By Horizonte Cubano News
Carlos Giménez has spent a significant portion of his public life in positions of power.
Before entering Congress, he served approximately nine years as mayor of Miami-Dade County, from 2011 until 2020.
Today, he represents South Florida in the United States Congress and has become one of Washington’s most vocal Cuban-American voices on Cuba, communism and the policies the United States should pursue toward Havana.
That gives voters something valuable:
A record.
Carlos Giménez does not have to be judged by promises about what he might do someday.
He can be evaluated by what he has already done.
And after years of political power, the appropriate question is no longer whether Carlos Giménez knows how to win elections.
The question is:
Where are the results of his leadership?
Nine Years Running Miami-Dade
When Giménez became mayor in 2011, he inherited an extraordinarily powerful position.
Miami-Dade’s strong-mayor system placed the executive branch of one of America’s largest local governments under his control.
By the end of his tenure, county government had a budget of approximately $9 billion and more than 28,000 employees.
The mayor exercised authority over major institutions including Miami International Airport, PortMiami, transportation and county departments.
That is substantial governmental power.
And Giménez did achieve things that should be acknowledged.
He entered office presenting himself as a fiscal conservative.
He reduced the property-tax rate early in his administration.
He reorganized county government.
He negotiated labor concessions.
He emphasized keeping taxes under control.
Those accomplishments belong in any fair evaluation of his record.
But leadership cannot be measured exclusively by tax rates.
It must also be measured by what happened to the community those taxes were supposed to serve.
Transportation Became the Great Test
Few issues illustrate the problem better than transportation.
Miami-Dade residents had approved a half-percent sales tax for transportation in 2002 after being promised substantial expansion of mass transit.
Giménez did not create those promises.
They preceded his mayoralty.
That distinction is important.
But when he became mayor in 2011, he inherited the responsibility of dealing with the consequences.
Years passed.
Billions of dollars flowed through the transportation tax.
Miami-Dade continued growing.
Traffic worsened.
Residents continued waiting for major rail expansion.
And the county searched repeatedly for alternatives.
Giménez increasingly argued that conventional Metrorail expansion was prohibitively expensive.
That argument deserves consideration.
Rail construction can cost enormous amounts of money.
But leadership cannot consist solely of explaining why something cannot be built.
Eventually, the public needs to know:
What are you going to build instead?
From Rail to Buses
One of the most consequential examples came in South Dade.
Rather than extending Metrorail south, the Giménez administration championed a substantially less expensive rapid-transit bus system.
The financial argument was straightforward.
Bus rapid transit could be constructed for far less money than heavy rail.
Supporters believed that would allow Miami-Dade to improve transportation while preserving resources for other corridors.
Critics believed South Dade was being denied the rail expansion residents had expected.
Giménez chose buses.
That was his prerogative as an executive advocating what he believed was financially responsible.
But it also became part of his transportation legacy.
And then comes one of the most fascinating chapters of that legacy.
When Miami-Dade Needed Answers, Carlos Giménez Went to Communist China
In 2017, Giménez publicly expressed interest in an unusual transportation technology manufactured in China.
It looked something like a train.
But it ran on rubber tires.
It was electric.
And instead of conventional rails, it followed a designated path on the roadway.
The manufacturer was CRRC.
And CRRC was not simply another private international transportation company.
It was a Chinese state-owned enterprise.
Giménez wanted to see the technology.
So in 2018, while mayor of Miami-Dade County, Carlos Giménez traveled to the People’s Republic of China.
He led a large Miami-Dade delegation on an Asian trade mission that also included Japan.
The official purpose was legitimate.
Miami-Dade was looking for transportation solutions, business opportunities and commercial relationships.
The delegation examined transportation technology.
Giménez toured a facility operated by state-owned CRRC.
He looked at China’s so-called “trackless train.”
He met business interests.
And the delegation explored what Asian companies might potentially offer Miami-Dade.
Let us be perfectly clear:
Horizonte Cubano News does not criticize Carlos Giménez merely for going to China.
Quite the opposite.
Government leaders should study ideas wherever useful ideas exist.
China.
Japan.
Germany.
France.
Canada.
Brazil.
Cuba.
Or anywhere else.
What makes the trip relevant today is the political contrast.
