Connect with us

Politics

Carter Never Took to Washington. The Feeling Was Mutual.

Published

on

Carter Never Took to Washington. The Feeling Was Mutual.

Former President Jimmy Carter is set to arrive in Washington on Tuesday to be honored in death as the city never truly honored him in life.

That he will end his long story with a pomp-and-circumstance visit to the nation’s capital is a nod to protocol not partiality, a testament to the rituals of the American presidency rather than a testimonial to the time he presided in the citadel of power.

To put it more bluntly, Mr. Carter and Washington did not exactly get along. More than any president in generations before him, the peanut farmer from Georgia was a genuine outsider when he took occupancy of the white mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — and determinedly, stubbornly, proudly remained so.

He never cared for the culture of the capital, never catered to its mandarins and doyens, never bowed to its conventions. The city, in turn, never cared for him and his “Georgian mafia,” dismissing them as a bunch of cocky rednecks from the hinterlands who did not know what they were doing. Other outsider presidents eventually acclimated to Washington. Not Mr. Carter. And by his own admission, it would cost him.

“I don’t know which was worse — the Carter crowd’s distrust and dislike of unofficial Washington or Washington’s contempt for the new guys in town from Georgia,” recalled Gregory B. Craig, a longtime lawyer and fixture in Washington who served in two other Democratic administrations. “I do know it was there on Day 1.”

Advertisement

Between the two camps, the blend of piety, pettiness, jealousy and condescension proved toxic. It was not partisan — Mr. Carter’s most profound differences were with fellow Democrats. But the litany of slights and snubs on both sides was long and lingering. Everyone remembered the phone call that went unreturned, the invitation that never came, the project that was not approved, the appointment that was not offered.

Mr. Carter, after all, had run against Washington when he came out of nowhere to win the presidency in 1976 and unlike others who did that, he really meant it. He vaulted to office as the antidote to Watergate, Vietnam and other national setbacks. He had not come to town to become a creature of it.

He saw the demands of the Washington power structure as indulgent and pointless. He had no interest in dinner at the home of Katharine Graham, the publisher of The Washington Post, and aides like Hamilton Jordan, his chief of staff, and Jody Powell, his press secretary, radiated his disregard.

“Carter’s state funeral in Washington is full of ironies,” said Kai Bird, who titled his 2021 biography of Mr. Carter “The Outlier” for a reason. “He really was an outsider running against the Washington establishment. And when he improbably entered the Oval Office, he declined more than one dinner invitation from the Georgetown set.”

In their conversations for the book, Mr. Bird added, “he later told me he thought that was a mistake. But he preferred pizza and beer with Ham Jordan and Jody Powell — or working late into the night.”

Advertisement

As E. Stanly Godbold Jr., the author of a two-volume biography of Mr. Carter and the first lady Rosalynn Carter, put it: “Carter arrived at the White House virtually unbeholden to anyone except Rosalynn, his family and those millions of people who had voted for him. He had a free hand, within the limits of the Constitution and the presidency, to do as he wished.”

Or so he thought. But what Mr. Carter saw as principled, Washington saw as naïve and counterproductive. The framers conceived a system with checks and balances, but historically it has been lubricated by personal relationships, favors, horse trading and socializing.

“When it came to the politics of Washington, D.C., he never really understood how the system worked,” Thomas P. O’Neill Jr., the House speaker, wrote in his memoir. Mrs. Graham wrote in hers that “Jimmy Carter was one of those outsider presidents who found it difficult to find the right modus operandi for Washington.”

This was an era of giants in Washington, the likes of whom do not exist today. It was a time when titans of law, lobbying, politics and journalism like Joseph A. Califano Jr., Edward Bennett Williams, Ben Bradlee and Art Buchwald would meet for lunch every Tuesday at the Sans Souci to hash over the latest events. Mr. Carter was a frequent topic of discourse, and not always lovingly so.

