President Donald Trump recently stated that “a lot of things are going to happen in Cuba in the next, perhaps, two months.” This is the latest echo of the White House’s rhetoric since it designated the Castro regime an unusual threat to U.S. national security in late January.

True to form, he neither ruled out nor confirmed a military operation in the country, though he told Fox News that the situation would not play out as it did in Venezuela — referring to the removal of narco-socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro on January 3.

Meanwhile, several developments are unfolding. More experts are highlighting what we had already anticipated in The Washington Stand: the importance of the administration securing a decisive victory regarding the island before the November midterm elections. At the same time, various political pieces are moving within the country, carrying a faint whiff of “cambio-fraude” (fraudulent change).

“Fraudulent change” is a concept outlined by Oswaldo Payá, a respected dissident murdered by the Castro regime. Essentially, it describes the regime’s maneuvers to ensure the totalitarian system’s survival through cosmetic economic reforms — without granting political freedoms or fundamental rights — thereby keeping the same elite in power.

Those two words have loomed like shadows over Cuba’s political processes and civil society actors in recent decades — particularly those seeking to reform socialism, the dark spirit which has driven, structured, and embodied the end of the prosperous Cuban Republic since 1959.

Recently, the return to the island of centrist thinker Roberto Veiga drew attention. He stated he was coming back to contribute to “opening up and national reconstruction.” This development is notable because the man who coined terms like “loyal opposition” and “agreed-upon change” had been living in Spain since 2019 — a departure he had described as a choice between “the ignominy of insilio (internal isolation) or the frustration of exile.”

According to Veiga, the privilege of returning — something other exiles could not even imagine under the current tyranny — comes with pressures and interrogations. Indeed, his return raises doubts, not least because of the suspicion that he might play a role in a controlled reform orchestrated by the Castro regime, lacking any genuine democratization of the country.

This view stems from the fact that, since the early 2000s, he edited the Catholic magazine Espacio Laical. Payá lamented that the editors acted like “true persecutors, ensuring that no one within the Church voiced open criticism of the government.” According to him, laypeople favoring “dialogue” with the Castro regime dominated Catholic Church publications on the island, acting as “bona fide political commissars.”

The picture is rounded out by dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel’s appointment of economists — presented as “critical” or “independent” — to advise on reforms for the ailing socialist economy. These appointments aim to create an international impression that the island is open to changes regarding property rights or the liberalization of its economic model.

These economists, who now meet directly with the First Secretary of a Communist Party currently holding over 1,200 political prisoners, had previously made a name for themselves within opposition circles through media outlets that present themselves as independent.

Two of them, Omar Everleny Pérez Villanueva and Juan Triana, have been part of Cuba Posible, an initiative led by Veiga.

This shifting of pieces — favoring dialogue with the regime, leaning toward reformism, and condemning U.S. sanctions against the dictatorship — is noteworthy. “Time will tell whether we are witnessing a genuine political proposal or a long-term intelligence operation designed to foster an opposition loyal to a regime struggling to survive the severe material and moral crisis it currently faces,” remarked Cuban-American columnist Eduardo Mesa.

Whether they are agents or mere sympathizers of the tyranny, it should be just as alarming as the fact that they advocate for reforming socialism and ensuring its survival in a new republic. That would amount to poisoning the newborn — failing to learn even the most basic lesson after nearly 70 years of tragedy.

As exiled political scientist Antonio Blanco Gil has noted, while there are agents of influence linked to the regime, there are others who are not necessarily part of State Security. These are individuals who “naturally spread the regime’s disinformation lines because they share ideologies, goals, interests, or business dealings with the powers that be on the Island; at times, they present themselves as members of the opposition or as dissidents, yet their actions objectively serve the dictatorship.” They are “fellow travelers.”

Another version of the sham change that Trump must avoid is negotiating a continuation of the status quo with the Castros — specifically with Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, Raúl Castro’s grandson, as a recent USA Today interview has suggested.

“El Cangrejo” (The Crab) — as he is known — holds no public office, yet serves as his grandfather’s head of security. His role reinforces what I have said for years: while we were taught in school that the higher stage of socialism was communism, reality has shown that the higher stage of socialism is absolute monarchy — not even a parliamentary one, but a regression of centuries by Western standards.

That, too, would be a sham change: leaving the Castro clan in power. My recommendation to the State Department — as I wrote a few months ago — is to avoid falling into the Castros’ traps. They are experts at buying time and creating the appearance of reform where none exists.