Steven Cheung, who serves as the Director of Communications for the White House, issued a response to the New York Times, defending the Trump Administration's stance amid a controversy over an article regarding alleged conditions set by Washington in its communications with Cuba.
In a statement shared on X, Cheung declared that "the only individuals who truly understand the situation in Cuba are President Trump and Marco Rubio," dismissing the newspaper's journalists by accusing them of relying on "misinformed sources who are clueless about what's happening."
Cheung's comments came in the wake of Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the New York Times, publicly defending the newspaper's report against attacks from Marco Rubio.
Stadtlander asserted on X that the report was based on discussions with "four individuals knowledgeable about the talks between the United States and Cuba," emphasizing that the journalists had reached out to the State Department "well before publication" to gather feedback, without receiving any objections to the article's content.
He also noted that neither Rubio nor anyone else had offered "any factual rebuttal" and concluded with a firm statement: "Our reporting is truthful and accurate."
Prior to the newspaper's rebuttal, Rubio himself had vehemently dismissed the report.
The Secretary of State labeled the information as "fake news" and criticized media outlets that, in his view, continue to rely on unreliable sources.
Contentious Report Sparks Debate
The contentious report, published on March 16, claimed that Washington had proposed the removal of Miguel Díaz-Canel as a prerequisite for moving forward in negotiations with the Cuban regime.
The piece cited four anonymous individuals familiar with the talks between the two governments, suggesting that the Trump Administration had conveyed to Havana that Díaz-Canel's departure would ease progress in bilateral discussions.
One of the most controversial aspects of the article wasn't just the potential removal of Díaz-Canel, but the limited nature of the described change.
According to the New York Times' archives, the United States "so far, is not pressing for any action against members of the Castro family, who remain the primary power players in the country."
Reactions from the Cuban Community
This angle elicited a strong reaction among Cubans both on and off the island, as it suggested, to many, the replacement of a visible figure without altering the actual control of the political and military structure.
Amid numerous comments and reactions, the prevailing sentiment was that Díaz-Canel does not represent the center of power, but rather a leader subordinate to an elite where Raúl Castro's influence remains significant.
From this perspective, any scenario in which the Castro family retains its political clout would be seen as merely cosmetic, superficial, and without real impact on the country's political and economic life.
The controversy extended to other elements of the report. The newspaper noted that Washington also sought the release of political prisoners and gradual economic reforms, including greater openness to foreign investment.
However, these aspects were overshadowed by the main debate: whether the talks with Havana aim for a genuine transformation of the system or merely a reshuffling of its visible faces.
In this context, Cheung's statements reinforced the White House's solidarity with Rubio and Trump against the New York Times' account.
Key Questions about U.S.-Cuba Relations and Media Controversy
What were the main claims of the New York Times report regarding U.S.-Cuba talks?
The report suggested that the U.S. proposed the removal of Miguel Díaz-Canel as a condition for further negotiations, and highlighted potential economic reforms and the release of political prisoners.
How did Steven Cheung respond to the New York Times article?
Steven Cheung criticized the New York Times, asserting that only President Trump and Marco Rubio truly understand the situation in Cuba, and dismissed the article's sources as misinformed.