By Rosemari Mealy, Suzanne Adely, Audrey Bomse, Corinna Mullin
*This Document does not constitute Legal Advice*
The Trump administration is now waging lawfare against the Cuba solidarity movement, and right-wing media outlets are amplifying its attacks. This is an escalating pattern: investigative rhetoric, media amplification, and the threat of legal action are being used to chill political dissent, fragment our solidarity movement, and coerce organizations and organizers into retreat. Now is not the time to retreat but rather to double down with our solidarity as the government attempts to further isolate the revolutionary Cuban state as part of its broader regime change efforts.
In recent weeks, the threat has become more concrete as OFAC has issued “Requests for Information” letters to at least one high-profile organizer in the Cuba solidarity movement. And on June 4, 2026, OFAC updated its Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list to include Cuban President Díaz-Canel, the Cuban Institute for Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP), and the Amistur Travel Agency – a clear attempt to target and intimidate the Cuba solidarity delegations that challenge the genocidal imperialist blockade. However, as we clarify below, authorized delegations operating under a general license can continue their work, including engaging with Amistur and ICAP, provided all transactions are authorized by the CACR.These developments demand that we equip ourselves with legal knowledge and strategic clarity.
It is more crucial than ever for the solidarity movement to stay informed and operate with discipline. In the age of social media, information is easily shared without context or verification, sometimes leading to the amplification of misleading or outright incorrect information, often creating fear and confusion. This can cause people to retreat from organizing, ultimately abandoning those with whom we are building solidarity. We should all act with due diligence not only to verify all information we share, but also to be deliberate in how and on which platforms we share information, and to provide the correct context.
This document is a legal primer and can hopefully serve as a strategic resource for the Cuba solidarity movement. It analyzes the distinct legal regimes being weaponized against solidarity work (OFAC sanctions, SDN designations and FARA), clarifies what constitutes a genuine legal threat versus political intimidation, and offers concrete guidance on how organizers should respond to requests for information, subpoenas, or designation-related questions. It is not an exhaustive analysis, nor a substitute for legal counsel, but a tool for acting responsibly in the face of escalating lawfare.
OFAC – Office of Foreign Assets Control
To understand the current threats, we must first understand the agency behind them. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, administers economic sanctions for the purpose of furthering U.S. “foreign policy” or “national security interests”. What this has meant is that OFAC has been used to systematically target anti-imperialist and revolutionary states, movements and solidarity organizations that are a threat to U.S. hegemony.
Specially Designated Nationals (SDN)
Beyond SDN designations, OFAC has another powerful tool: the ability to issue letters and subpoenas directly to individuals and organizations. OFAC maintains the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list, which blocks assets and prohibits transactions with designated persons, with violations subject to strict liability. For example, in October 2024, OFAC designated the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network as a “sham charity”, freezing its assets and barring U.S. persons from any transactions with the group as a way to tar the organization’s important prisoner solidarity work in a move the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) condemned as “the latest iteration of McCarthyism” in violation of First Amendment rights. OFAC designations function as a form of economic warfare, designed to suffocate targeted movements and isolate governments that refuse U.S. hegemony, often with devastating humanitarian consequences.
June 2026 OFAC SDN
On June 4th, OFAC updated their Special Designated and Blocked Persons List, to include several Cuban individuals including President Diaz Canal. The listing of organizations such as ICAP, Cuban Institute for Friendships of the People, and Amistur Travel Agency, among other individuals and groups, is clearly designed to target the Cuba solidarity movement and the numerous delegations that are organized by U.S. based organizations to the island to challenge the blockade and deliver much needed aid. While these lists have been weaponized by all U.S. administrations, the Trump Administration has increasingly used this tool to harass, intimidate and isolate movements, and to use it as pretext for imperialist intervention.