Apparently, Talking to Communists Wasn’t Always Appeasement
Today Carlos Giménez is one of Congress’s strongest anti-communist voices.
He regularly warns about communist governments.
He attacks engagement with Havana.
He supports extensive economic pressure on Cuba.
He presents political and economic confrontation with the Cuban government as essential to American interests.
Yet when Miami-Dade had a practical transportation problem, Mayor Carlos Giménez did not refuse to travel to China because China was governed by a Communist Party.
He went there.
He looked at the technology.
He toured a state-owned company’s facility.
He listened.
He investigated.
He explored whether doing business could benefit Miami-Dade.
There was nothing inherently wrong with that.
But it raises a question Congressman Giménez should be willing to answer today:
If an American government official can visit communist China to examine state-owned transportation technology when doing so might benefit Miami-Dade, why should engagement, investigation and negotiation automatically become unacceptable when the communist country involved is Cuba?
China is not Cuba.
The geopolitical circumstances are different.
The national-security considerations are different.
But the principle is worth examining.
Talking is not surrender.
Visiting is not surrender.
Studying another country’s technology is not surrender.
Negotiating is not surrender.
Carlos Giménez’s own record demonstrates that.
The China Trip Raised Other Questions
The story does not end with transportation technology.
The trip itself generated controversy.
The 2018 delegation included 19 public officials and more than 30 businesspeople and lobbyists.
Univision subsequently reported that approximately 35 percent of the trip’s cost — about $31,800 — came from contributions by lobbyists who had or sought substantial business with Miami-Dade County.
That does not establish that Carlos Giménez committed wrongdoing.
It does establish why the trip deserved scrutiny.
And scrutiny eventually came.
The Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust investigated aspects of the trip.
Among the issues examined were meetings during the Hong Kong portion of the journey involving Genting, a company interested in a potential transit connection between mainland Miami and Miami Beach.
Some of those meetings were not included in itineraries initially provided to journalists.
The ethics investigation later documented how those meetings occurred.
No criminal charge against Giménez resulted from the investigation.
That fact must also be included.
But transparency surrounding a major government trade mission is a legitimate issue when companies and lobbyists participating in the trip have interests before the same government.
Political Connections and Transportation
The transportation story became still more complicated.
Two lobbyists with important roles in Giménez’s 2016 reelection effort were associated with the consortium pursuing the proposed Miami Beach monorail project.
One of them, Ralph Garcia-Toledo, had also participated in meetings supporting the Giménez administration’s bus-rapid-transit approach for South Dade.
Again, political relationships do not by themselves prove corruption.
People involved in politics frequently participate in business and lobbying.
The relevant question is transparency.
Who had access?
Who influenced decisions?
Who stood to benefit?
Were taxpayers receiving the best transportation solution?
And were political relationships properly separated from public decision-making?
Those are questions journalists are supposed to ask.
Giménez Eventually Changed His Mind About China
There is another fact that deserves inclusion because fairness requires it.
Carlos Giménez eventually became skeptical of Chinese involvement in Miami-Dade transportation.
He later said his trip to China helped change his perspective.
After seeing China firsthand, he said he returned with a different assessment.
He expressed concerns about security and Chinese technology.
Eventually, he supported keeping Chinese companies away from certain Miami-Dade transportation projects.
That evolution should not automatically be criticized.
Changing one’s mind after gathering information can be a sign of responsible decision-making.
But think about what happened.
Giménez had an idea.
He traveled.
He investigated.
He saw the country himself.
He examined the technology.
He obtained additional information.
And then he changed his position.
That is precisely why engagement can have value.
Engagement does not require agreement.
Sometimes engagement convinces you that cooperation is possible.
Sometimes it convinces you of the opposite.
But first you have to gather information.
Why Doesn’t That Principle Apply to Cuba?
This brings us back to Cuba.
Carlos Giménez was willing to travel thousands of miles to communist China because Miami-Dade needed transportation solutions.
Cuba is roughly 90 miles from Florida.
Millions of Cubans are experiencing economic hardship.
Cuba’s electrical system is struggling.
Its transportation infrastructure needs modernization.
Its agricultural sector requires investment.
Its private sector is evolving.
Migration directly affects Florida.
