More details emerge from the NBC interview: the Cuban leader avoided any self-criticism, denied the existence of political prisoners, and blamed the crisis on the United States
14ymedio, Yunior García, Madrid, April 13, 2026 – The U.S. network NBC published this Sunday the full interview with Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel, conducted by journalist Kristen Welker on the program Meet the Press.
Not accustomed to facing the foreign press—until now he has moved almost exclusively among official media or international interlocutors aligned with the regime—Díaz-Canel responded harshly and took refuge in the most worn-out repertoire of Cuban power.
Over more than 50 minutes, he did not assume a single political responsibility for the country’s deterioration. On the contrary, he defended the continuity of the system, rejected any conditions from Washington, and presented himself as part of a “collective leadership” willing even to “give their lives for the Revolution.”
In the face of threats from Donald Trump, Díaz-Canel also suggests that aggressive language toward Cuba has not come solely from the U.S. president but also from other members of his administration, in a barely veiled reference to Marco Rubio, whom he avoids mentioning by name in that part of the interview.
Instead of using the space to ease tensions or outline a political solution, the president once again situates himself on the terrain of resistance, the ‘besieged plaza’, and a nation permanently on guard. A serious leader would have spoken of de-escalation, international legality, and the protection of civilians. Díaz-Canel, however, preferred the liturgy of martyrdom and the use of the population as a rear guard for the doctrine of “war of the whole people.”
In the face of threats from Donald Trump, Díaz-Canel also suggests that aggressive language toward Cuba has not come solely from the U.S. president
The Cuban leader avoids drawing parallels between Cuba and other countries and takes refuge in the Island’s historical singularity, but that caution does not erase a recent uncomfortable fact. The doctrine of “civic-military unity,” which Chavismo copied from Castroism, has already shown its most resounding failure in Caracas.
In the section devoted to fuel, Díaz-Canel admits, perhaps more clearly than at any other moment in the interview, the magnitude of Cuba’s energy precariousness. He acknowledges that the recently arrived Russian tanker “will only cover one-third of Cuba’s monthly oil needs,” that this crude still has to be refined and distributed, and that much of it will be used to recover 1,200 megawatts that have been out of service for four months.
From there he tries to wrap the Island’s dependence on Russia in the language of resistance and sovereignty, but what remains is the admission of a country that cannot sustain its economy or its electrical system without immediate external assistance.
When the journalist asks whether he assumes any responsibility for “the suffering Cubans are experiencing,” Díaz-Canel does not offer a single concrete admission of mismanagement, economic design errors, state inefficiency, or internal obstacles. He simply turns the question back: “What is the main cause of that suffering?” His answer is evasive: “It is not the Cuban government’s fault.” With that statement, he abruptly shuts down any serious examination of the State’s role in the electrical collapse, food shortages, lack of medicines, or mass emigration.
His evasiveness becomes even more evident when visible poverty in Havana, 20-hour blackouts, and the departure of hundreds of thousands of Cubans are addressed. He acknowledges that “our people are living very harsh conditions daily,” but avoids linking that suffering to a centralized, unproductive, and politically closed model.
He prefers to describe the population as resilient. “The Cuban people feel frustrated,” yes, but “the majority of the Cuban people do not blame the Cuban government.” The claim contradicts what can be observed on social media and even in the streets, where more and more citizens openly reject not only his management but also the power structure that sustains it.
When NBC lists some of the demands Washington typically puts on the table—release of political prisoners, multiparty elections, independent unions, and a free press—Díaz-Canel responds with a mix of denial and disdain. He first claims that “no one” has raised those demands with him. Then he makes it clear that, in any case, the Cuban political system and “constitutional order” are not subject to negotiation.
The most revealing moment comes when he reduces democracy, human rights, freedom of the press, and union autonomy to mere “paraphernalia” of manipulated concepts loaded with “prejudices.” That is, he does not refute the accusations, offer evidence, or address the substance of the issue. He simply discredits in advance the language used to question him. His closing escape—“we don’t have time now,” “it would take a long time to discuss it”—completes the picture of the maneuver.
NBC presses on, mentions Maykel “Osorbo,”* and places the number of those imprisoned for political reasons at more than 1,200. “It is a big lie,” the president responds.
NBC presses on, mentions Maykel “Osorbo,”* and places the number of those imprisoned for political reasons at more than 1,200. “It is a big lie,” the president responds. According to his version, in Cuba protest is not punished, but rather vandalism and subversion encouraged from abroad. But reviewing case by case the files, charges, and sentences imposed on protesters, artists, opponents, and activists shows that it is Díaz-Canel himself who distorts reality.
In the diplomatic arena, the leader presents himself as open to negotiating with the United States but under an absolute condition: that “our political system” and “our constitutional order” not be touched. He asserts that dialogue and agreements “are possible but difficult,” and lists areas of cooperation such as migration, drug trafficking, terrorism, and investments.
One of the most revealing moments comes at the end. When asked whether he would be willing to resign to “save Cuba,” Díaz-Canel responds irritably with a phrase that sums up the essence of the entire interview: “The concept of revolutionaries abandoning and resigning is not part of our vocabulary.”
*Maykel Castillo Pérez is the real name of Maykel Obsorbo, an independent musician. He co-founded the San Isidro movement in protest of Decree Law 349, which required artists to get State permission for exhibitions and performances.
Translated by Regina Anavy
_______________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.