Mr. Carter got off to a rough start with Mr. O’Neill, a necessary ally to pass any agenda. Shortly after the election, Mr. Carter visited the speaker but seemed dismissive of Mr. O’Neill’s advice about working with Congress, saying that if lawmakers did not go along, he could go over their heads to appeal to voters. “Hell, Mr. President, you’re making a big mistake,” Mr. O’Neill recalled replying.

Advertisement

It got worse when Mr. O’Neill asked for tickets for his family to attend an inaugural eve gala at the Kennedy Center only to discover that his relatives were seated far off in the balcony. Mr. O’Neill called Mr. Jordan the next day to yell at him. He nicknamed the chief of staff “Hannibal Jerkin.” In his memoir, Mr. O’Neill complained that Mr. Jordan and other Carter aides were “amateurs” who “came to Washington with a chip on their shoulder and never changed.”

But if they had a chip, it was fueled by plenty of patronizing quips mocking the Carter team’s Southern roots, including cartoons in the paper portraying them as hayseeds. It did not help that Mr. Carter arrived in a city full of politicians who thought they should have been the one to win in 1976, not this nobody from Georgia.

Mr. Carter styled himself as a man of the people from the start by getting out of his limousine during the inaugural parade to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. He initially banned the playing of “Hail to the Chief” when he entered a room and sold Sequoia, the presidential yacht often used in the past to woo key congressional leaders.

He took it as a badge of honor to do things that were not politically expedient, like cutting off water projects important to lawmakers trying to deliver for their districts or forcing them to vote on an unpopular treaty turning over the Panama Canal. It did not go over well either when Washington concluded that he did not fight hard enough for Ted Sorensen, the old John F. Kennedy hand, to become C.I.A. director or when he fought with Mr. Califano, the Washington powerhouse serving as secretary of health, education and welfare.

“I believe President Carter tried to make peace when he came into office,” said Chris Matthews, who was a speechwriter for him before going on to work for Mr. O’Neill and then embarking on a long career in television journalism. But “Carter told me he should have done more work getting control of the Democratic Party.” And Mr. Matthews noted that “his challenge in Washington derived from odd places,” like the squabble over the gala seats.

Advertisement

The spats had consequences, both legislatively and politically. Ultimately, he got a lot of his bills through Congress, but not all and not easily. And eventually, he was challenged for the party nomination in 1980 by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a challenge that fell short but damaged him for the fall contest that he would lose to former Gov. Ronald Reagan of California.

“His poor relationships with Democrats in both the House and the Senate hindered his ability to drive his agenda through Congress,” said Tevi Troy, a presidential historian at the Ronald Reagan Institute. “In addition, those poor relations hurt his reputation in Washington, as many Democratic members who would ordinarily advocate for the administration in the press were less willing to do so.”

Mr. Carter did not naturally take to the schmoozing that comes with politics. At one point, an aide persuaded him to invite a couple of important senators to play tennis at the White House. He consented, but as soon as the set was done, he headed back into the mansion without chit-chatting or inviting them in for a drink. “You said to play tennis with them, and I did,” Mr. Carter later explained to the disappointed aide.

“Carter didn’t like politics, period,” said Douglas Brinkley, the author of “The Unfinished Presidency,” about Mr. Carter’s much-lauded humanitarian work after leaving office. “And he didn’t like politicians.”

After an official dinner, Mr. Carter would be quick to take his leave. “He would be curt,” Mr. Brinkley said. “He would just get up because he had work to do. He never developed any Washington friendships.”

Advertisement

Mr. Williams was a prime example of a missed opportunity. A founder of the law firm Williams & Connolly, owner of the team then called the Washington Redskins and later of the Baltimore Orioles, and treasurer of the Democratic Party, Mr. Williams was a quintessential capital insider.

But he felt shunned by Mr. Carter. Mr. Williams recalled meeting the future president at the 1976 convention and all he got was “a wet flounder” of a handshake. He was irked that Mr. Carter never came to the Alfalfa Dinner, one of the most exclusive black-tie events on Washington’s social circuit. “Carter’s a candy-ass,” Mr. Williams groused to the president of Georgetown University, according to “The Man to See,” by Evan Thomas.