And the consequences of Cuban instability do not remain in Havana.
They arrive in South Florida.
Why, then, should serious negotiation be treated as weakness?
Why shouldn’t Washington explore what measurable reforms Havana might accept in exchange for measurable American responses?
Why shouldn’t American officials investigate economic opportunities that strengthen legitimate private Cuban businesses while excluding sanctioned entities?
Why shouldn’t the United States determine whether carefully structured engagement can advance American interests?
Carlos Giménez apparently believed information was valuable enough to travel to China to obtain it.
Cuba deserves at least the same intellectual seriousness.
And What About Cuban Families Here?
There is another leadership question much closer to home.
Cuban families in the United States are confronting the consequences of federal immigration policy.
Some Cuban nationals have been removed to third countries in Africa.
Horizonte Cubano News has examined the cases of:
Leonardo Sánchez.
Carlos Rodríguez López.
Darwin Hernández.
Emilio Destrade Correoso.
Their individual circumstances differ.
Their immigration histories differ.
Where criminal convictions exist, they should be reported.
Where lawful removal orders exist, they should be acknowledged.
But their cases raise legitimate questions about third-country deportations, family notification, medical care, access to lawyers, diplomatic agreements and due process.
Carlos Giménez is no longer a county mayor.
He is a member of the United States Congress.
Congress possesses oversight authority.
Where is the urgency?
Where are the demands for records?
Where are the hearings?
Where are the questions for DHS?
Where is the investigation into what happens when Cuban nationals are transported from the United States to countries in Africa with which they have little or no apparent connection?
Leadership Cannot Only Point Toward Havana
This may be the central problem with South Florida’s Cuba politics.
It is politically easy to point toward Havana.
Condemn the Communist Party.
Condemn repression.
Condemn political imprisonment.
Condemn failed economic policies.
Many of those criticisms are entirely legitimate.
But a member of the United States Congress has another responsibility.
He must also scrutinize Washington.
If Havana violates someone’s rights, demand accountability.
If Washington may have violated someone’s rights, demand accountability there too.
If Havana implements a harmful policy, criticize it.
If Washington implements a policy harming your constituents, examine that too.
Representation cannot stop at the Florida Straits.
A Long Record Deserves a Serious Examination
Carlos Giménez has served the public for many years.
That means he has accomplishments.
It means he has made mistakes.
It means he has changed positions.
And it means voters have enough evidence to evaluate him based on something more substantial than television appearances and political slogans.
Look at transportation.
Look at county spending.
Look at the promises made to South Dade.
Look at the China trip.
Look at the relationships surrounding transportation proposals.
Look at his subsequent reversal on Chinese technology.
Look at his record in Congress.
Look at his Cuba policy.
Look at his response to immigration policies affecting Cuban families.
Then ask:
What does leadership look like?
The China Lesson
Perhaps Carlos Giménez’s trip to China contains a lesson he should reconsider today.
He went to a communist country because he believed Miami-Dade might learn something useful.
He examined technology produced by a state-owned enterprise.
He talked with people with whom he did not necessarily share political values.
He gathered information.
He came home.
And eventually he decided that some of what he saw was not in Miami-Dade’s interest.
That is not appeasement.
That is government doing its homework.
So perhaps the question for Congressman Carlos Giménez is remarkably simple:
If you were willing to go all the way to communist China to determine whether engagement served Miami-Dade’s interests, why are negotiation and engagement so often treated as unacceptable ideas when the subject is Cuba?
Nobody is asking Carlos Giménez to become a communist.
Nobody is asking the United States to abandon human rights.
Nobody is asking Washington to write Havana a blank check.
We are asking for something much simpler.
Leadership.
Examine the evidence.
Talk when talking advances American interests.
Pressure when pressure produces results.
Negotiate when negotiation can produce change.
Protect Cuban families.
Demand accountability from Havana.
And demand accountability from Washington.
Because after nine years running Miami-Dade and years representing South Florida in Congress, Carlos Giménez should be judged by more than how forcefully he can condemn communism.
He should be judged by whether the policies he advocates actually improve the lives of the people he was elected to represent.
Horizonte Cubano News — Analysis and commentary on Cuba, the United States, South Florida and the future of the hemisphere.