United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 12, 2026
Bottom line
This bill proposes a sweeping legislative overhaul to end the long-standing U.S. economic and travel embargo against Cuba, aiming to normalize bilateral relations and foster engagement.
What it actually does
This bill seeks to comprehensively dismantle the U.S. trade embargo and other restrictions against Cuba by repealing several key pieces of legislation, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961's embargo authority, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, and the LIBERTAD Act of 1996. It also lifts prohibitions on telecommunications services, travel, and remittances, and extends normal trade relations to Cuba. The bill mandates the President to pursue negotiations with Cuba on settling property claims and securing human rights.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the decades-old embargo has demonstrably failed to achieve its objectives of promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba, instead harming the Cuban people and U.S. economic interests. They contend that lifting the embargo would open new markets for U.S. businesses, allow for greater cultural exchange, and empower civil society in Cuba through increased engagement, while also allowing the U.S. to pursue human rights through diplomacy rather than isolation.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that lifting the embargo without securing significant concessions on human rights or democratic reforms would reward the Cuban government. They contend that current restrictions are necessary leverage to pressure the Cuban regime and that normalizing trade would provide financial support to an oppressive government, potentially entrenching its power and further harming political dissidents and victims of expropriation.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Repeal of Embargo and Sugar Quota Authority
This provision repeals Section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which serves as a foundational legal basis for the U.S. embargo against Cuba. It also includes a conforming amendment to title 28, U.S. Code, removing a reference to this embargo authority concerning property immune from attachment. This effectively removes a primary statutory justification for the embargo.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a necessary first step to normalize relations, as this section has been a cornerstone of the embargo for decades. Its repeal would allow for a new era of engagement and remove an outdated legal framework.
Critics contend
Critics contend that repealing this foundational authority without preconditions removes significant leverage over the Cuban government, undermining efforts to promote human rights and democracy.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for normalized relations and economic opportunities against concerns about human rights and political reform in Cuba.
Section 2(b)
End of Trading With the Enemy Act Application to Cuba
This section terminates the President's authority under Section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA) as it applies to Cuba, which has been used to maintain aspects of the embargo since 1977. Any regulations in effect based on this authority will cease to be effective upon the bill's enactment. This removes another significant legal basis for the embargo.
Section 2(c)
Removal of Export Prohibitions and New IEEPA Authority
This provision eliminates existing prohibitions on exports to Cuba under the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. However, it explicitly grants the President new authority to impose export controls and exercise powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) with respect to Cuba, but only if a new national emergency is declared based on an "unusual and extraordinary threat" that did not exist before the bill's enactment.
Section 2(d) and (e)
Repeal of Major Embargo-Reinforcing Legislation (Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts)
These sections repeal two cornerstone pieces of legislation that codified and strengthened the U.S. embargo against Cuba: the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 (Torricelli Act) and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton Act). The repeal of the LIBERTAD Act includes conforming amendments related to visa revocation, immigration, property immune from attachment, and international claims, effectively dismantling its legal framework.
Section 2(g)
Removal of Cuba-Specific Restrictions from TSRA
This section amends the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) by removing Cuba from the list of countries subject to specific trade sanctions. It repeals provisions that prohibited private financing for agricultural sales to Cuba and restricted travel-related transactions, effectively allowing for more normal agricultural trade and travel. This aims to ease financial barriers for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba.
Section 3
Authorization for Telecommunications Services with Cuba
This section explicitly authorizes U.S. common carriers to install, maintain, and repair telecommunications equipment and facilities in Cuba, and to provide telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba. This authority includes the ability to upgrade existing facilities and equipment, aiming to improve connectivity and information access for the Cuban population.
Section 4
Lifting Restrictions on Travel to Cuba
This section prohibits the regulation or prohibition of travel to and from Cuba by U.S. citizens or residents, and any transactions ordinarily incident to such travel, provided the travel would be lawful in the U.S. This includes normal banking transactions related to travel, effectively ending the U.S. travel ban to Cuba.
Section 5
Presidential Mandate for Negotiations
This section states that the President "should take all necessary steps to advance negotiations" with the Government of Cuba for two specific purposes: settling claims of U.S. nationals for property takings by the Cuban government, and securing the protection of internationally recognized human rights. This provision outlines diplomatic priorities for a normalized relationship.
Section 6
Granting Normal Trade Relations (NTR) to Cuba
This section formally extends nondiscriminatory treatment (Normal Trade Relations, or NTR) to products of Cuba. It does this by amending the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and repealing Section 401 of the Tariff Classification Act of 1962 and Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 as they apply to Cuba. This means Cuban goods will face the same tariffs as most other countries, significantly reducing import duties.
Section 7
Unlimited Remittances to Cuba
This section prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from limiting the amount of remittances that can be sent to Cuba by any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction. It also requires the rescission of all existing regulations that impose such limits. A rule of construction is included to ensure that money laundering laws still apply, preventing illicit financial activities.
Section 8
Congressional Report Requirement for Foreign Tax Credit Denial
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code to require the President to report to Congress before determining that a foreign country should be denied foreign tax credits. This change applies to future determinations but does not affect countries already subject to such denial. It aims to increase transparency and congressional oversight over such executive decisions.
While lifting existing export prohibitions and Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA) authorities, this subsection grants the President new authority to impose export controls and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) sanctions with respect to Cuba, but only if a national emergency is declared based on an "unusual and extraordinary threat" that *did not exist before the date of the enactment of this Act*.
Section 2(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure that the executive branch retains some flexibility for future national security concerns while preventing the immediate re-application of the old embargo under a new guise. It represents a legislative compromise.
Case for: Supporters would argue this prevents a President from simply re-invoking the embargo under a new emergency declaration based on pre-existing conditions, ensuring a genuine shift in policy while retaining a safety valve for unforeseen future threats to national security.
Case against: Critics might argue that this condition could make it overly difficult for a future President to respond effectively to evolving threats from the Cuban government, potentially tying the hands of the executive in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
Estimated impact: This provision prevents a simple, immediate reversal of the bill's intent by future administrations based on historical justifications for the embargo, ensuring a more durable policy shift.
These subsections make technical conforming amendments by striking specific provisions in U.S. Code (Section 1611(c) of title 28) and repealing Sections 514 and 515 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949. These provisions were directly related to the LIBERTAD Act, particularly concerning property immune from attachment and international claims, and their removal is essential for fully unwinding the legal framework of Helms-Burton.
Section 2(e)(2)(C) and (D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for ensuring all related legal references are updated when a major act is repealed, to avoid conflicting statutes and ensure legal clarity. It's a necessary cleanup rather than an attempt to obscure.
Case for: Supporters argue these are necessary technical clean-ups to ensure the full and unambiguous repeal of the LIBERTAD Act and its associated legal mechanisms, providing a clear legal landscape for normalized relations.
Case against: Opponents of the repeal of LIBERTAD would view these as further eroding protections for U.S. claimants and dismantling the legal framework designed to pressure the Cuban government regarding expropriated property.
Estimated impact: These technical amendments ensure the complete legal dismantling of the Helms-Burton Act's provisions regarding property claims and immunity, reinforcing the policy shift away from judicial enforcement of claims.