The United States Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, denied a report on Tuesday from the New York Times that claimed Washington had proposed the departure of Miguel Díaz-Canel as a condition to advance negotiations with the Cuban regime.
Through his account on X, Rubio described the information as “fake news” and harshly criticized the media that, he claimed, rely on unreliable sources.
“The reason so many American media outlets continue to publish false news like this is that they keep relying on charlatans and liars who claim to be well-informed as their sources,” he wrote.
The report, published on March 16, cited four anonymous individuals familiar with the conversations between both governments and stated that the administration of President Donald Trump had conveyed to Havana that Díaz-Canel's departure would facilitate progress in the bilateral dialogue.
However, one of the most controversial aspects of the text was not so much the possible departure of the leader appointed by Raúl Castro as the actual scope of the proposed changes.
According to New York Times itself, the United States would not be pushing for actions against the Castro family, which would continue to be a key player in power.
Specifically, the newspaper noted: "The United States is not currently pushing for any action against the members of the Castro family, who remain the main power brokers in the country."
That approach —the replacement of a visible figure without altering the actual control of the system— generated a strong reaction among Cubans both on and off the island.
In multiple comments and reactions, the idea prevails that Díaz-Canel is not at the center of power, but rather a leader subordinate to a political-military elite where Raúl Castro's influence remains decisive.
For many, any scenario that involves the permanence of that structure would amount to a cosmetic and superficial change, with no real impact on the political and economic life of the country.
Thus, the most criticized point of the report has been the possibility that the Castro family could continue to wield power following the eventual departure of the current "appointed" ruler.
The article also pointed out that Washington would seek the release of political prisoners and gradual economic reforms, including greater openness to foreign investment. However, these elements took a backseat to the debate on whether this would be a real transformation or merely a reconfiguration of the same system.
In this context, Rubio's statements align with the stance he has maintained since the beginning of the year, in which he has emphasized that the Cuban crisis is a result 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.
For his part, Díaz-Canel himself recently acknowledged the existence of contacts with the United States, although he did not provide details, while continuing to attribute the energy and economic crisis to U.S. sanctions.
The controversy surrounding the report and its subsequent denial once again reflects the opacity surrounding any potential negotiations between Washington and Havana.
It also highlights an increasingly clear divide among Cubans: the rejection of solutions that involve only changes in personnel without altering the structures of the totalitarian power that has dominated the country for decades.
Amidst blackouts, shortages, and a continued deterioration of living conditions, the debate is not only about who holds the presidency, but also whether there is a real desire for transformation within the upper echelons of power in Cuba.
Filed under: