The New York Times publicly responded to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio after he labeled a report by the newspaper regarding alleged conditions set by Washington in its dealings with the Cuban regime as "fake news."
Through its spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander, the newspaper defended the accuracy of the information and stated that Rubio has not provided any factual rebuttal to the published content.
According to the document provided by the user, Stadtlander wrote on X: “Secretary Rubio: As our article indicates, this information is based on conversations held with four individuals familiar with the discussions between the United States and Cuba.”
He also added that the journalists from the newspaper contacted the State Department "well before the publication" to request comments and that they received no objections regarding the information they were bringing to light.
She concluded her response with a definitive statement: “Neither you nor anyone else has presented any factual refutation of the information. Our information is true and accurate.”
The newspaper's response came after Rubio denied the report published on March 16, in which The New York Times claimed that the Donald Trump administration had suggested Miguel Díaz-Canel's departure as a condition to move forward in negotiations with Havana.
The news article cited four anonymous sources familiar with the discussions between the two governments.
Rubio reacted to that post from his account on X with a particularly harsh message aimed at the media and its sources.
“The reason so many U.S. media outlets continue to publish false news like this is because they keep relying on charlatans and liars who claim to be well-informed as their sources,” wrote the head of U.S. diplomacy.
One of the most sensitive elements of the report was not just the alleged departure of Díaz-Canel, but the actual scope of the change it described.
The controversial statement
The New York Times itself stated that the United States "has not yet pressured for any action against the Castro family members, who remain the main power players in the country."
That formulation sparked criticism among Cubans both inside and outside the Island, as it was interpreted that a potential departure of the current ruler would not necessarily entail a profound transformation of the system.
Many of the reactions shared a common idea: that Díaz-Canel does not represent the true center of power, but rather a figure subordinate to a political-military elite where Raúl Castro's influence remains decisive.
From that perspective, any change limited to the replacement of the president would be seen as a cosmetic modification, incapable of altering the existing power structure in Cuba.
The report also mentioned other possible objectives of Washington, such as the release of political prisoners and gradual economic reforms, including a greater openness to foreign investment.
However, those elements were overshadowed by the debate over whether any potential negotiation with Havana would entail a real transformation or merely a superficial reconfiguration of the same political system.
The controversy is also set against a broader context. Rubio has argued since the beginning of the year that the Cuban crisis is a result of the Island's own political and economic model, and both he and Trump have insisted that any progress in relations will depend on internal changes in Cuba.
For his part, Díaz-Canel recently acknowledged the existence of contacts with the United States, although he did not specify their content, while continuing to attribute the energy and economic crisis to U.S. sanctions.
Thus, The New York Times' public response to Rubio turned the dispute into more than just a diplomatic denial: it became an open clash between the Secretary of State and one of America's leading newspapers regarding the credibility of its sources, the extent of contacts with Havana, and the nature of the changes Washington would be willing to accept in Cuba.
Filed under: