分类： politics

In a report published Sunday by Axios, based on declassified (still classified per source) US intelligence, the outlet has alleged that Cuba has acquired over 300 military-grade attack drones, and that Havana is currently holding internal discussions to deploy these unmanned systems against the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, US maritime vessels operating in the region, and even targets within the US state of Florida.

This explosive claim surfaces at a moment of already simmering bilateral friction between Washington and Havana, feeding growing speculation that the Trump administration is actively building a public and intelligence case to justify future military action against the Caribbean island’s communist government.

A senior unnamed US official speaking to Axios emphasized that the development has amplified the Trump administration’s concerns over evolving threats from Cuba, pointing both to the proliferation of drone warfare technology in the region and the confirmed presence of Iranian military advisers operating on Cuban soil. “When we think about those types of technologies being that close, and a range of bad actors from terror groups to drug cartels to Iranians to the Russians, it’s concerning,” the official was quoted as saying. “It’s a growing threat.”

US officials told Axios that Cuba began sourcing attack drones from both Russia and Iran in 2023, and continues to actively pursue additional purchases of the technology to expand its fleet.

Havana has forcefully rejected the allegations, framing the United States as the unprovoked aggressor in the escalating standoff and positioning Cuba as a victim of US aggression. Writing on the social platform X, Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernandez de Cossio denounced the report as part of a baseless propaganda campaign. “The anti-Cuban campaign aimed at justifying, without any excuse, a military attack against Cuba is intensifying by the hour, with increasingly implausible accusations,” he stated. “The United States is the aggressor. Cuba is the country under attack, acting in self-defense.”

The Axios report comes just days after CIA Director John Ratcliffe conducted an official visit to Havana, a trip that took place amid widespread, ongoing power outages across the island that Cuban authorities blame on the Trump administration’s strict fuel blockade. During the visit, Axios reports that Ratcliffe issued a direct warning to Cuban officials against initiating any hostile action against the US. “Director Ratcliffe made clear that Cuba can no longer serve as a platform for adversaries to advance hostile agendas in our hemisphere,” an unnamed CIA official told the outlet.

Cuba has been locked in a geopolitical standoff with successive US administrations dating back to the 1960s, following the Cuban Revolution that brought the communist government to power. The US state of Florida, located roughly 90 miles off Cuba’s northern coast, is home to a large, politically powerful Cuban exile community that has long pushed for hardline US policy against Havana.

Earlier this month, former President Donald Trump escalated rhetoric dramatically, stating that the United States would “take over” the Caribbean island “almost immediately.” He has also previously framed Cuba as the next target for US military action, following a 2020s US operation that removed longtime Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro from power. Additional US media reports have also confirmed that US federal authorities are currently pursuing criminal indictment plans against 94-year-old Raul Castro, the brother of late revolutionary leader Fidel Castro and former Cuban president.

Nearly a decade after a Jamaican man opened fire on a police officer conducting a stakeout in Kingston’s Manning’s Hill neighborhood, the Court of Appeal has finalized his sentence, upholding his conviction on weapons and assault charges while trimming two months off his 20-year prison term to account for pre-sentencing custody time.

The defendant, Rohan Dixon, a St. Catherine resident, was first found guilty in the 2015 incident in 2021 by the Gun Court’s High Court division. For the charge of illegal firearm possession, he received a 15-year prison term, and an additional 20-year sentence for shooting with intent to harm. The court ruled the sentences would run concurrently, meaning Dixon would serve the full 20-year term. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Dixon launched an appeal challenging both his conviction and the original sentencing.

Dixon’s legal team argued the original trial had critical flaws. They claimed there was no physical evidence to prove a firearm was even present at the scene—neither the weapon itself nor spent bullet casings were ever recovered—and no accurate description of the weapon was provided by witnesses. The defense further pushed the claim that prosecution evidence could not support the conviction, as there was no definitive proof Dixon was the person who fired at the officer.

The prosecution’s account of the 2015 incident lays out the context for the case. In July 2015, a team of plainclothes police officers executing an operation targeted a specific residential property in Manning’s Hill. When officers arrived, they found the home empty but discovered clear signs that occupants had fled in a urgent hurry. The team set up a hidden surveillance perimeter around the property to wait for the occupants’ return.