However, recent legal guidance has confirmed that delegations can continue despite these SDN designations. The Executive Order No. 14404 (May 1, 2026) prohibits third-country nationals from engaging in transactions with persons designated under the EO. However, by the terms of the EO itself, any designations “shall not affect the validity of, any license issued pursuant to part 515 of chapter 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” OFAC has confirmed this in FAQs and the issuance of a new General License (see OFAC FAQ No. 1252). This means that U.S. travel service providers can continue to work with Amistur and ICAP as long as the transactions are authorized by a Cuban Assets Control Regulations General License. In short, authorized delegations that operate under general licenses remain permissible—provided they maintain strict compliance with the relevant regulations.
OFAC Letters: Enforcing the Cuban Economic Blockade
Congress passed the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, codifying the economic embargo on Cuba into permanent law through the Helms-Burton Act. This provided OFAC with explicit civil penalty authority to enforce the embargo. In doing so, OFAC began to issue letters of warnings, requests for information, and in some cases, administrative subpoenas to those who traveled to Cuba. While we had not seen the issuance of such letters for over a decade, given the current political climate, it is not surprising to see them again. As far as we know, OFAC has sent “Requests for Information” letters to at least one high-profile CodePink leaders in the Cuban solidarity movement.
For now, we all must be aware and monitor the developing situation, as it is unclear what the profile of targeted individuals will be —whether OFAC will target additional high-profile movement organizers, or whether they will send letters to individuals who are new to the movement and therefore more vulnerable.
For all other organizations and individuals involved in the Cuba solidarity movement, media allegations, political signaling, and investigative rhetoric are not the same as an official Request for Information letter or subpoena. For the Cuba solidarity movement as a whole, the immediate legal landscape is different from what sensational coverage may suggest.
The existence, scope, and source of any letter or subpoena should be treated as the first question, not a secondary detail. Not all OFAC letters are administrative subpoenas. OFAC issues different types of letters. A subpoena requires compliance and usually imposes concrete duties—such as preserving documents, responding by a deadline, and assessing whether to comply, object, or challenge the request,and ignoring a subpoena can lead to civil penalties. Some OFAC letters are simply informational, requests for information, or warnings of violations. Letters received in the past after travel to Cuba have asked for information regarding potential violations of U.S. sanctions. Violations of U.S. sanctions against Cuba (Cuban Assets Control Regulations or CACR) generally involve unlicensed financial transactions, trading goods and services with Cuban nationals, or travel for tourism. In either case, if you receive a subpoena or an informational letter, you should contact a lawyer or a legal organization, such as the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) to help you to defend your rights.
As we stated above, given the current political climate, we may see more such letters. However, at this point, with the exception mentioned above and one other possible letter, , we are not aware of other OFAC informational letters — and certainly no subpoenas — being issued to other individuals or organizations. The primary effect therefore is political and organizational rather than immediately legal: intimidation, reputational harm, donor anxiety, and pressure on solidarity groups to defend lawful work against insinuation. In the case that an individual receives an OFAC Request for Information letter or subpoena, by contrast, the matter would change materially. They should take this seriously and immediately contact a lawyer to discuss a careful response to any document requests.
FARA – Foreign Agents Registration Act
U.S. sanctions are legally distinct from FARA. Sanctions laws—administered by OFAC—focus on prohibited transactions, services, and dealings with designated individuals, entities, or jurisdictions, unless an authorization or exemption applies. FARA, by contrast, centers on disclosure of foreign principal relationships and political activities within the U.S. This means an organization could face one set of legal questions regarding disclosure and foreign direction under FARA, and a completely separate set of legal questions regarding financial transactions, travel, or services under sanctions rules. These are distinct legal frameworks and theories of liability.
First enacted in 1938, FARA does not prohibit advocacy itself; instead, it requires registration when a person or organization acts in the United States at the order, request, direction, or control of a foreign principal in political activities or public relations work. As a result, the central legal question is not whether a group supports a foreign country’s position, but whether the group is acting independently or under foreign direction or control.
Historically, FARA has been used as a tool of state repression. During the McCarthy era, the law was weaponized against communist and other left-wing organizations, civil rights activists, and critics of U.S. imperialism. More recently, the government deployed FARA against the African People’s Socialist Party (APSP) and its sister organization, the Uhuru Movement — which are working toward “the liberation and unification of Africa and African people under the leadership of the African working class as a critical component of the struggle to overthrow imperialism.” In September 2024, following a weeklong trial, a federal jury found the three primary defendants, including Omali Yeshitela, Chairman of the APSP, not guilty of acting as Russian agents, but paradoxically, guilty of conspiracy. The judge acknowledged their actions were protected political speech that should not be chilled by the government, sentencing the three to probation and community service rather than prison time. The conviction is now being appealed.
Key Legal Implications for the Cuba Solidarity Movement
The Cuba solidarity movement has always relied on travel, delegations, brigades, and people-to-people exchanges. The existence of authorized travel categories to Cuba does not eliminate legal risk. Travel may be permitted for specific purposes, but compliance often depends on the traveler’s actual activities, records, and transactions. Organizations that sponsor delegations or humanitarian work may therefore need to show not only why travel was authorized, but also how funds were handled and which entities were involved.
Those rules sit alongside broader sanctions restrictions administered by the OFAC as well as the State Department’s Cuba Restricted List, which limits direct financial transactions with a range of entities tied to Cuba’s military, intelligence, and security services. For organizations that arrange delegations, public events, or material aid work, the overlap between sanctions rules, travel authorizations, and foreign-agent law can create substantial legal uncertainty. The administration defends these tactics by claiming a legitimate interest in examining whether domestic organizations have coordinated with foreign officials in ways that trigger registration or sanctions concerns.
Given this complex legal landscape, here are the key takeaways for solidarity organizers:
OFAC Letters
- First question: Has a Request for Information or Administrative Subpoena actually been issued? Until there is a formal demand, political rhetoric and media claims do not themselves create a legal obligation to produce records.
- Request for Information letter (OFAC): An official inquiry that may ask for documents, transaction details, or other information related to a matter under investigation. Treat with the same seriousness as a subpoena. This type of communication does require action — ignoring it can lead to significant penalties. You should not try to reply to the letter yourself. Contact a lawyer immediately.
- Administrative Subpoena: A formal, legally enforceable demand to produce documents or testify. Failure to comply can lead to court enforcement. Contact a lawyer immediately.
FARA
- FARA: Defines a “foreign principal” broadly. Registration is triggered not just by direction or control but also by acting as an “agent” who receives funding or engages in political activities “at the order, request, or under the direction or control” of a foreign principal. Simply agreeing with views is not enough, but financial ties or coordination matter significantly. Two FARA codes:
- Administrative violation: You will receive notification that you are being investigated.
- Criminal violation: Requires no notification and can result in FBI raids.
- Action: Contact a lawyer immediately in either case.
- Indictment: A formal criminal accusation; it is not a finding of guilt, but signals that prosecutors believe they have a basis to pursue charges in court and have obtained a grand jury indictment.
- While we do not expect developments in this area of law at this time, there are lawyers in our networks who can provide further information and support. Do not navigate these situations alone.
- Always remember: do not talk to the FBI without a lawyer present. For more guidance, review the National Lawyers Guild’s Know Your Rights resources.
Engaging with SDNs & Traveling to Cuba
- For U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent residents, entities organized under U.S. law, and persons in the United States): The general rule is that financial transactions and dealings with SDNs (Specially Designated Nationals & Blocked Persons) are prohibited. For example, sending money to a travel agency on the SDN list could result in financial penalties. However, as noted above, authorized delegations operating under a general license can continue to engage with Amistur and ICAP provided all transactions are authorized by the CACR.
- Cost of Compliance: Though the burden of proof typically remains with the government in enforcement actions, responding to an inquiry, request for information, etc.. there can also carry the cost of compliance, potential exposure of donor or membership records, and pressure to prove that their work was independently organized and lawfully conducted.
- Collaboration & Communication: While trade and transactions are restricted, engaging in political dialogue or inviting SDNs to speak at public conferences can sometimes be permissible under OFAC guidance if the intent is informational and does not constitute providing a prohibited service.
