US government denies US seeking to oust Cuba’s president Miguel Díaz‑Canel, rejecting claims that Washington is pressing Havana to remove its leader amid rising tensions and economic turmoil. The statement comes after a report in The New York Times suggested that some US officials had encouraged Cuba to consider leadership changes, though it stopped short of calling for the overthrow of the communist government.
On the social platform X, Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed the report as false, describing its sources as “charlatans and liars claiming to be in the know.” Rubio did not clarify whether he was refuting the entire report or only certain parts. Analysts note that his response aligns with long-standing US policy, which applies pressure on Cuba without directly calling for regime change.
The report cited by the Times described Díaz‑Canel as a hardliner unlikely to implement significant reforms. US officials have long expressed frustration with the pace of Cuba’s economic and political liberalization. While there has been no official ultimatum demanding the Cuban president’s removal, Washington continues to pursue policies designed to increase leverage over Havana.
Rubio, a Cuban‑American and former senator from Miami, has repeatedly called for the end of Cuba’s communist system. He has criticized recent reforms that allow Cubans abroad to invest or own businesses, arguing they are insufficient given the island’s deepening economic crisis. Cuba faces widespread power outages, shortages of basic goods, and rising public discontent, which the US has sought to influence through restrictions on oil imports and other economic measures. At the same time, US officials have hinted at possible negotiations, but any deal is constrained by longstanding distrust and the complexities of Cuban governance.
Despite the heightened pressure, analysts argue that Washington’s strategy mirrors approaches taken in Venezuela and Iran: it is aimed at enforcing compliance and encouraging reforms rather than directly orchestrating regime change. Cuban officials have resisted such pressure, emphasizing national sovereignty and promising “unbreakable resistance” to foreign interference. The ongoing tension underscores a complex dynamic in US-Cuba relations, where economic tools and diplomatic messaging are leveraged to influence policy while avoiding direct confrontation.
In this context, the debate over Díaz‑Canel’s leadership reflects broader questions about the future of Cuba’s political system, its economic survival, and the limits of external influence on the island’s governance.