One lead detective, who was a sergeant at the time of the operation, testified that while he was positioned at the rear of the home watching a downhill slope through a window, he spotted two armed men moving up the hill toward the back of the property. The officer moved to hide behind a wall on the home’s left side, where he saw one man approaching his position with a gun pointed directly toward him. When the man got within range, the officer shouted his police identification and ordered the man to stop. The detective confirmed the suspect fired at him, but the shot missed. The officer returned fire, and the suspect fled the yard into nearby dense brush. A subsequent search of the brush turned up multiple blood trails, indicating the suspect had been hit in the exchange.

A month after the shooting, acting on a tip, a detective corporal apprehended Dixon at a home in Gregory Park, St. Catherine. The officer, who had prior knowledge of Dixon, noticed Dixon had a fresh gunshot wound to his ankle. When cautioned, Dixon initially claimed he had been shot while trespassing on a squatted site near Mexico. Later, while detained at the Portmore lock-up, Dixon allegedly admitted to the corporal he had been at the Manning’s Hill scene, telling the officer he had followed another person uptown when police arrived, shots broke out, and he was shot in the foot. During another police interview, Dixon gave a contradictory statement, saying he had never carried a gun, had just run from the house when shots started, and was shot by police.

At his original trial, Dixon swore under oath he had no involvement in the shooting at the officer. He admitted he could not even confirm where he was on the day of the incident, and denied ever telling police he had been present at the scene. During the appeal process, the prosecution successfully petitioned to reopen its case to present new rebuttal evidence refuting Dixon’s claim that he was not at the crime scene.

After reviewing all arguments from both sides and issuing its ruling this month, the Appeal Court confirmed the original convictions were legally sound. Justices on the appeal panel wrote that a thorough review of the case found the lead detective had provided sufficient, detailed description of the firearm used in the attack. The court further noted that the detective’s testimony, which was accepted by the original trial judge, led to one unavoidable conclusion: that Dixon fired at the detective with the clear intent to cause severe bodily harm.

The court highlighted significant aggravating factors that justified the lengthy sentence, including the original trial judge’s note that Dixon’s social enquiry report painted a picture of a man widely feared in his local community. Justices also pointed out that Dixon had two prior convictions for illegal firearm and ammunition possession, both of which were committed after he was charged for the 2015 shooting. He had just finished serving those prior sentences when he was sentenced for the 2015 crimes, further weighing against a more lenient sentence.

A key argument from the defense was that the six-year delay between Dixon’s arrest and his trial violated his constitutional right to a timely, fair trial, and the trial judge had failed to account for this delay in sentencing. The Appeal Court ruled that Dixon could not prove his defense had suffered any prejudice from the overall delay, which was split between prosecution/administrative delays (accounting for 60% of the total wait) and defense-caused delays (the remaining 40%). The court found the three years and four months of delay attributable to the state was not excessive, given the well-documented operational constraints of Jamaica’s justice system, and did not violate Dixon’s constitutional rights.

While the court upheld the convictions, it did find the original trial judge had made a procedural error in carrying out the sentencing. After conducting a full resentencing review, the only adjustment the court made was a two-month reduction to account for pre-sentence custody Dixon served after completing his prior, unrelated sentences. The court rejected the defense’s request for a broader sentence reduction tied to the delay, finding no constitutional violation had occurred that would warrant such a cut.

After apologizing to both legal teams for the delay in issuing the appeal judgement, the court dismissed Dixon’s challenge to his illegal firearm possession conviction and 15-year sentence, affirming that penalty in full. The court allowed the appeal of the 20-year shooting with intent sentence, setting aside the original term and substituting it with a 19-year and 10-month term. As with the original ruling, the two sentences will run concurrently, backdated to the original April 15, 2021 sentencing date.

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Jamaica’s ruling administration has come under sharp criticism from opposition transport spokespeople over stalled efforts to regulate the island nation’s fast-growing ride-hailing sector, even after Cabinet recently signed off on a foundational national policy to guide future rulemaking.

