Politics
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
Under President Trump, the tariffs keep on changing.
The latest shift arrived this week after a federal trade court ruled that the current centerpiece of his trade strategy — a 10 percent tax on most imports from around the world — exceeded the president’s authority under the law.
For now, that across-the-board duty remains in place, with an appeal getting underway. Still, the legal battle, which is far from finished, adds to the uncertainty that has plagued businesses and consumers throughout Mr. Trump’s global trade war.
Sorting out the tariffs that currently apply (or don’t) generally has boiled down to tracking the status of a handful of high-stakes lawsuits.
Many of the president’s tariffs — the sky-high rates that he first imposed on what became known as “Liberation Day” last year — were struck down by the Supreme Court in February. The administration has begun the work to refund the money collected under those duties, which totals around $166 billion, and the first checks are expected to arrive as soon as Monday.
This bucket of tariffs includes the country-by-country rates that Mr. Trump first announced to combat the illicit sale of drugs, as well as those he imposed on a “reciprocal” basis in response to what he described as persistent trade imbalances.
Other tariffs applied by Mr. Trump are more legally settled, yet have shifted up or down with some frequency as the White House has sought to accomplish its economic goals — or lessen the consequences of the president’s policies. These include the tariffs that the president applied to products like cars and steel on national security grounds, using a legal provision known as Section 232.
Yet much remains uncertain about Mr. Trump’s next steps, and his tariffs are expected to change considerably — again — in the coming months. Using another set of authorities, known as Section 301, the administration has opened investigations into the trade practices of dozens of countries. Mr. Trump’s goal is to revive the sort of tariffs that he had in place before the Supreme Court sided against him.
At the same time, Mr. Trump has continued to lob new tariff threats against countries, including those in Europe, while promising in general terms to double down on his strategy even in the face of court setbacks.
“We always do it a different way,” Mr. Trump said this week when asked about his latest loss. “We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
If negotiations with Iran collapse, the U.S. likely is to move quickly to degrade Tehran’s military capabilities — a campaign analysts say would begin with missile systems, naval assets and command networks before escalating to more controversial targets.
Negotiators are still working toward what officials describe as a preliminary framework agreement — effectively a one-page starting point for broader talks centered on Iran’s nuclear program and potential sanctions relief. But deep mistrust on both sides has left the process fragile, raising the stakes if diplomacy fails.
“We’re not starting at zero,” retired Army Col. Seth Krummrich, a former Joint Staff planner and current Vice President at Global Guardian, told Fox News Digital. “We’re both starting at minus 1,000 because neither side trusts each other at all. This is going to be a pretty hard process going forward.”
That tension was on display Thursday, when a senior U.S. official confirmed American forces struck Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas — key locations near the Strait of Hormuz — while insisting the operation did not mark a restart of the war or the end of the ceasefire.
The strike on one of Iran’s oil ports came two days after Iran launched 15 ballistic and cruise missiles at the UAE’s Fujairah Port, drawing anger from Gulf allies. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine said earlier this week the attack did not rise to the level of breaking the ceasefire, describing it as a low-level strike.
President Donald Trump repeatedly has warned that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. could resume bombing Iran — even signaling before the recent ceasefire was implemented that Washington could target the country’s energy infrastructure and key economic assets. But any escalation would likely unfold in phases, beginning with efforts to dismantle Iran’s ability to project force across the region before expanding to more controversial targets.
President Donald Trump has warned repeatedly that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. could resume bombing Iran. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
If talks break down, any renewed conflict would likely become a “contest for escalation control,” where Iran seeks to impose costs without provoking regime-threatening retaliation while the U.S. works to strip away Tehran’s remaining leverage, according to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula.
“The capabilities that would come into focus are the ones Iran uses to generate coercive leverage: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense systems, maritime strike assets, command-and-control networks, IRGC infrastructure, proxy support channels, and nuclear-related facilities,” he said, referring to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“The military objective would be less about punishment and more about denying Iran the tools it uses to escalate,” he said.
“President Trump has all the cards, and he wisely keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital. The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment.
One early focus could be Iran’s fleet of fast attack boats in the Strait of Hormuz — a central component of Tehran’s ability to threaten global shipping in one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.
RP Newman, a military and terrorism analyst and Marine Corp veteran, said leaving much of that fleet intact during earlier strikes was a mistake.
IRAN’S REMAINING WEAPONS: HOW TEHRAN CAN STILL DISRUPT THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ
“We’ve blown up six of them,” he said. “They’ve got about 400 left.”
The small, fast-moving boats are a key part of Iran’s asymmetric maritime strategy, capable of harassing commercial tankers and U.S. naval forces — and could quickly become a priority target in any renewed campaign.
Much of Iran’s core military structure also remains intact.
INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL
Newman said “we’ve only killed less than one percent of IRGC troops,” leaving a large portion of the force still capable of carrying out operations. He estimated the group “numbers between 150 and 190,000.”
But targeting the IRGC is far more complex than eliminating senior leadership.
