Cuba Rejects U.S. Demands to Remove President Diaz-Canel Amid Ongoing Negotiations

Cuba has firmly pushed back against reports that its political leadership or governmental structure could be part of any negotiation with the United States. Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernandez de Cossio made clear at a press conference that Cuba's political system and the position of President Miguel Diaz-Canel are entirely off the table in any bilateral discussions with Washington.

This strong rejection follows media reports suggesting the Trump administration was crafting an economic deal that would ease trade restrictions on Cuba in exchange for Diaz-Canel stepping down before his term ends. The New York Times and USA Today both cited sources familiar with the talks, noting that the proposal would leave the influential Castro family untouched, while Raul Castro, now 94, continues to wield significant power behind the scenes.

President Diaz-Canel, speaking to foreign humanitarian aid workers visiting Cuba, acknowledged the possibility of U.S. aggression and signaled the country is actively preparing its defenses. His tone has grown increasingly defiant, declaring on social media that any aggressor would face fierce resistance from the Cuban people.

The backdrop to these tensions is an intensifying economic crisis in Cuba, worsened by an oil blockade enforced under President Trump, who has publicly stated he can act freely regarding the island nation. Cuba confirmed last week that it had entered into talks with U.S. representatives, though officials have declined to share specific details about the location or progress of those discussions.

Both nations have longstanding grievances on the table, including Cuba's claims for damages caused by the decades-long U.S. economic embargo and over 5,900 compensation claims filed by Americans whose properties were seized after the 1959 Cuban Revolution.

Cuban officials stressed that while complex issues exist, meaningful progress requires genuine dialogue and mutual respect for sovereignty, not preconditions targeting elected leadership.