Politics

News Analysis: Carter, during and after presidency, changed way world saw the U.S. — often for the better

Published

1 year ago

January 9, 2025

News Analysis: Carter, during and after presidency, changed way world saw the U.S. — often for the better

WASHINGTON — Jimmy Carter ended his one-term presidency in defeat. For years he was derided as a weak leader.

But over time a fundamental shift took place in how Carter was regarded, fueled by his decades of post-presidential good works and the enduring power of his White House achievements.

Perhaps more than any single post-World War II president, Carter changed the way many saw the U.S. by attempting to inject American values of altruism, democracy and human rights into foreign policy.

Sometimes he succeeded; oftentimes not. But his effort left an indelible mark on nearly two generations of diplomats, public officials and global activists.

Carter is to be remembered Thursday at a state funeral inside the cavernous Washington National Cathedral. President Biden will deliver the eulogy and all four living former presidents are expected to attend, including one inspired by him — President Obama — and one who routinely attacks him — President-elect Donald Trump. No major foreign leader is expected — at age 100, he outlived all those he interacted with.

Keith Mines, a 32-year veteran of the departments of State and Defense, working from Mexico to the Middle East, recalled being stationed at Ft. Benning, Ga., with a military officer from Burkina Faso. During downtime, Mines suggested they check out Georgia’s beaches, mountains or the hopping city of Atlanta.

“I want to go to one place,” Mines recalled the African officer saying. “I want to go to Plains, Ga. I want to see the … place that produced this remarkable man, Jimmy Carter.”

Carter’s legacy is mixed. His administration succeeded in building key security platforms that endure to this day, while also promoting a broader global and domestic social agenda. As president, he officially made human rights the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, with particular impact in Latin America.

And he set a precedent for former presidents by continuing his public service, and charitable and human rights work, after leaving office.

Carter attempted to change the way the world viewed America at a particularly fraught time.

The 1950s and ‘60s were characterized by U.S.-sponsored coups that overthrew governments that rulers in Washington didn’t like; then came the torturous Vietnam War and the scandalous tenure of Richard Nixon.

Carter rose from nowhere, and became a president who spoke more about peacemaking than foreign conquest, about humanity over self-interest.

He was willing to wield hard power when necessary but also saw the value of soft power, what he would call after his presidency the combination of “enticement, persuasion and influence,” which he often thought was even more effective in winning hearts and changing minds.

“I’ve seen the foundational nature of Carter’s contributions to U.S. foreign policy … in advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East, China, Russia … but it does not end there,” Thomas Donilon, a former national security advisor under Obama and senior State Department official under President Clinton, said in an essay for Foreign Affairs.

His stewardship led to the first peace treaty between Israel and a warring neighbor, Egypt, which still stands today as the most important such accord. Although tensions on the Middle East have ebbed and flowed, the successful Camp David negotiation won acclaim among Israelis and Arabs alike, who praised it as an evenhanded approach from the U.S.

Carter was a peacemaker but not a pacifist, and saw the need for military strength. In 1980, in response to the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he declared the Carter Doctrine, which committed the U.S. to protecting oil production in the Persian Gulf and laid the basis for security infrastructure in that part of the world for Democratic and Republican administrations that followed for decades.

In the waning weeks of his presidency, Carter approved the creation of the Joint Special Operations Force, a group of elite military from all branches that would train and plan top-secret reconnaissance missions and other clandestine deadly attacks.

Carter saw its need after the failed attempt to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran. It remained in place, expanded through the years and eventually became involved in numerous controversial operations from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Carter seemed most proud of his work on human rights and democracy building.

His decision in 1977 to return the Panama Canal — long regarded regionally as a symbol of U.S. imperialism — to the government of Panama was widely praised in Latin America. It was a move initiated by Nixon at the urging of the U.S. military, which said operating it and the American military colony around it was expensive and unsustainable.

In the first years of his government, Carter also looked south and saw brutal military dictatorships controlling Argentina, Chile and other nations. He drastically reduced U.S. military aid to those countries and blocked their access to some international loans. Many of these steps, historians believe, were the first dominoes in toppling dictatorships and ushering in democracy to the region.

He “challenged the assumption that security assistance to repressive regimes furthered Cold War aims, and instead adopted the view that … U.S. support for these regimes had damaged its global leadership and made the U.S. complicit in human rights abuses,” Enrique Roig, a deputy assistant secretary of State, said in a recent forum at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

The son of Chilean parents, Roig credited Carter as a “beacon of hope” that showed him the United States could be a champion for democracy and human rights.

In June 1979, when the U.S. still supported the dynastic Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, Carter was horrified to see television footage of Somoza’s troops shooting dead an American reporter, ABC’s Bill Stewart, his hands raised at a military checkpoint. Carter immediately broke with the Somoza regime, which collapsed within weeks and gave rise to the Sandinista National Liberation Front, a revolutionary but eventually anti-American group. They launched social programs and were initially welcomed by a long-abused population — as was Carter’s perceived intervention.