“They’re not just a group of leaders at the top that you can kill away,” Krummrich said. “Over 47 years it’s percolated down to every level.”
An excavator removes rubble at the site of a strike that destroyed half of the Khorasaniha Synagogue and nearby residential buildings in Tehran, Iran, on April 7, 2026, according to a security official at the scene. (Francisco Seco/AP)
Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies policy institute, said Washington may continue tightening economic pressure before broadening military action, arguing the U.S. should “squeeze them for at least another three to six weeks” before considering more aggressive escalation.
“You could have blown Kharg Island back to smithereens,” Krummrich said, referring to Iran’s primary oil export terminal in the Persian Gulf. “But what the planner said was, no — what we can do is a maritime blockade. It will have the same effect.”
Iran has continued moving crude through covert shipping networks and ship-to-ship transfers, with tanker trackers reporting millions of barrels still reaching markets in recent weeks.
A CIA analysis found Iran may be able to sustain those pressures for another three to four months before facing more severe economic strain, according to a report by The Washington Post.
The question is how far a U.S. campaign could expand if initial pressure fails to force concessions.
Trump has signaled a willingness to go further, warning before the ceasefire that the U.S. could “completely obliterate” Iran’s electric generating plants, oil infrastructure and key export hubs such as Kharg Island if a deal is not reached.
Strikes on the Iranian leadership, the IRGC, and Iranian naval vessels and oil infrastructure have roiled the markets. ( Sasan / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images)
“You don’t do that at first,” Montgomery said, describing strikes on dual-use infrastructure as a conditional step dependent on Iran’s response.
Targeting dual-use infrastructure presents significant legal and operational challenges.
“I’ve got 500 people standing on my target. You can’t hit that,” Newman said.
Such decisions carry political and legal risks, particularly given the likelihood of international scrutiny.
Broader infrastructure strikes also could create long-term instability if they push Iran toward internal collapse.
“In the short term, it might help. But in the long term, we’re all going to have to deal with it,” Krummrich said. “Once you pull that lever, you’re basically pushing Iran closer to the edge of the abyss.”
A collapse of state authority could create a failed-state scenario across the Strait of Hormuz, with armed groups, drones and missiles operating unchecked in one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.
Even some of the most discussed military options — such as seizing Iran’s highly enriched uranium — would be extremely difficult to execute.
“That’s much harder than it sounds,” said Montgomery.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Such a mission would likely take months, and require engineers, technicians and heavy excavation equipment, in addition to thousands of U.S. operators providing continuous air coverage.
“When you start to stack that up, that becomes resource intensive and high risk — not even high, extreme risk,” said Krummrich.
Politics
Commentary: For all the chatter by mayoral candidates, can anyone fix L.A.’s enduring problems?
I’m going to start this story on a quiet tree-lined street in Mar Vista, where a couple I met with on Thursday — the day after the L.A. mayoral debate — have a problem.
It’s not an unusual matter, as things go in Los Angeles. On both sides of the street, the sidewalk rises and falls, uprooted and cracked by shallow roots because over many decades, the trees were not properly maintained.
John Coanda, 61, who grew up in Los Angeles, was never bothered by torn-up sidewalks as a kid.
“In fact,” he said when he first emailed me about his predicament, “my friends and I sometimes used the ramping pavement as jumps for our bicycles.”
But his wife, Barbara, was diagnosed in 2024 with ALS, and she uses a wheelchair. When John pushes her, they can’t use the sidewalk if they want to go to the store or meet with friends, or just enjoy a nice pass through the neighborhood without getting into a vehicle.
So John pushes Barbara’s wheelchair in the street, which creates an obvious safety problem. And despite John’s best efforts to get City Hall to fix the sidewalks, he’s not expecting help anytime soon.
I’ll circle back to this story, but first, about that debate.
I recruited a half-dozen L.A. residents to watch and send me their thoughts about how the candidates tackled the important issues. And then I felt guilty for having done so, because the candidates didn’t do much tackling at all.
Candidate Spencer Pratt is shown on a television while journalists work during the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral debate at Skirball Cultural Center.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
They hit their talking points, for sure, and Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Nithya Raman and TV personality Spencer Pratt each had their moments. But by the end of the debate, and two straight nights of gubernatorial debates as well, I came away thinking there were no clear winners, but there was a definite loser.
Voters.
This is the fault of the format more than of the candidates themselves. The deck is stacked against meaningful, substantive discussions, especially when moderators ask — as they did several times — for one-word answers.
“Moderator questions are so meaningless … and they make it easy for candidates to take potshots at each other,” said longtime political sage Darry Sragow. “The format is guaranteed to elicit nothing that matters.”
It’d be better to have single-issue debates, and to have candidates pressed for details by journalists who cover those issues and can push back against unrealistic promises and expose a lack of depth.
My debate watchers did some of that themselves. CSUN librarian Yi Ding had praise and criticism for each candidate, but was looking for concrete plans and didn’t get many.
