Given these turns of events, how could Batista be acceptable to the Americans? The truth is that Batista was more concerned with power than the ideals of progressivism. The landowning elite were more concerned with stability in government than with political ideology. They recognized that most of his reforms turned out to be nothing more than political show. A $600 million investment in sugar alone in 1939, clearly demonstrated that the Americans were confident that they had hitched their wagon to the correct horse. Cuba, Business Week magazine wrote, would not be able to expropriate foreign holdings, for the island was politically and economically an adjunct of the United States. The American government hedged their bets by withholding economic assistance until both President Laredo Bru and the president-elect, Fulgencio Batista, affirmed that they would honor their obligations to investors.
It was clear that the United States would not intervene militarily in island politics any more. There was no need. They could control Cuba economically. The U.S. Department of State withheld loans to Cuba in 1940 until a thorough study of tax reform, monetary and banking changes, and proposed public works projects was completed. The recommendations of the study were curiously familiar to modern Americans. Cuba, they said, required a fiscal and taxing reorganization and a reduction in budget expenditures. Batista promised change.