Only after a couple of years in Washington did the Carter team finally seek Mr. Williams’s help, in this case to quash negative media reports involving Mr. Jordan. When he succeeded, he was invited to a state dinner and Mr. Carter later came to sit in Mr. Williams’s box for a football game at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium. But Mr. Williams never warmed to Mr. Carter and joined a futile last-minute effort to thwart his nomination at the convention in 1980.

Mr. Carter never warmed to Washington either, calling it an island “isolated from the mainstream of our nation’s life.” After losing re-election, he grappled with his distant relationship with the capital. In “White House Diary,” he cast it largely as a matter of social butterflies resentful of his diffidence rather than something larger.

Rosalynn Carter, Mr. Powell and others, he wrote, had criticized him because “neither I nor my key staff members participated in Washington’s social life,” much to his detriment. “I am sure this apparently aloof behavior drove something of a wedge between us and numerous influential cocktail party hosts,” he wrote. “But I wasn’t the first president to object to this obligation.”

Advertisement

He wrote that he and Mrs. Carter had resolved to avoid going out regularly when he was governor of Georgia “and for better or worse, I never had any intention of changing this approach when we moved into the White House.”

At this point, of course, all of that is ancient history. Washington’s focus on Tuesday will be on the successes of Mr. Carter’s presidency, the inspiration of his post-presidency and the decency of his character. He will be brought by horse-drawn caisson to the Capitol and lie in state. He will be honored at Washington National Cathedral on Thursday.

No matter how Washington feels, it has a way of putting on a great funeral.

Politics

Trump launches ‘Genesis Mission’ to supercharge US scientific AI innovation

Published

on

Trump launches ‘Genesis Mission’ to supercharge US scientific AI innovation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday aimed at bolstering U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) initiatives as it unveiled its new “Genesis Mission” to accelerate AI use for scientific purposes. 

The “Genesis Mission” will direct the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and their national labs to work with private companies to share federal data sets, advanced supercomputing capabilities, and scientific facilities. 

TRUMP, MCCORMICK TO UNVEIL $90B ENERGY AND INNOVATION INVESTMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA

“The private sector has launched artificial intelligence at huge scale, but with a little bit different focus – on language, on business, on processes, on consumer services,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told reporters Monday. “What we’re doing here is just pivoting those efforts to focus on scientific discovery, engineering advancements. And to do that, you need the data sets that are contained across our national labs.” 

Advertisement

Vice President JD Vance, left, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, right, in Greenland while honoring the 55th anniversary of Earth Day 2025.  (Reuters)

Additionally, the executive order instructs the Department of Energy and national labs to create an integrated platform aimed at expediting scientific discovery, in an attempt to connect AI capability with scientists, engineers, technical staff, and the labs’ scientific instruments, according to a White House official.

AI LAWNMOWERS CUT GRASS — AND POTENTIALLY COSTS — IN NATIONAL MALL TEST RUN 

Trump hinted an effort like this was in the works during the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum Wednesday in Washington, where he said the U.S. would work “to build the largest, most powerful, most innovative AI ecosystem in the world.”

US President Donald Trump during the US-Saudi Investment Forum at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2025.  (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The effort comes after Trump issued an AI policy document called “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan” in July. The document laid out a framework focused on accelerating AI innovation, ensuring the U.S. is the leader in international AI diplomacy and security, and using the private sector to help build up and operate AI infrastructure. 

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DRIVES DEMAND FOR ELECTRIC GRID UPDATE

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also currently considering other executive orders pertaining to AI, and more executive orders could be on the horizon. 

For example, Fox News Digital previously reported that the White House was gearing up an executive order instructing the Justice Department to sue states that adopt their own laws regulating AI. 

The Trump administration is prepping an executive order that would instruct the Justice Department to sue states that adopt their own laws that would regulate AI.  (Samuel Corum/Bloomberg via Getty Images, left, and MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images, right.)