Ding was also disappointed that two other mayoral candidates — Ray Huang and Adam Miller — were not invited to the debate, and I agree with her. Both have been polling low, but with so many undecided voters, and such high unfavorability ratings for Bass, they should have been in the mix.
Mike Washington, a retired pharmacist and West Adams resident, said Bass has done better than previous mayors on homelessness and he didn’t think Raman or Pratt came off as worthy of bumping her out of City Hall.
“The public would have benefited from more questions related to the challenges young people are facing,” said Juan Solorio Jr., president of the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats club. His colleague David Ramirez agreed, saying he was hoping for “more discussion about the cost of living for young adults,” but he and Solorio are both backing Bass.
West L.A. software developer Mike Eveloff asked the million-dollar question in one of his many observations during the debate:
“Why is LA spending record amounts on homelessness, fire, police, and infrastructure while results deteriorate? Streets and sidewalks crumble. Even the city emblem right in front of City Hall is deteriorated. With the World Cup and Olympics approaching, voters need to know: Do these leaders have the financial discipline and operational competence to manage a fourteen billion dollar city?”
Venice resident Dennis Hathaway, author of “An Octogenarian’s Journal,” said he thinks “these kinds of debates are pretty non-edifying.” And, as someone I wrote about two years ago regarding busted sidewalks in his neighborhood, he shared this lament about Thursday’s debate:
“No mention of broken sidewalks, potholed streets, other deteriorated infrastructure. To me, that’s a much more important subject than non-citizens voting in city elections.”
(Bass did say during the debate that there was a new infrastucture plan in place, and that’s a step in the right direction. But there was no discussion, and when you read the details, 2028 Olympics projects will be prioritized, and it’ll take years to figure out how to fund thousands of additional much-needed fixes.)
The Coandas live not far from Hathaway, and their lives have been upended first by Barbara’s diagnosis and then by John getting laid off in February from his job as a data analyst. Barbara still teaches French via Zoom, and John is tending to her needs. They started a Gofundme campaign to help pay their bills.
With Barbara in a wheelchair, John contacted the city’s Safe Sidewalks L.A. program last fall, and I think it’s fair to say that name is somewhere between a misnomer and a bad joke.
The “program” responded by email on Halloween, appropriately enough, informing him that under the City Council-approved “Sidewalk Repair Program Prioritization and Scoring System,” his request for help merits only 15 points out of a possible 45.
“Currently,” he was informed, “the estimated wait time for completion of an Access Request with a score of 15 is in excess of 10 years.”
Happy Halloween.
Over the years, responsibility for sidewalk repairs has shifted between the city and homeowners. There’s a rebate program available to people who repair their own sidewalks, but it’s capped at an amount that doesn’t always cover the costs. And ruptured pavement is keeping lots of lawyers busy with trip-and-fall lawsuits that cost the city millions each year.
Barbara Durieux Coanda, who has ALS, and her husband, John Coanda, make their way down the ramp in front of their home in Mar Vista.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Coanda told me he doesn’t have the funds at the moment to pay for repairs, and even if he did, there are several more sidewalk disaster zones on both sides of his street, so he’d still have to push his wife’s wheelchair in the street even if he fixed the cracks in front of his own house.
Barbara graciously said she thinks the city has other, higher priorities, but in November her husband contacted the office of Councilmember Traci Park, saying he was told that he would have to wait 10 years for repairs.
“Sadly,” he wrote, “I don’t think my wife will live that long.”
A Park staffer wrote back, saying, “The turnaround time does sound realistic given the budgetary crisis the city finds itself in.” But, the staffer added, maybe the council member’s office could “help move the needle on this request.”
Coanda said he’s been too busy with his wife’s issues to follow up. But Pete Brown, Park’s communications director, told me Friday afternoon that the office is exploring ways to pay for fixes that don’t take 10 years, including the use of discretionary funds.
I don’t know how that might play out, but I do know that L.A. doesn’t need another debate like the last one.
We need a mayor and council members who refuse to accept that it takes 10 years to create safe passage for a wheelchair.
In the national capital of broken sidewalks, we need concrete plans.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
-
North Dakota4 minutes agoFederal judge agrees to toss $28M judgment related to Dakota Access Pipeline protests
-
Ohio11 minutes ago8th Annual Trumbull County Special Olympics Invitational held in Girard
-
Oklahoma17 minutes agoKendall Wells Falls Behind in Home Run Race as Oklahoma Waits for Selection Sunday
-
Oregon23 minutes ago4.9 magnitude earthquake strikes off Northern California coast near Oregon border
-
Pennsylvania29 minutes agoPennsylvania Medical Marijuana And Hemp Regulation Bill Sets The State Up For Broader Recreational Legalization, GOP Senator Says – Marijuana Moment
-
Rhode Island35 minutes agoProposed tax hike would hurt small businesses and our communities | Opinion
-
South-Carolina41 minutes ago11 Unforgettable Small Towns to Visit in South Carolina
-
South Dakota47 minutes agoHuman trafficking survivor advocate to speak at Rapid City church event