U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed a New York Times article on Tuesday that suggested Washington had proposed the removal of Miguel Díaz-Canel as a condition for advancing negotiations with the Cuban regime.
Through his account on X, Rubio labeled the report as "fake news" and criticized media outlets for relying on unreliable sources. "The reason so many American media outlets continue to publish fake news like this is because they persist in relying on charlatans and liars who claim to be well-informed sources," he wrote.
The report, released on March 16, cited four anonymous individuals familiar with discussions between the two governments, claiming that the Trump administration had communicated to Havana that Díaz-Canel's removal would ease bilateral dialogue progress.
However, the article's most contentious aspect was not the proposed exit of the Castro-appointed leader but the actual scope of the suggested changes.
According to the New York Times itself, the United States was not pushing for actions against the Castro family, which would remain a key player in power. The paper stated, "The U.S. is not, at this point, pressing for any action against members of the Castro family, who continue to be the main power players in the country."
This approach—replacing a visible figure without altering the actual control of the system—sparked significant backlash among Cubans both on and off the island.
Many comments and reactions emphasize that Díaz-Canel is not the power center but a leader subordinate to a political-military elite where Raúl Castro's influence remains pivotal.
For many, any scenario involving the continuation of that structure equates to a cosmetic and superficial change, lacking real impact on the country's political and economic landscape.
Thus, the most criticized aspect of the report was the potential for the Castro family to continue wielding power after a possible departure of the current "handpicked" leader.
The article also suggested that Washington sought the release of political prisoners and gradual economic reforms, including more openness to foreign investment. However, these factors were overshadowed by the debate on whether it represented a real transformation or a reshuffling of the same system.
In this context, Rubio's statements align with his stance since the beginning of the year, where he has insisted that the Cuban crisis is a consequence of the country's own political and economic model.
Both he and President Donald Trump have reiterated that any progress in relations will depend on internal changes on the island.
Meanwhile, Díaz-Canel himself recently acknowledged contact with the U.S., although he provided no details, continuing to blame the economic and energy crises on U.S. sanctions.
The controversy surrounding the article and its subsequent refutation once again highlights the opacity surrounding any potential negotiations between Washington and Havana.
It also underscores a growing sentiment among Cubans: a rejection of solutions that involve merely changing figures without altering the totalitarian power structures that have dominated the country for decades.
Amidst blackouts, shortages, and a sustained deterioration in living conditions, the debate is not just about who holds the presidency but whether there is real intent for transformation at the top of Cuba's power hierarchy.
Key Questions About U.S.-Cuba Relations and Political Change
What did Marco Rubio say about the New York Times article?
Marco Rubio dismissed the New York Times article as "fake news" and criticized the reliance on unreliable sources.
What was the New York Times report about?
The report claimed that Washington suggested the removal of Miguel Díaz-Canel to advance negotiations with Cuba, without pressing for actions against the Castro family.
Why is this report controversial among Cubans?
The report is controversial because it suggests a change in figureheads without altering the entrenched power structures dominated by the Castro family.