Advertisement

Trump appeared to address the initiative at the U.S-Saudi Investment Forum as well, claiming that a series of AI regulations imposed at the state level would prove a “disaster.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 

“And we are going to work it so that you’ll have a one approval process to not have to go through 50 states,” Trump said. 

Fox News’ Amanda Macias and Dennis Collins contributed to this report. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Deaths in ICE custody raise serious questions, lawmakers say

Published

on

Deaths in ICE custody raise serious questions, lawmakers say

Southern California lawmakers are demanding answers from U.S. Homeland Security officials following the deaths of two Orange County residents and nearly two dozen others while in federal immigration custody.

In a letter Friday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Reps. Dave Min (D-Irvine) and Judy Chu (D-Pasadena) pointed to the deaths of 25 people so far this year while being held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The number of in-custody deaths has reached an annual record since the agency began keeping track in 2018.

Two Mexican immigrants — who had long made their homes in Orange County and were sent to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center north of Hesperia — were among the deaths.

“These are not just numbers on a website, but real people — with families, jobs, and hopes and dreams — each of whom died in ICE custody,” the lawmakers wrote. “The following cases illustrate systemic patterns of delayed treatment, neglect, and failure to properly notify families.”

Advertisement

Ismael Ayala-Uribe, 39, died Sept. 22 about a month after being apprehended while working at the Fountain Valley Auto Wash, where he had worked for 15 years, according to a GoFundMe post by his family.

He had lived in Westminster since he was 4 years old, and had previously been protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. The Times previously reported that his application for continued protection was not renewed in 2016.

Ayala-Uribe’s relatives and members of Congress have alleged that he was denied proper medical care after being taken into ICE custody in August. Adelanto detention staff members were aware of his medical crisis, according to internal emails obtained by The Times. But Ayala-Uribe initially was taken back to his Adelanto dorm room, where he waited for another three days before being moved to Victor Valley Global Medical Center in Victorville.

ICE officials acknowledged that Ayala-Uribe died at the Victorville hospital while waiting for surgery for an abscess on his buttock. The suspected cause of the sore was not disclosed.

Ayala-Uribe’s cause of death is under investigation, ICE has previously said.

Advertisement

A second man — Gabriel Garcia-Aviles, 56, who lived near Costa Mesa — died Oct. 23, about a week after being detained.

ICE said Garcia-Aviles was arrested Oct. 14 in Santa Ana by the U.S. Border Patrol for an outstanding warrant, and eventually sent to the Adelanto center. ICE said in a previous statement that he was only at the Adelanto facility for a few hours before he was taken to the Victorville hospital for “suspected alcohol withdrawal symptoms.”

His condition rapidly worsened.

The deaths have focused attention on the treatment of detained immigrants as well as long-standing concerns about medical care inside Adelanto, one of the largest federal immigration detention centers in California. The situation raises broader concerns about whether immigration detention centers throughout the country are equipped to care for the deluge of people rounded up since President Trump prioritized mass deportations as part of his second-term agenda.

“These deaths raise serious questions about ICE’s ability to comply with basic detention standards, medical care protocols, and notification requirements, and underscore a pattern of gross negligence that demands immediate accountability,” Min and Chu wrote in the letter to Noem and Todd M. Lyons, the acting director of ICE.

Advertisement

The letter was signed by 43 other lawmakers, including Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), J. Luis Correa (D-Santa Ana), John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove) and Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles).

An ICE representative did not immediately respond to an email Saturday seeking comment.

The lawmakers stressed the need to treat the immigrants with humanity.

The lawmakers said Garcia-Aviles had lived in the U.S. for three decades. His family did not learn of his dire medical condition until “he was on his deathbed.” Family members drove to the hospital to find him “unconscious, intubated, and . . . [with] dried blood on his forehead” as well as “a cut on his tongue … broken teeth and bruising on his body.”