But within two years, Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, worked to undo his reforms and soon launched wars in both Nicaragua, to oust the Sandinistas, and neighboring El Salvador to support its right-wing military government. Neither turned out as Reagan intended.

Fast-forward to 1990. Carter, a decade out of office, was in Nicaragua to monitor what were supposed to be the country’s first democratic elections. Sandinista President Daniel Ortega had agreed to allow the election — but was refusing to accept the results when it appeared he was losing to his matronly opponent, Violeta Chamorro, owner of the country’s leading opposition newspaper.

Carter sat up all of one night with Ortega, trying to persuade him to accept the results. “I know what it’s like to lose,” Carter told Ortega. Eventually, Ortega relented and allowed a peaceful transition to democracy.

Such post-presidency missions to bolster foreign elections, fight disease and build homes for the poor made the increasingly elderly but always engaged and gracious Carter a hero to many abroad. His picture would hang in activists’ homes; crowds would greet him in the streets in cities in Latin America and Africa.

“Luck broke against him in many ways during his time in office,” Carter’s former speechwriter, James Fallows, said this week on CNN. “But he then had the luck to bring out the best in himself, the best in fellow citizens, the best in what he hoped to bring to the world.”

Politics

Rep. Kevin Kiley opts against challenging fellow Republican Tom McClintock

Published

11 minutes ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Rep. Kevin Kiley opts against challenging fellow Republican Tom McClintock

Northern California Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), whose congressional district was carved up in the redistricting ballot measures approved by voters last year, announced Monday that he would not challenge fellow Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove. Instead, he plans to run in the Democratic-leaning district where he resides.

“It’s true that I was fully prepared to run in [McClintock’s district], having tested the waters and with polls showing a favorable outlook in a ‘safe’ district. But doing what’s easy and what’s right are often not the same,” Kiley posted on the social media site X. “And at the end of the day, as much as I love the communities in [that] District that I represent now – and as excited as I was about the new ones – seeking office in a district that doesn’t include my hometown didn’t feel right.”

Kiley, 41, currently represents a congressional district that spans Lake Tahoe to Sacramento. He did not respond to requests for comment.

But after California voters in November passed Proposition 50 — a ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts in an effort to counter Trump’s moves to increase the numbers of Republicans in Congress — Kiley’s district was sliced up into other districts.

As the filing deadline approaches, Kiley pondered his path forward in a decision that was compared by political insiders to the reality television show “The Bachelor.” Who would receive the final rose? McClintock’s new sprawling congressional district includes swaths of gold country, the Central Valley and Death Valley. The district Kiley opted to run in includes the city of Sacramento and the suburbs of Roseville and Rocklin in Placer County.

Kiley was facing headwinds because of the Republican institutional support that lined up behind McClintock, 69, who has been in Congress since 2009 and served in the state Legislature for 26 years previously. President Trump, the California Republican Party and the Club for Growth’s political action committee are among the people and groups who have endorsed McClintock.

Conservative strategist Jon Fleischman, a former executive director of the state GOP, said he was thrilled by Kiley’s decision, which avoids a divisive intraparty battle.

“If you open up the dictionary and look for the word conservative, it’s a photo of Tom McClintock. He is the ideological leader of conservatives, not only in California but in Congress for many, many years,” Fleischman said, adding that the endorsements for McClintock purposefully came because Kiley was considering challenging him.

Kiley, who grew up near Sacramento, attended Harvard University and Yale Law School. A former Teach for America member, he served in the state Assembly for six years before being elected to Congress in 2022 with Trump’s backing. But he has bucked the president, notably on tariffs. He also unsuccessfully ran to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom during the 2021 recall, and has been a constant critic of the governor.

Kiley is now running in a Sacramento-area district represented by Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove). Democrats in the newly drawn district had a nearly 9-point voter registration edge in 2024. Bera is now running in the new version of Kiley’s district.

In Kiley’s new race, his top rival is Dr. Richard Pan of Sacramento, a former state senator and staunch supporter of vaccinations.

“Kevin Kiley can try to rebrand himself, but voters know his extreme record,” Pan said in a statement. “He has stood with Donald Trump 98% of the time and was named a ‘MAGA Champion.’ The people of this district deserve better than political opportunism disguised as moderation. This race is about who will actually fight for healthcare, public health, and working families. I’ve done that my entire career. Kevin Kiley has not.”

Politics

Video: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

Published

11 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Video: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

new video loaded: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

transcript

Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

At a Pentagon news conference, top defense officials said that the U.S. military was sending more forces to the Middle East and expects to “take additional losses.” Earlier, President Trump said that the U.S. could continue striking Iran for the next four to five weeks.