- Collaboration that may be permissible:
- Participating in a public conference where an SDN is also present
- Engaging in dialogue, advocacy, diplomacy, or political discussions
- Conducting journalism or interviewing an SDN
- Academic research involving communications with an SDN
- Human rights fact-finding or monitoring activities, where authorized or exempt
- Collaboration that may be prohibited (risk increases substantially):
- Providing services to the SDN
- Jointly producing work for the SDN’s benefit
- Fundraising with or for the SDN
- Paying the SDN or receiving payment from the SDN
- Entering contracts or partnership agreements with the SDN
- Sharing resources, personnel, technology, or logistical support
- Acting on behalf of the SDN in a way that provides a benefit
- Public Conferences (OFAC guidance): Last year, OFAC issued a formal guidance letter stating that certain kinds of SDNs could speak at a public conference to share their individual political views provided that:
- (1) there was no engagement in financial transactions
- (2) there was no contribution or receipt of funds, goods, or services such as transportation, lodging, honorariums, or anything of value
- (3) there was no specialized training or assistance from or to the speakers
- (4) the event was not hosted on behalf of a person subject to U.S. sanctions
- Final reminder: The fact that you are communicating with an SDN does not automatically make the activity prohibited. OFAC sanctions generally focus on transactions, services, and transfers of value. However, if it is not directly clear seek legal counsel.
Broader Stakes for U.S.-Cuba Activism and What Comes Next
The legal frameworks detailed in this resource are being weaponized as part of a broader political project. As many organizers have been pointing out, these tactics—whether formal subpoenas, informational requests, or public allegations about activist networks—are designed to chill solidarity speech, travel, fundraising, delegation work, and political education among groups engaged in lawful solidarity activity. They are designed to weaken collective organizing, fragment alliances, and raise the costs of internationalist work. Understanding the law therefore is a prerequisite for defending the movement itself.
Whether the repression increases will depend in part on what federal agencies do next. We should remember that the Trump administration can be unpredictable and has exhibited less regard for the rule of law than other administrations. This has been especially true when it comes to current U.S. imperialist goals. However, what movements of the past and movements around the globe have taught us, is that this is not a time to retreat. It is a time to be informed, to build political clarity, to build solidarity among ourselves, and to continue on. The movement knows how to respond to much of what is being weaponized against us. And consider that any attempt to falsely criminalize organizations or organizers is an opportunity to fight back and grow our support.
For the Cuba solidarity movement, the stakes extend far beyond the legal process and we must remember what is at stake in terms of the assault on the Cuban revolution. The U.S. blockade is escalating and the situation is deteriorating quickly. Long condemned internationally, with the United Nations General Assembly repeatedly calling by overwhelming majority vote for an end to the economic, commercial, and financial blockade of Cuba. Cuba is not a “failed state” as the U.S. propagandizes. Its revolutionary principles continue to guide how it navigates this moment of increased imperialist aggression, by always centering the human needs of the population and protecting the most vulnerable. The Cuban state and people continue to remind the world that another world is possible in which life is privileged over profit. This is why the Cuban solidarity movement continues to mobilize despite the McCarthyite attempts to silence us.
U.S. citizens who traveled legally to Cuba in May and in the months since have returned with direct testimony about the consequences of the latest escalation, the oil blockade, for hospitals, clinics, transportation, and food production. Having witnessed those realities firsthand, we must insist that organizations and individuals have every right—and every responsibility—to speak out, to challenge the U.S. campaign of strangulation, and to demand an end to these illegal and inhumane policies, which are contrary to the most basic principles of solidarity, sovereignty and self-determination. The blockade is not merely punitive. It is part of a coercive architecture that normalizes suffering and lays the political groundwork for more direct imperialist aggression against Cuba and the region.
Knowing your legal rights is a form of political defense. Distinguishing between political intimidation and actual legal process and understanding OFAC, SDN designations and FARA as distinct yet inter-connected frameworks designed to repress the Cuba solidarity movement, and other movements is essential for weathering this moment of lawfare and repression, and continuing the vital work.