“We never got the chance to speak to him anymore and [the family] never was called to let us know why he had been transferred to the hospital,” his daugher wrote on a GoFundMe page, seeking help to pay for his funeral costs. “His absence has left a hole in our hearts.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Rubio claims ‘tremendous amount of progress’ in Ukraine peace talks following Geneva meeting

Published

on

Rubio claims ‘tremendous amount of progress’ in Ukraine peace talks following Geneva meeting

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that discussions over ending the war in Ukraine have entered a productive phase, while claiming “a tremendous amount of progress” had been made.

Following a round of talks with a Ukrainian delegation in Geneva, Switzerland, Rubio told reporters negotiators had “a very good day today.”

“We had a very good day today. I think we made a tremendous amount of progress, even from the last time I spoke to you,” Rubio said.

“We began almost three weeks ago with a foundational document that we socialized and ran by both sides, and with input from both sides,” he said.

Advertisement

LAVROV OFFERS FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WITH RUBIO AS RUSSIA SIGNALS DIPLOMATIC OPENING AMID UKRAINE TENSIONS

Secretary of State Marco Rubio attends a signing ceremony for a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo at the State Department on June 27, 2025, in Washington.  (Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo)

Rubio described how negotiators had been refining the 28-point peace framework that outlines potential conditions for a ceasefire and long-term settlement for Ukraine and Russia.

“Over the last 96 hours or more, there’s been extensive engagement with the Ukrainian side including our Secretary of the Army and others, being on the ground in Kyiv, meeting with relevant stakeholders across the Ukrainian political spectrum in the legislative branch and the executive branch, and the military and others to further sort of narrow these points.”

TRUMP AND ZELENSKYY TO MEET AS POLAND PRESSURES NATO ON NO FLY ZONE OVER UKRAINE

Advertisement

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy participates in a briefing at the Office of the President following a staff meeting in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Nov. 7, 2025. (Pavlo Bahmut/Ukrinform/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

“We arrived here today with one goal: to take what – it’s 28 points or 26 points, depending on which version, as it continued to evolve and try to narrow the ones that were open items. And we have achieved that today in a very substantial way,” he said.

The weekend talks centered on a 28-point plan, which is a framework drafted by the U.S. outlining steps for a possible ceasefire and political settlement.

The document is said to cover security guarantees, territorial control, reconstruction mechanisms, and Ukraine’s long-term relationship with NATO and the EU.

ZELENSKYY WARNS UKRAINE FACES ‘DIFFICULT CHOICE’ AS US PEACE PLAN HITS MAJOR HURDLE

Advertisement

The plan has reportedly evolved through several iterations, narrowing disputes point by point as both sides weigh concessions.

“Now, obviously, like any final agreement, it’ll have to be agreed upon by the presidents, and there are a couple of issues that we need to continue to work on,” Rubio clarified.

While declining to specify unresolved issues, Rubio described the moment as “delicate.”

“This is a very delicate moment, and it’s important – like I said, there’s not agreement on those yet.  Some of it is semantics or language; others require higher-level decisions and consultation; others, I think, just need more time to work through,” he said before touching on some issues.

US AND RUSSIA DRAFT PEACE PLAN FOR UKRAINE REQUIRING MAJOR CONCESSIONS FROM KYIV

Advertisement

Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022. (Ramil Sitdikov/Pool/Reuters )

“There were some that involved equities or the role of the EU or of NATO or so forth, and those we kind of segregated out because we just met with the national security advisors for various European countries, and those are things we’ll have to discuss with them because it involves them.”

“I don’t want to declare victory or finality here. There’s still some work to be done,” he added.

Suggesting there is intent to ensure Ukraine’s security, Rubio said that they all “recognize that part of getting a final end to this war will require for Ukraine to feel as if it is safe, and it is never going to be invaded or attacked again.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“I honestly believe we’ll get there,” he said, and when asked about next steps, Rubio said a possible call between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy could happen, adding, “I don’t know. It’s possible. I’m not sure.”

“The deadline is we want to get this done as soon as possible. Obviously, we’d love it to be Thursday,” he added.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending