Why the Helms-Burton Act Still Matters for U.S. Interests and Hemispheric Security

On October 30, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly once again overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba, with 187 votes in favor, 2 against (the United States and Israel), and one abstention. This marks over 30 years of similar resolutions, underscoring what many legal and policy experts interpret as America’s isolation on this issue.

As in past years, the resolution calls for an end to “punitive measures,” whatever that means related to U.S. sanctions on Cuba. Though dressed up to look fresh, this resolution is more like those limp salads served at fancy dinners in Washington, D.C.—it tosses around ideas like sovereign equality and non-intervention but ultimately becomes stale and past its prime.

Despite these annual resolutions, the U.S. asserts that the embargo, partly rooted in the 1996 Helms-Burton Act (HBA), is a lawful measure approved by Congress. The law serves several purposes: primarily protecting American property rights, promoting democracy, and enhancing security in the Americas. Although some argue that the Act is outdated—and I believe a few sections need refreshing—the HBA remains consistent with customary international law and reflects America’s legitimate interests in a hemisphere increasingly influenced by adversarial powers such as Russia, China, and Iran.

The HBA remains essential as hybrid and political tactics grow among these nations in the region. While it may need modernization, it is still a valuable tool for protecting U.S. citizens, deterring unlawful property use when used as Congress intended, and supporting stability in the hemisphere. Nations must protect their citizens and, at times, their property interests, especially when a foreign government unlawfully confiscates property and profits from it. The HBA enforces this principle by enabling U.S. nationals to seek redress against entities that “traffic” in their expropriated property.