In a stark warning to U.S. policymakers, a new report highlights the potential dangers posed by Cuba’s growing ties with Russia, China, and Iran. Despite its deepening economic woes, the island nation, positioned just 90 miles from Florida, could still offer America’s rivals a strategic landing point.

The America First Policy Institute’s report, titled “The Dictatorship Next Door: Cuba and the Fight for the Western Hemisphere,” suggests that Washington has largely misread Cuba’s growing threat. It argues that the nation has been mainly seen as a concern regarding human rights, migration, or economic factors, while its association with America’s adversaries and the resulting security implications have been underestimated. These alliances could facilitate intelligence gathering, military collaboration, cyber operations, and political influence right next to the U.S.

“Cuba poses a significant national security threat to the United States,” stated Melissa Ford Maldonado, the director of AFPI’s Western Hemisphere Initiative, during an interview with News Media ahead of the document’s publication.

Ford Maldonado emphasized, “They remain a hostile communist regime mere miles from Florida,” and underscored Cuba’s long-standing history of antagonism toward U.S. interests and bolstering of U.S. foes.

The report’s most concrete current concern centers on China and suspected intelligence facilities on the island.

A June 18, 2026, analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found continued activity at Cuban sites capable of supporting signals intelligence collection. CSIS said it had previously identified four such sites, several with possible links to China.

Ford Maldonado said she believes the broader evidence of Chinese intelligence activity on Cuba is compelling.

“There is a lot of credible evidence that there are Chinese bases and that there is spying going on in Cuba,” she said, claiming that China has taken advantage of Cuba’s geographic position to monitor U.S. activity.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy told News Media in response to a request for comment that “China-Cuba cooperation is open and aboveboard.”

“Fabricating pretexts and spreading smears cannot justify the U.S. side’s brutal blockade and illegal sanctions against Cuba, nor can they conceal the fact that the U.S. is gravely violating Cuba’s rights to survival and development and breaching the basic norms governing international relations,” the spokesperson said.

“China firmly supports Cuba in safeguarding its national sovereignty and security and urges the U.S. to immediately end its blockade and sanctions against Cuba, as well as all forms of coercion and pressure.”

Russia’s relationship with Havana is older and more extensive.

Ford Maldonado described Moscow and Havana as increasingly “intimate, reliable partners,” pointing to diplomatic and military cooperation as well as Cuban nationals joining Russian forces fighting in Ukraine.

The number of Cubans fighting for Russia is contested. A U.S. State Department cable obtained by Reuters on Oct. 5, 2025 estimated that 1,000 to 5,000 Cubans were fighting in Ukraine alongside Russian forces. Reuters reported that Ukrainian officials had also raised concerns with U.S. lawmakers about Russia’s recruitment of Cuban nationals.

Cuba has denied sending troops to Ukraine. In an Oct. 11 statement reported by Reuters, the Cuban Foreign Ministry said Cuba was not participating in the conflict with military personnel and said it had prosecuted Cubans for mercenary activity. Havana said 40 defendants had faced criminal proceedings between 2023 and 2025, with 26 convicted.

Ukraine nevertheless closed its embassy in Havana in October 2025 and downgraded relations, with Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha accusing Cuban authorities of failing to act against what Kyiv described as large-scale Russian recruitment of Cuban citizens, according to The Kyiv Independent.

The public evidence regarding Iran is considerably less developed — something Ford Maldonado acknowledged when pressed by News Media. “Iran was a little bit trickier,” she said.

“There wasn’t that much substance that I could find to include it in the report,” Ford Maldonado said, adding that she believes Iran has used Cuba primarily as a platform for influence operations.

“The evidence was not as substantive as we saw with China and Russia and Venezuela,” she said.

The Trump administration has nevertheless grouped Iran with Russia and China in its own assessment of Cuba.

In a Jan. 29, 2026, executive order, President Donald Trump declared Cuba’s policies an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security and said Havana aligns itself with Russia, China, Iran and Iranian proxies – Hezbollah and Hamas. The order also accused Cuba of hosting foreign military and intelligence capabilities and specifically alleged deep intelligence and defense cooperation with China and Russian signals-intelligence activity.

