finally chooses to stop suffering the world’s recompositions, but to fully take its place in them.

THE VIEW OF CPGNNews

Reading America from the Caribbean, Understanding the World to Come

U.S. presidential elections are among the most observed political events in the world. Their reach extends far beyond the framework of U.S. domestic politics. In an international system where Washington remains the leading military, economic, financial, and technological power, each change in the White House influences diplomatic balances, security strategies, international markets, migration flows, trade policies, and the power dynamics that structure the world order.

For the Caribbean, this reality holds particular importance. Situated a few hundred kilometers from U.S. shores, at the crossroads of the major sea routes linking North America, Latin America, and the Atlantic, the region is in direct contact with the strategic priorities of the United States. Decisions made in Washington regarding security, immigration, regional cooperation, sanctions, investments, or trade policy produce immediate effects on the political, economic, and social trajectories of Caribbean states. Few regions of the world live with such proximity to the consequences of every shift in U.S. foreign policy.

The 2028 presidential election, however, occurs in an unprecedented context. The international system is undergoing a profound recomposition of power dynamics. The affirmation of China as a global actor, the strategic return of Russia, the emergence of new regional powers, the transformations of global value chains, the energy transition, the digital revolution, and competition for control of maritime spaces are gradually redrawing the geopolitical architecture of the 21st century. In this new configuration, the Caribbean ceases to be a simple peripheral space. It becomes a strategic territory again where the interests of the great powers converge and where some of the principal balances of the Western Hemisphere are played out.

It is in this perspective that CaribPulse Global News Network conceived this report. More than an electoral analysis, this study offers a prospective reading of the geopolitical consequences that the 2028 U.S. presidential election could produce. Our ambition is not to anticipate the result of a vote or to comment on a campaign. It is to understand how the strategic choices of the world’s leading power could reshape power dynamics in the Caribbean, influence the trajectories of Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, transform regional balances, and accelerate the recompositions of the new world order.

Our approach rests on a fundamental conviction: U.S. elections do not merely change a government; they can alter the strategic environment of dozens of states when decisions made in Washington concern international security, global trade, migration, investment, military alliances, or multilateral institutions. Understanding the 2028 U.S. election thus means analyzing the dynamics that will shape inter-American relations and the geopolitical balances of the next decade.

This approach reflects the editorial vocation of CPGNNews. Born in the heart of the Caribbean, our media defends a simple conviction: this region is not a periphery of international news. It constitutes one of the spaces where the great mutations of the world produce some of the fastest and most visible effects. Debates on regional security, migration, economic sovereignty, strategic investments, energy transitions, new technologies, or rivalry among great powers are not abstract questions. They directly determine the development prospects, stability, and sovereignty of Caribbean peoples.

Our ambition is therefore neither to reproduce the perspective of major international media, nor to defend an ideological reading of international relations. It is to bring an original contribution, based on analytical rigor, cross-referencing of sources, historical depth, and understanding of the realities specific to the Caribbean. Informing, from this perspective, does not mean merely reporting facts. Informing means giving decision-makers, researchers, diplomats, academics, entrepreneurs, and citizens the keys necessary to understand the transformations reshaping their strategic environment.

Through this report, CPGNNews also defends an essential idea: the Caribbean must no longer be analyzed solely as a space where the rivalries of great powers are exercised. It must be recognized as a geopolitical actor in its own right, capable of building its own strategies, diversifying its partnerships, and participating in the elaboration of new regional balances. The challenges it faces are immense, but the opportunities are equally so for states that will know how to anticipate the changes underway rather than suffer them.

Ultimately, this report does not solely deal with a U.S. presidential election. It questions a broader issue: what will be the place of the Caribbean in the new world order that is taking shape? Behind the choice of the next U.S. president looms a deeper recomposition of power dynamics in the Western Hemisphere. Understanding this transformation today is to allow decision-makers to better prepare for tomorrow’s choices. It is to this reflection that CaribPulse Global News Network intends to contribute, with independence, intellectual rigor, and strategic vision.

Yvon Bonhomme
Editor-in-Chief and Geopolitical Analyst
CaribPulse Global News Network (CPGNNews)
“From the Caribbean, understanding the world’s transformations to better anticipate those of our region.”

CPGNNews – CaribPulse Global News Network
From the Caribbean, thinking about the world with rigor, independence, and strategic vision.

Every great idea begins with a question. Every transformation is born from a dialogue. Behind every analysis published by CPGNNews, there is a deep conviction: knowledge has true value only when it is shared, challenged, enriched, and passed on.

If this Grand Report has struck a chord with you, if a reflection inspires you, if an experience deserves to be told, or if you wish to contribute to a better understanding of the major issues of our time, we would be honored to hear from you.

Researchers, academics, journalists, students, decision-makers, entrepreneurs, members of the diaspora, or simply engaged citizens, your voice matters. The Caribbean needs a space where ideas circulate freely, where analyses meet, where experiences are shared, and where perspectives from around the world cross paths in respect for facts, diversity of opinions, and intellectual rigor.

To foster a truly international dialogue, the main reports, investigations, analyses, and studies published by CPGNNews are released simultaneously in French, English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Portuguese, thus reaching the major linguistic communities of the Caribbean, the Americas, and an increasingly broad international public.

CPGNNews was born from a simple yet demanding ambition: to foster an independent Caribbean strategic thought, open to the world, and deeply committed to rigor, intellectual honesty, humanism, and the pursuit of the common good.

We invite you to send us your research, analyses, opinion pieces, articles, proposals, or reactions. Every serious contribution enriches a collective reflection that transcends borders and contributes to a better understanding of the world.

Because great ideas belong to no one. They grow when they are shared. And because understanding the world is a collective work, every sincere voice can help illuminate the future.

Contact the editorial team

📧 Email: info@cpgnnews.com
☎ Phone: +509 2996-9999
💬 WhatsApp: +509 4025-1313.e invite you to send us your research, analyses, opinion pieces, articles, proposals, or reactions. Every serious contribution enriches a collective reflection that transcends borders and contributes to a better understanding of the world.

Because great ideas belong to no one. They grow when they are shared. And because understanding the world is a collective work, every sincere voice can help illuminate the future.

Contact the editorial team

📧 Email: info@cpgnnews.com
☎ Phone: +509 2996-9999
💬 WhatsApp: +509 4025-1313.