Transport Minister Daryl Vaz confirmed to Parliament on May 5 that the country’s Cabinet had approved the draft national ride-hailing policy, which is intended to serve as the backbone of a full formal regulatory framework for app-based ride services operating across Jamaica. Vaz noted that ride-hailing oversight remains a top priority for the government as it works to modernize Jamaica’s public transport ecosystem and guarantee safe, accessible travel for all residents. A cross-functional steering committee has already been set up to oversee policy development and facilitate input from all transport industry stakeholders, he added, with the next step being the drafting of a policy Green Paper that Vaz expects to table before Parliament within four months.

But Opposition Transport Spokesman Mikael Phillips has rejected the government’s latest announcement as nothing more than another empty promise, arguing that the administration has consistently failed to follow through on past pledges to rein in the unregulated sector. Speaking during the 2026/27 Sectoral Debate in the House of Representatives on May 13, Phillips pointed to the high-profile killing of Jamaican schoolteacher Danielle Anglin, whose death in May 2024 after using a ride-sharing service sparked widespread public calls for urgent safety oversight of the sector. Anglin’s remains were found in Salt River, Clarendon, a tragedy that Phillips calls a damning indictment of the government’s years-long failure to regulate the rapidly expanding industry.

Phillips reminded lawmakers that exactly 12 months prior, Vaz stood in Parliament and made a formal pledge to immediately implement a full legislative framework for ride-hailing services. He argued that the latest announcement of Cabinet-approved policy lays bare the government’s contradiction: if the guiding national policy did not exist a year ago, how could Vaz have promised immediate legislation then? He questioned whether the current policy framework will ever actually translate into enforceable law, warning that Jamaicans could be facing another year of empty rhetoric and hollow commitments that leave commuters without critical safety protections.

Beyond public safety risks, Phillips emphasized that the government’s inaction is also causing severe financial harm to licensed, law-abiding transport operators across the country. Members of leading transport groups including the Jamaica Union of Travellers Association (JUTA), the Jamaica Association of Contractors and Allied Limitations (JACAL), MAXI, and traditional hackney carriage operators are being squeezed by unfair competition from unregulated ride-hailing services, he said, with many facing mounting financial losses as a result of the government’s systemic inertia on the issue. Phillips called the ongoing situation a total abdication of government leadership and a public disgrace, urging Vaz to immediately table the long-promised full regulatory framework for parliamentary debate and approval to protect both the lives of Jamaican commuters and the livelihoods of legitimate transport industry workers.

Growing unrest among Jamaica’s public transport operators over their long-running push for adjusted ticket prices has prompted the country’s Ministry of Transport to call a high-stakes stakeholder meeting set to kick off on Monday, May 18, 2026. Scheduled for 10 a.m. at the Transport Centre located in Half-Way-Tree, St. Andrew, the gathering will bring together senior officials from the Transport Authority and leadership from groups representing bus and taxi operators across the nation. Finance and Public Service Minister Fayval Williams is slated to deliver key remarks during the discussions, the ministry confirmed in an official statement issued late Sunday.

The intensification of operators’ demands comes directly on the heels of steep global fuel price increases, triggered by ongoing geopolitical frictions that have sent energy costs soaring across international markets. Transport operators, already grappling with years of unmet requests for fare adjustments, now face amplified operational cost pressures from the fuel price shock, pushing their demands to a breaking point.

In a comment released alongside the meeting announcement, Transport Minister Daryl Vaz emphasized that the Jamaican government remains acutely attuned to the dual pressures facing both transport workers and ordinary citizens. “The Government is sensitive to challenges facing members of the public who have been trying to cope with price adjustments caused by developments across the globe,” Vaz noted. The minister went on to acknowledge the legitimacy of operators’ concerns, pointing out that their wait for a fare revision has stretched across multiple years, and that the sudden spike in fuel costs has only deepened their financial strain.

Vaz, who has held direct discussions with transport representative groups over the past several years on this very issue, stressed the urgent need for a balanced resolution. “We also recognise that it is important that a balance be struck and a solution arrived at which does not have major negative consequences for our economy and wider society,” he said. Calling for calm deliberations through the negotiation process, Vaz reaffirmed the government’s commitment to finding an outcome that addresses operators’ legitimate grievances without exacerbating the broader cost-of-living crisis that ordinary Jamaican households currently contend with. “We seeks to arrive at a solution that causes the least possible dislocation across the country but is also responsive to their genuine concerns and also mindful of the cost of living challenges which face the wider population,” he added.