AFPI’s report calls for a substantially tougher U.S. response.

“We are not advocating for new American bases,” she clarified. Instead, she said Washington could pursue expanded access agreements, overflight rights, cooperative security locations and stronger regional partnerships.

“The objective is just permanent and persistent… American capability,” Ford Maldonado said.

The call for even greater pressure, however, comes as ordinary Cubans are enduring a severe humanitarian crisis.

Power outages were exceeding 20 hours a day in most provinces, Reuters reported Aug. 13, 2026, crippling food production, transportation and tourism and pushing Cuba’s electrical system toward technical collapse. Reuters described the situation as one of the most severe economic and political crises in Cuba’s modern history and said it had been exacerbated by the Trump administration’s oil restrictions and hardened sanctions.

A July 7 investigation by Human Rights Watch (HRW) described severe shortages of food and medicine, prolonged blackouts, water shortages and deteriorating living conditions.

HRW attributed Cuba’s crisis to multiple factors, including longstanding structural inefficiencies in its highly state-controlled economy, decades of U.S. restrictions on trade and financing, the collapse of tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent tightening of U.S. sanctions. HRW said the 2026 restrictions on oil supplies further deepened the energy crisis.

Critics of the Trump administration’s maximum-pressure strategy argue that further squeezing an already collapsing economy risks worsening civilian suffering and triggering additional instability and migration.

On June 8, U.N.-appointed independent human rights experts called for the sanctions to be lifted, arguing that they were putting Cubans’ access to essential goods and services at risk.

Asked about that broader criticism, Ford Maldonado said the blame belongs with Havana rather than Washington.

“Maximum pressure isn’t harming the Cuban people, it’s harming their regime,” she said, arguing that the Cuban government and Cuban people should be treated as distinct.

“One has brutalized and repressed the other for 67 years now,” Ford Maldonado said. “So maximum pressure is what’s necessary from the United States and from the rest of the world in order to be able to help the Cuban people.”

News Media reached out to the Russian and Iranian embassies but did not receive a response in time for publication.

In a legal battle underscored by grief and outrage, the family of Iryna Zarutska has filed a lawsuit against the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, and its private transit security firm. This action comes a year after her tragic murder sent shockwaves across the nation.

The lawsuit claims that deep-rooted “systemic failures” have left Charlotte’s light-rail system perilously unprotected, posing significant safety threats to passengers.

At the heart of the complaint, the wrongful-death lawsuit—brought against the City of Charlotte and Professional Police Services Inc., known publicly as Professional Security Services (PSS)—asserts that Zarutska’s death was entirely avoidable. At this stage, these allegations await judicial examination.

Lauren Newton, representing Zarutska’s bereaved family and estate, emphasized the longstanding nature of the issues, telling WBTV, “What it shows is the systemic failures that have been within the CATS system for years that the city has been aware of.”

Central to the lawsuit is the accusation that during the fatal incident on August 22, 2025, no security guard was present on the Lynx Blue Line train where Zarutska was stabbed. It further criticizes PSS for inadequately staffing and deploying both armed and unarmed security personnel.

Charlotte’s amended contract with PSS provided funding for 219 security personnel for fiscal years 2025 and 2026, according to the complaint, which alleges PSS had hired 183 at the time of Zarutska’s killing. 

The lawsuit further alleges PSS had only 11 armed guards despite the contract providing for up to 39 armed personnel.

“They weren’t fully staffed,” Newton told WBTV. “If there had been a security guard on that train, Iryna Zarutska would be here.”

Her assertion that a guard would have prevented Zarutska’s death has not been established in court.

Follow the latest on the shocking murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte:

The complaint also takes aim at fare enforcement, alleging Zarutska’s accused killer, Decarlos Brown Jr., rode CATS transportation without paying before the attack.

