1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Trump Administration Follows Through on Plans To Tighten Cuban Sanctions

Trump Administration Follows Through on Plans To Tighten Cuban Sanctions

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.05.19

On June 4, 2019, the Trump Administration formally implemented its previously announced intent to tighten its Cuban sanctions program. Specifically, on April 17, 2019 the Administration had announced that in response to Cuba’s alleged role in “destabilizing” activities throughout Latin America, particularly in Venezuela and Nicaragua, it would terminate aspects of the relaxations, primarily related to travel, previously implemented by the Obama Administration. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) implemented that intention in a set of coordinated actions, discussed below.

The Trump Administration announced that these changes were intended to limit tourism, which it alleged has “served to line the pockets of the Cuban military” and to “enrich[] the Cuban military, security, and intelligence services.” To do that, OFAC and BIS announced the following two changes to the Cuba sanctions program:

  • Ending Group “People-to-People” Educational Travel: OFAC removed its previous general license that had authorized groups to undertake “people-to-people” educational travel. These changes do not, however, affect: (1) previously scheduled travel that was to be undertaken pursuant to the “people-to-people” authorization, provided that at least one “travel-related transaction (such as purchasing a flight or reserving accommodation)” was undertaken prior to June 5, 2019; (2) the parallel educational authorization for travel related to programs undertaken by accredited U.S. undergraduate or graduate degree-granting institutions; or (3) any of the other 11 general licenses that authorize specific types of travel to Cuba.
  • Limiting Aircraft and Vessel Travel to Cuba: In parallel, OFAC and BIS both took steps to remove authorization for non-commercial aircraft and passenger and recreational vessels on temporary sojourn. Specifically, BIS amended License Exception Aircraft, Vessels and Spacecraft (AVS) to remove the previous authorization for such aircraft and vessels that are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as well as to establish a licensing policy of denial; OFAC removed the parallel authorization it had previously maintained for associated services. The net effect is to cut off the ability of private aircraft as well as cruise ships and other private vessels subject to the EAR to travel to Cuba, unless a specific license is granted.

OFAC and BIS issued a coordinated Fact Sheet and OFAC updated its previously issued Frequently Asked Questions Related to Cuba to incorporate these changes.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights