Sen. Bill Cassidy is pressing a major American union for answers after reports tied it to messaging and activism that line up with Cuba’s government. The dispute centers on alleged lobbying, embassy contact, and whether union members’ dues are being pulled into a foreign influence effort that has no business showing up inside U.S. labor politics.
Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a formal letter to the International Association of Machinists asking how deep the connection goes. The union, which represents about 600,000 workers, has been described in reports as hosting a Cuban diplomat, echoing Havana’s talking points, and taking part in events that pushed anti-sanctions activism.
The senator’s concern is blunt. He said he worries IAM dues are being spent to promote the interests of what he called a hostile regime rather than the priorities of American workers, and he framed the matter as more than just bad optics.
“I am concerned that IAM Union member dues are financing efforts to change U.S. policy related to the Cuban regime, a State Sponsor of Terror, instead of supporting American workers’ priorities,” Cassidy wrote. “These examples raise serious concerns that IAM Union officials have used their positions within the union to advocate for policy objectives promoted by the Cuban regime as part of a foreign influence scheme.”
That criticism comes after reporting that a Cuban embassy official, David Ramírez Álvarez, spoke at a union hall in Southern California and laid out ways activists could support Cuba’s policy goals. According to the letter, the message was not subtle, with guidance aimed at shaping public pressure, legislative attention, and national activism around the island’s agenda.
The whole thing has a bigger backdrop too. A July State Department report laid out how Havana may be using labor contacts in the United States to push for policies that help the Cuban regime, including lifting the embargo and taking Cuba off the State Sponsor of Terrorism list.
Cassidy also pointed to public messaging that seemed to blur the line between labor advocacy and foreign political promotion. He cited a Cuban Embassy video in which an IAM leader said, “we must and will continue to defend the sovereignty of Cuba and Cuban self determination.”
That same union voice, according to Cassidy, also urged continued protests and louder pressure campaigns, saying, “We must continue to protest, we must continue to make our voices heard in the streets, through social media and beyond,” and later issued a welcome message to two Cuban officials on behalf of the union.
Another part of the controversy reaches back to a meeting at Machinists Hall where supporters of the Cuban government gathered under the banner of the Hands Off Cuba campaign. One IAM representative reportedly told attendees, “The job now is defending Cuba in whatever way we can,” and encouraged people to visit the island if they could.
Cassidy is also leaning on the long memory of Cuba’s record with Washington. In his letter, he referenced the 1996 incident in which Cuban MiG fighters shot down two unarmed civilian aircraft operated by Brothers to the Rescue, killing three American citizens and one permanent resident.
The questions he sent to IAM are wide-ranging and pointed. He wants to know whether union staff have worked with Cuban officials on union time, whether any money has flowed between the union and Cuban-linked figures, whether the union lobbied directly on Cuba policy, and whether leadership believes members could be pulled into influence operations without realizing it.
He also asked for a full accounting of which members and officials took part in Cuba-related advocacy and whether they coordinated with Cuban government figures while doing it. With Congress now paying closer attention, the pressure on IAM is not fading anytime soon, and the answers could tell a lot about how far foreign influence may have reached inside a powerful American labor group.
