The President’s Executive Order Confronting the Cuban Threat
The President of the United States recently issued an Executive Order Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba. This Executive Order declares that the policies and actions of the Cuban government constitute an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security and foreign policy and, accordingly, declares a national emergency to confront that threat. It authorizes the establishment of a new tariff system under which additional duties may be imposed on goods imported from any country that directly or indirectly sells or provides oil to Cuba, and tasks the Secretaries of State and Commerce with implementing and enforcing those tariffs. The Order is aimed at pressuring Cuba and its economic partners by leveraging U.S. trade policy to counter Havana’s support for hostile states and malign actors and to uphold U.S. security interests in the Western Hemisphere.
In this Presidential action, the President confronts more than a routine diplomatic disagreement. The action identifies an entrenched regime aligning itself with strategic adversaries of the United States, facilitating foreign intelligence operations in the Western Hemisphere, and cooperating militarily with powers openly hostile to American interests. Such conduct does not merely complicate foreign policy. It implicates American sovereignty itself. A foreign government that enables adversarial surveillance, cyber-operations, or military positioning within geographic proximity to our shores challenges the United States’ constitutional obligation to “provide for the common defence.” Sovereignty is not an abstraction. It entails the nation’s capacity to govern itself free from coercive external interference. When hostile powers gain operational footholds near American territory, the structural independence of the Republic is placed at risk.
Thus. this Executive Order must also be evaluated against the deeper constitutional understanding of national security articulated in my prior analysis in From Empire to Republic: A First-Principles Reading of the 2025 National Security Strategy, where national security is defined not as a license for managerial empire but as the protection of a sovereign republic and its people. That analysis underscores that sovereignty is both juridical and moral. A people cannot consent to what they do not control, and a republic’s power must be aligned with its fundamental ends, not global administration detached from vital interests. Confronting a government that facilitates adversarial military cooperation, shelters malign actors, and leverages its position to weaken Western hemispheric stability is not merely a tactical challenge. it is a direct affront to the Republic’s constitutional mandate to secure liberty and self-government. National security policy, when rooted in first principles, prioritizes prudence, defined ends, and respect for sovereignty over expansive ambitions that blur the line between defense and domination.
Constitutional Analysis
The Constitution vests the Executive with significant authority in this domain. Article II designates the President as Commander in Chief and entrusts him with the conduct of foreign relations. The “executive Power” includes the responsibility to recognize threats, engage diplomatically, and respond decisively to protect national security. That constitutional authority, complemented by statutory delegations such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act, provides a lawful basis for economic countermeasures directed at foreign regimes that threaten U.S. interests.
Yet constitutional structure counsels more than unilateral sufficiency. Under Justice Jackson’s enduring framework in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, presidential authority reaches its zenith when exercised pursuant to express or implied congressional authorization. Here, while the President’s action is not frivolous and plausibly rests within both inherent and delegated powers, its durability and legitimacy would be strengthened by clear congressional support. Such support exist via targeted sanctions legislation, refined authorization for economic restrictions, or formal findings concerning the Cuban regime’s threat posture. A Congress working together with the President would place the President’s action in the strongest constitutional position recognized by the Supreme Court in Youngstown, making the policy more legally secure and more clearly supported by the will of the people through their elected representatives.
National security demands vigilance. Constitutional governance invites, (and sometimes demands) partnership among the political branches. When confronting regimes that endanger American sovereignty and regional stability, the United States best preserves its strength not only through decisive action, but through structural fidelity to the Constitution that secures its freedom.
The author gratefully acknowledges the use of AI-assisted drafting tools (i.e., OpenAI’s ChatGPT) in the preparation of this Issue Brief. All ideas, structural decisions, analysis, and final edits are solely the author’s own, and the author bears full responsibility for the content.
About the Author
