Anna Kelly, the White House spokesperson, took to X on Monday to dismiss claims made by journalists and media outlets. According to her, these reports are being misled by anonymous sources pretending to know the intentions of President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio regarding Cuba.
Kelly stated, "So many journalists and media are being deceived by 'sources' who claim to know what President Trump and Secretary Rubio will do in Cuba. Heads up: these journalists (and their 'sources') have no idea what they're talking about."
Media Dispute Over Alleged U.S.-Cuba Talks
This denial comes amid a media controversy that has been ongoing since March 16, when The New York Times released a report based on four anonymous sources. The report suggested that Washington had proposed the removal of Miguel Díaz-Canel as a precondition for advancing bilateral negotiations with Havana.
The article also mentioned that the U.S. aimed for the release of political prisoners and gradual economic reforms, but noted that "so far, there is no push for any action against members of the Castro family, who remain key power players in the country."
Administration's Reaction to the Reports
On March 18, Marco Rubio labeled the report as "fake news," accusing the media of relying on "charlatans and liars who claim to be well-informed as their sources."
That same day, Steven Cheung, White House Communications Director, reinforced the denial by stating that "the only ones who know the situation in Cuba are President Trump and Marco Rubio."
New Allegations Surface
The New York Times replied through its spokesperson, Charlie Stadtlander, defending the report's accuracy, stating that journalists had contacted the State Department "well before publication" without receiving any objections.
Stadtlander clearly stated, "Neither you nor anyone else has provided any factual refutation to the information. Our reporting is truthful and accurate."
Kelly's tweet also responded to a new report by The Atlantic, published on Sunday, alleging that the Trump administration had devised a regime change plan for Cuba. This plan reportedly combined economic pressure, potential legal charges in Florida against Cuban elites, and political contacts to prompt a transition.
Cuban Government's Stance
An anonymous official cited by The Atlantic claimed, "Regime change is already in place," pending only Trump's final decision.
Amid this dispute, Díaz-Canel confirmed to the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Cuba that there were contacts with the U.S., though he offered no details about their content. Following Vatican mediation, Cuba released 51 prisoners, although the regime did not recognize them as political prisoners. The Deputy Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío stated that political prisoners "are not part of the dialogue" with Washington.
The proliferation of reports based on anonymous sources highlights the opacity with which both governments handle discussions, while the Trump administration insists that no external source has real access to what is occurring in these negotiations.
Insights into the U.S.-Cuba Diplomatic Situation
What triggered the media dispute regarding U.S.-Cuba relations?
The controversy began when The New York Times published a report based on anonymous sources suggesting that the U.S. proposed the removal of Miguel Díaz-Canel as a precondition for negotiations with Cuba.
How did the Trump administration respond to the allegations?
White House officials, including Anna Kelly and Steven Cheung, dismissed the reports as false, emphasizing that only President Trump and Marco Rubio were privy to the actual situation regarding Cuba.
What was Cuba's official response to the ongoing reports?
Miguel Díaz-Canel confirmed contacts with the U.S. but provided no specific details. The Cuban government also released prisoners following Vatican mediation but did not recognize them as political prisoners.