It alleges there were no physical barriers preventing non-ticketed riders from accessing the light rail.

“There’s been literally no fare enforcement and those things, at a basic level, are what’s necessary for safety. And there’s been none of that,” Newton told WBTV.

The lawsuit alleges Charlotte and PSS knew or should have known about the Blue Line and its stops had repeatedly been the site of criminal activity before Zarutska’s death. 

“Violent crime was absolutely foreseeable,” Newton told WBTV.

The estate brings claims including wrongful death based on allegedly negligent and inadequate security and gross negligence.

It seeks damages exceeding $25,000 and punitive damages against PSS, but not against Charlotte.

“The family doesn’t want this to happen to anyone else’s loved one,” Newton previously told WBTV.

Fox News Digital separately reached out to PSS and Newton for comment but did not receive immediate responses.

The City of Charlotte informed Fox News Digital it does not provide comment on active litigation.

In every clan, a few unsavory characters can usually be found. Yet, the Royal Family seems to be grappling with more than its fair share.

At the forefront of this troubled legacy is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, whose reputation is about to face more scrutiny. He could soon encounter another wave of misconduct allegations, cementing his position as perhaps the most notorious figure within the monarchy.

However, even if Andrew’s situation is seen as exceptional, King Charles faces challenges from other quarters. Next month, Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, are set to return, adding a new layer of complexity.

Meanwhile, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Andrew’s daughters, find themselves enveloped in speculation. Persistent rumors suggest ties to Jeffrey Epstein, their father’s controversial friend and notorious financier.

Adding to this intricate web is Sarah Ferguson, Andrew’s former spouse. While she holds no official royal title, her presence loiters in the backdrop, figuratively permeating like an unshakable reminder of past indiscretions.

The question is no longer how the monarchy deals with its wayward family members, but whether it can survive being beset by so many of them. This is now a crisis unprecedented in the modern history of the Royal Family, stretching back to its reinvention almost 200 years ago by Queen Victoria and her Consort, Prince Albert.

One way to establish which of them presents the greatest threat is to ask which has most to gain from the current chaos. And the answer to that is self-evident. It is the Sussexes.

Harry’s return may be occasioned by a desire to be closer to a father who may not have long to live but it may also be opportunistic – to get his feet under the royal table while his father is in power and before his brother removes his titles and those of his children, Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five.

If the Sussex brand is to grow, it is imperative that Archie and Lilibet remain a prince and princess. The monetary value of those titles is incalculable. It might be argued that, even if the future King William V were to banish them, the children could continue to insist on their royal handles. But the titles would be devalued.

Just as the demoted princes and princesses of Russia and Eastern Europe, from whose ranks Prince Philip came, were regarded as second-class royalty, Archie and Lilibet would never enjoy the glamour that is the birthright of their cousins, Princes George and Louis, and Princess Charlotte.

That would be gall and wormwood to the Duke and Duchess – assuming they still were a duke and duchess. They have evidently realised this, and decided that they need to return to the fold.

And the King seems to have accepted this. We are told Charles was informed of the move only on Sunday and will be pleased to have the chance of spending more time with grandchildren he has hardly seen.

This is the culmination of Project Thaw, entrusted to the King’s assistant private secretary Theo Rycroft, to bring Harry back into the fold.

If it’s true the timing of the Sussexes’ return was a complete surprise to the monarch – and it is well to regard all Palace communications with a measure of scepticism – this suggests it has come as a shock to Archie and Lilibet as well. 

After all, it seems unthinkable that Meghan and Harry will have told the children in advance but forbidden them to breathe a word, even to their grandfather, whom they saw at Highgrove only six weeks ago.

The King’s stamp of approval on the plan is crucial for Harry and Meghan. And it seems certain to be given, not least because there are advantages for Charles himself. Of course he wanted to reconcile with his younger son, but the news will also distract from the awkward questions currently being asked about what he knew of Andrew’s business dealings, as well as wider issues about royal privilege, accountability and governance.