: “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it. This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission. Destroy the missile threat. Destroy the navy. No nukes. President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take. Four weeks. Two weeks, six weeks. It could move up. It could move back. We’re going to execute at his command the objectives we’ve set out to achieve.” “We expect to take additional losses. And as always, we will work to minimize U.S. losses. But as the secretary said, this is major combat operations.” Reporter: “Are there currently any American boots on the ground in Iran?” “No, but we’re not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do. I think — it’s one of those fallacies for a long time that this department or presidents or others should tell the American people. This — and our enemies by the way — here’s exactly what we’ll do. Why in the world would we tell you, you, the enemy, anybody, what we will or will not do in pursuit of an objective?”
Advertisement

At a Pentagon news conference, top defense officials said that the U.S. military was sending more forces to the Middle East and expects to “take additional losses.” Earlier, President Trump said that the U.S. could continue striking Iran for the next four to five weeks.

By Christina Kelso

March 2, 2026

Politics

Gas prices could jump as Middle East tensions threaten global oil supply

Published

12 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Gas prices could jump as Middle East tensions threaten global oil supply

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Americans could soon see higher gas prices as escalating tensions in the Middle East threaten a critical global oil chokepoint, raising fears of supply disruptions that could quickly reverberate across U.S. energy markets.

After joint U.S.–Israeli strikes, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, targeted Iranian sites over the weekend and killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, concerns quickly shifted to how Tehran might respond and whether oil infrastructure or tanker traffic could become collateral damage.

Any disruption to global crude supplies could translate into higher costs for American drivers at the pump.

“Every time we’ve had flare-ups in the Middle East like we’re seeing right now — and we’ve seen this kind of situation periodically over the last 50 years — it has caused significant disruption to energy markets,” economist Stephen Moore told Fox News Digital.

“I would expect we could see anywhere from 25 to 50 cents a gallon increase in gas prices in the short term,” he said.

Experts say Americans will likely pay more for gas due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. (Matthew Hatcher/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

Market data already shows prices moving higher.

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said oil prices were up $5 per barrel, while wholesale gasoline prices had risen 11 cents per gallon.

He expects retail gas prices to begin climbing immediately, especially in areas where stations tend to adjust prices in sharp, periodic jumps.

The national average could hit $3 per gallon as soon as Monday, De Haan said, with some stations increasing prices by 10 to 30 cents this week and potentially more in markets that see larger price swings.

Moore warned that prices could climb further and remain elevated if vital transit routes or oil facilities are disrupted.

TRUMP PLEDGES TO ‘AVENGE’ FALLEN US SERVICE MEMBERS AS TENSIONS WITH IRAN INTENSIFY

The ongoing conflict in Iran is near a major energy corridor. (Contributor/Getty Images)

“Huge amounts of global oil travel through the Strait of Hormuz, so this could be incredibly disruptive, delaying delivery of oil and gas,” he said.

“The Iranians have already knocked out some oil facilities in the Middle East, and who knows what they’re up to next. When you have less supply, prices go up. The big question is whether this will be a temporary bump or something more prolonged.”

The ongoing conflict sits near the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important energy corridors.

“This shipping route represents around 25% of global oil trade and 23% of liquefied natural gas trade,” explained Jaime Brito, executive director of refining and oil products at OPIS.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping lane between Iran and Oman that has long been a flashpoint during regional crises, serves as a vital artery for global energy markets.

Roughly 20 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products — about one-fifth of global oil supply — transit the strait each day, underscoring how disruption there can quickly send shockwaves through international energy markets.

HORMUZ ERUPTS: ATTACKS, GPS JAMMING, HOUTHI THREATS ROCK STRAIT AMID US-ISRAELI STRIKES

A satellite view of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy supply, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. (Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2025/Amanda Macias/Fox News Digital)

Highlighting the growing concern, Maersk, widely regarded as a bellwether for global ocean freight, said it will suspend all vessel crossings through the Strait of Hormuz until further notice and cautioned that services to Arabian Gulf ports may be delayed.

Still, not all price movements are immediate.

“Developments over the weekend in the Middle East should hypothetically take time to ripple into the global supply chain. An initial assessment would suggest no specific price impacts should be seen in the gasoline market across the world, including the U.S.,” Brito told Fox News Digital.

However, Brito said prices could climb quickly if markets expect trouble ahead, even before supplies are actually affected.

As a result, Brito said, developments in Iran may have already translated into higher gasoline, diesel and other fuel prices in parts of the U.S., depending on regional supply dynamics and individual company pricing strategies.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Experts say the increase in gas prices will be largely determined by how long the conflict in the Middle East lasts. (John McCall/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

From a domestic standpoint, Brito added that gasoline prices follow a seasonal pattern, typically climbing during the summer travel months.

“March prices are not expected to be significantly high,” he said, noting that spring break travel could support demand in certain areas — but not at the level seen during peak summer driving season.

Ultimately, the direction of gasoline prices will depend less on seasonal demand and more on how the geopolitical situation unfolds in the days ahead.

Amanda covers the intersection of business and politics for Fox News Digital.