Cuba General License 1 - Transactions Authorized Pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (May 07, 2026)

Date issued: May. 07 2026

TURBOFAC Commentary (394 words)

Notes:

1) EO 14404 and the CACR are separate sanctions authorities, one issued pursuant to IEEPA and the other pursuant to TWEA, though “Sections 2(b) and 4(c) of E.O. 14404 state that the relevant prohibitions found in E.O. 14404 do not affect the validity of licenses issued pursuant to the CACR” (FAQ 1252). More specifically, section 2 of EO 14404, which is titled “sanctionable conduct” and houses designation criteria but also contains the substantive prohibitions for dealings with blocked persons, says “[t]he prohibitions in subsection (a) of [section 2] apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that are issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order; except that this subsection shall not apply to activities authorized by, and shall not affect the validity of, any license issued pursuant to part 515 of chapter 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Assuming that “this subsection” is a reference to the 2(a) prohibitions, this provision appears to take all “activities authorized by any license issued pursuant to” the CACR outside the scope of prohibited conduct. Cuba General License 1, by contrast, states that “all transactions prohibited by Executive Order 14404 are authorized to the extent such transactions are authorized or exempt under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (CACR), including transactions authorized by a general or specific license pursuant to the CACR.”

One might be forgiven for wondering whether the GL adds anything to section 2(b) of EO 14404. While there is substantial overlap between the two, there is a purpose (and value) to the GL. More specifically, section 2(b) puts “activities authorized by any license issued pursuant to” the CACR in a “not prohibited” category, rather than “authorized” or “exempt”. This distinction is meaningful because when a transaction is merely not prohibited by an EO, transactions ordinarily incident to such transactions are still prohibited. However, when a transaction is authorized (or exempt), all transactions “ordinarily incident” to such transactions are likewise authorized and exempt. See Case SH-98179b (and comments thereto) for the difficulties that may have arisen in the absence of this GL.

2) The discussion above is limited to the primary sanctions implications of the GL. See comments to EO 14404 for secondary sanctions related comments.