For the next few months, at least, all the talk will be of Harry and Meghan. No one will be looking at the other royal miscreants, unless Andrew becomes the focus of more revelations about Epstein or his former role as the UK’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.

Princess Eugenie, who is still on very amicable terms with the Sussexes, and Princess Beatrice will appreciate the shift of focus away from them. So, doubtless, will their mother, who for practically the first time in her life has been keeping a low profile – not even attending the funeral of her ex-lover and sugar daddy, Formula One tycoon Paddy McNally. 

But if the assorted villains of the family, some less petty than others, are glad of the distraction, the Prince of Wales has been confronted with an unenviable and unexpected dilemma.

William detests his brother so deeply that it is said he refuses to have Harry’s name spoken in his presence.

Yet how will he be able to strip the Sussexes of all their baubles when he becomes King, if their father has publicly forgiven them? Perhaps the greatest test will come at Christmas. By then, Harry, Meghan and their children will have been back in the UK for three months.

Will the couple join the Royal Family at Sandringham? William has made it clear he and his family will not tolerate the presence of the former Prince Andrew, let alone his ex-wife. I strongly suspect he will take the same hard line with his brother.

This places the King and Queen in an appalling position. Do they tell Harry that he isn’t welcome at Christmas? Or do they insist that forgiveness means forgiveness, and that all the Sussexes will be carolling round the Sandringham tree with them? 

In that case, William and Catherine may well feel that Christmas with the Middletons, the Princess of Wales’s family, is the only bearable option. That risks driving a wedge between the heir to the throne and his father, and will certainly cause Charles untold grief.

Such are the problems caused by the bad apples. The rest of the family must manoeuvre constantly to accommodate them. There are no good solutions, only bad compromises.

It appears that Harry and Meghan Markle have achieved all this without issuing an apology for their heinous behaviour, which included accusing the Royal Family of racism and denouncing them on a US chat show.

They have also won the ‘half in, half out’ strategy for which they argued six years ago and were refused by Queen Elizabeth. It is thought Harry will focus on next year’s Invictus Games and charity work, while his wife has reportedly been offered an acting role in Britain and will continue to oversee her lifestyle brand, As Ever.

The couple’s hope is that they may be called to fill in at garden parties as the Palace tests the public mood and that eventually they may return to partial royal duties. This is a cynical and hypocritical reinvention, but creating new narratives has never worried them. 

This is how such characters operate, by refusing to be ashamed of anything they do. The others strive to do nothing that will compromise their reputations. How much easier for the ones without conscience, who can behave as they like and kick out at anyone who dares criticise them for it.

There have been signs for the past year that Harry was keen to set up his own alternative royal court in Britain. The Daily Mail’s royal commentator Richard Eden revealed Project Thaw last December, outlining how it involved not only the King but also government officials. 

This was confirmed by US journalist Rob Shuter who quoted a royal insider as saying: ‘Harry wants legitimacy. He wants to operate in the UK on his own terms – meetings, charitable work, high-level engagements – without being treated as a guest in his own country.’

It would be dangerous to assume he is willing to settle for life on the edge of the Royal Family, as his uncle Andrew has been forced to do. He wants pride of place, with his wife and children beside him.

And he may well get it. However egregious and selfish his behaviour, he is protected by a natural charisma. Harry is easy to loathe but difficult to dislike. It’s little surprise that his approval rating rose six points in the last year, with 33 per cent of the British public viewing him favourably according to YouGov polling last month.

Meghan will have more difficulty in winning over the public, many of whom retain an affection for her husband despite his actions over the past five years. Last month’s poll showed around 22 per cent of respondents viewed her favourably.

But the couple have a formidable PR machine, and must hope that attitudes within the family and country will eventually change, perhaps helped by a wave of sympathy with the 30th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death next August.

All the sympathy for now is with those who lose most by making room for the bad apples. The biggest losers are the Prince and Princess of Wales. They have done their duty while coping with Kate’s cancer diagnosis and will feel betrayed and humiliated.

The news has also undermined the other working royals. Just as Diana used to upstage Charles, Harry and Meghan’s activities are more likely to be reported than the latest charitable work by Princess Anne or Prince Edward.

Royal annals offer just one precedent. In the late 1940s, as King George VI’s health deteriorated, his older brother the Duke of Windsor, formerly King Edward VIII, harboured ambitions of a return to England.

For more than a decade, after renouncing the throne to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson, he had lived in exile abroad.

But his niece Elizabeth was regarded by many as too young and inexperienced to succeed her father. The Duke began dropping hints that he might be prepared to return to Britain and act as Regent, if needed. He gave up this conceited notion when he was told he would not have the tax free status he enjoyed in France.

It might be that, ultimately, the expense of living in the UK will drive away the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, especially if they are required to shoulder the expense of their own security arrangements, put at up to £5 million a year.

They will also face a drain on their finances if they decide not to sell their mansion in Montecito, California – or if they cannot sell it without suffering a serious loss.

As other royal troublemakers have discovered before them, being a bad apple comes at a heavy cost.

• Entitled: The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, the biography of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Sarah Ferguson, by Andrew Lownie, is published by William Collins

KANKAKEE, Ill. (WLS) — In a significant development, Xandria Harris has been found guilty in a high-profile murder case involving the fatal shooting of Bradley Sgt. Marlene Rittmanic and the injury of Tyler Bailey.

Her partner, Darius Sullivan, who was determined to be the gunman, also faced conviction in connection with the case.

ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

The courtroom was tense as Harris, clearly agitated and on edge, received the verdict. Jurors, consisting of seven women and five men, took over four hours before reaching their decision.

Upon hearing the jury declare her guilty, the 30-year-old mother of four broke into tears. She was convicted on several serious charges, including first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer.

The final arguments, scheduled for Friday, faced a delay due to the unexpected dismissal of one juror.

Harris sat through four hours of closing arguments visibly emotional and shaking at times as attorneys delivered their final arguments in a case that has drawn packed courtrooms throughout the trial. Families from both sides attended the proceedings as the case moved into the hands of the jury.

Defense attorneys argued that Harris was “cornered, conditioned, and controlled,” pointing to what they described as years of childhood abuse by her father and domestic violence during her eight-year relationship with Darius Sullivan. Lead defense attorney Cierra Norris also said the response from officers in that incident put Harris in an impossible situation, leaving her stuck in between police and her boyfriend at the time.

The defense contended that Harris’ fear for her own safety, along with Sullivan’s instructions, prevented her from complying with police at the Comfort Inn hotel on Dec. 29, 2021. Sullivan was convicted and sentenced for shooting two Bradley police officers, killing Sgt. Marlene Rittmanic and seriously injuring Officer Tyler Bailey. The encounter began after officers responded to a report of dogs left inside a vehicle.

Body camera video shown during the trial captured approximately 13 minutes of officers knocking on the door of the hotel room occupied by Harris, Sullivan and their children.

Prosecutors argued that Harris intentionally bought time for Sullivan, who had outstanding warrants for his arrest, allowing him to load a firearm before shooting the officers as Harris opened the door.

The defense challenged that account, citing a statement they say was heard on Sgt. Rittmanic’s body camera recording.

Defense attorneys referenced the quote: “I can hear him talking to her in the background telling her what to say.”

Harris testified this week that Sullivan pointed a gun at her head when the police came to their room.

Prosecutors pointed to body camera footage showing the moments after the initial gunfire, when a struggle occurred between Rittmanic and Sullivan. Prosecutors said Sullivan attempted to take the officer’s weapon after his own firearm jammed.

According to prosecutors, Harris helped Sullivan obtain that second weapon, which they said was then used to fire a second fatal shot into Rittmanic’s neck.

After Sullivan fled to Indiana, prosecutors accused Harris of taking weapons and magazines rather than her children’s clothes and toys before meeting Sullivan at his mother’s home in Indiana.

Harris now faces life in prison. She’s due back in court next month for a status hearing.