January 2025 APA Newsletter

Mission Statement

The American Politics Association (APA) aims to provide the St Andrews community with a platform for open and nonpartisan conversation surrounding U.S. politics.

With frequent discussions, podcasts, newsletters, and more, the APA strives to promote awareness of the changing political environment and recent developments. We also seek to support students who are interested in a career in U.S. politics and foster a space for networking. 

We encourage people of all backgrounds and subject areas to join us on our mission to increase engagement and awareness surrounding U.S politics in the St Andrews community and beyond. 

Fiscal Implications of the Election Results

Zachary Mandosa

As Biden’s term in office ends and Trump’s second term begins, many are turning their attention to the economic consequences of a second Trump administration. Trump’s economic policies in his first term were a blend of tax cuts, deregulation, and an “America First” trade agenda; with the promises of lowered costs made during the election, these policies are likely to evolve further, potentially reshaping the U.S. economy for years to come.

During his first term, Trump oversaw the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017, which lowered corporate taxes and offered individual tax cuts (White House, 2020). Many of the TCJA tax provisions are set to expire at the end of 2025, opening the door to more extensive changes. Trump’s 2024 campaign emphasized a return to these policies, potentially extending or expanding them. If Trump implements further tax cuts, it could boost business investments and lead to short-term economic growth; however, some critics argue that the tax cuts may result in higher inflation due to compounding interest on debt (Sandberg, 2025). 

During his campaign, Trump made public a proposal to exempt overtime pay and tips from taxation, as well as make all Social Security benefits free from income taxes. However, the Social Security Administration reports that about 40% of people pay federal income taxes on their benefits because they have other substantial income (SSA, 2025).

On a larger scale, Trump’s first term saw significant deregulation efforts, particularly in energy, environmental, and financial sectors. A second term is likely to see continued efforts to roll back regulations that could, in theory, spur more private investment. Still, critics warn that the extensive deregulation that Trump is proposing could lead to increased risk to public health and the environment during a critical moment in the global community’s strategy to combat climate change (WRI, 2024). 

Overall, the fiscal implications of a Trump victory in 2024 remain uncertain. On one hand, his policies could stimulate short-term economic growth through tax cuts, deregulation, and increased government spending. On the other hand, many of these measures are expected to exacerbate the federal deficit, increase wealth inequality between the wealthy and poor, and (as critics argue) lead to potential economic instability down the road. However, one thing is certain: the next few years will be a critical period for U.S. fiscal policy, and the choices made during Trump’s second term will have lasting effects on the nation’s economic trajectory.

Sandberg, E (2025) “Trump’s 2025 Tax Plans: Experts Weight in on What Could Happen” U.S. News Money. https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/taxes/articles/trumps-2025-tax-plans-experts-weigh-in-on-what-could-happen

Social Security Administration (2025) Income Taxes and Your Social Security Benefit. https://www-origin.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/taxes.html#:~:text=About%2040%25%20of%20people%20who,in%20addition%20to%20your%20benefits. 

White House (2020) Budget and Spending. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/budget-spending/?utm_source=link. 

World Resources Institute (2024) Trump May Thwart Federal Climate Action, but Opportunities for Progress Remain. https://www.wri.org/insights/trump-climate-action-setbacks-opportunities-us. 

The 2024 Election: How Key Groups Voted and What It Means for the Future

Sophia Kazan

The 2024 election saw Donald Trump reclaim the White House by reshaping traditional party coalitions. Over 140 million Americans voted, and these demographic shifts played a crucial role. Trump was able to maintain his base while making inroads into groups that historically leaned Democratic. Kamala Harris, the first Black and South Asian woman to head a major-party ticket, struggled to hold the coalition that propelled Joe Biden to victory in 2020.

Black voters remained the Democratic Party’s strongest constituency, but Trump doubled his support among them from 8% in 2020 to 16% in 2024. A pronounced shift occurred among Black men—21% voted for Trump, up from 19% in 2020, while only 7% of Black women supported Trump. Among Latino voters, Trump improved his standing significantly, reaching 45% support compared to 32% in 2020 (Hagopian, 2024). His biggest gains were among rural and working-class Latinos, particularly in Florida and the Southwest. Notably, Miami-Dade County, which has a 69% Hispanic population, flipped red for the first time since 1988 (Xiao et al., 2024). In battleground states like Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, Latino voters shifted right by more than 20 points (Montanaro et al., 2025). Native American voters also moved toward Trump, contributing to an 11-point swing in majority-Native counties. Similarly, Trump gained ground in Black-majority counties (+3 points) and Hispanic-majority counties (+13 points), marking a clear trend of minority voters reconsidering their political alignments (Levitt et al., 2024).

The gender divide remained stark. Trump found strong support among men, winning 59% of white men, 47% of Latino men, and 21% of Black men. In contrast, Harris performed better with women, capturing 91% of Black women and maintaining a lead among white women, albeit narrower than Biden’s in 2020 (PBS News Desk, 2024). The gap among young voters was also pronounced—young men favored Trump more than young women by 12 percentage points, reflecting broader cultural and political divides. Trump’s campaign made strategic efforts to appeal to young men, with his son Barron advising on appearances with popular podcasters Theo Von and Logan Paul (Hagopian, 2024).

For decades, younger voters have leaned Democratic, but that grip weakened in 2024. Trump gained 7 points among young people, closing the youth vote gap to its narrowest margin in over 20 years. A small but notable portion (3%) of young voters opted for third-party candidates, reflecting discontent with the Democratic stance on issues like Gaza (Hagopian, 2024). Older voters, traditionally a Republican stronghold, showed signs of softening their support for Trump. Seniors in most swing states leaned slightly away from him, though the effect was not large enough to counterbalance his gains elsewhere (Montanaro et al., 2025).

Economic concerns were the driving force for many voters, and Trump capitalized on this anxiety. Unlike the 2020 election, Trump won the majority of voters who earn less than $50,000 a year. Inflation, high food and housing costs, and fears about economic decline pushed lower-income and working-class voters toward Trump. At the same time, Democrats solidified their hold on high-income voters—those making over $100,000 overwhelmingly supported Harris (Xiao et al., 2024).

Education also emerged as a key dividing line. Nearly two-thirds of voters without college degrees backed Trump, reflecting a continued populist shift in the GOP. Meanwhile, Harris performed best among voters with college and postgraduate degrees, though Trump managed to cut into Democratic margins in highly educated counties, gaining 5 points (Levitt et al., 2024).

Trump made notable gains in the suburbs, flipping key areas in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. While urban centers still favored Harris, they became less blue than in previous elections. Rural America continued its rightward march, delivering Trump landslide victories, but the biggest story was the suburban battlegrounds, which tilted further right (Levitt et al., 2024). The Midwest saw younger voters desert Democrats in double-digit shifts, particularly in Wisconsin and Michigan (Montanaro et al., 2025).

The issue of immigration also played a role in geographic shifts. Trump flipped multiple counties along the U.S.-Mexico border that had voted Democratic since the 1970s, driven by concerns over border security (Xiao et al., 2024). In Ohio, where Trump falsely accused immigrants of eating pets, 75% of voters were concerned about the threat of illegal immigration to their communities (Boak and Thomson-Deveaux, 2024). 

Overall, the 2024 election results reflect a broader political realignment. Democrats increasingly rely on affluent, urban, and highly educated voters, while Republicans continue to consolidate working-class, rural, and non-college-educated Americans. The erosion of blue support among Black and Latino voters suggests that these constituencies have been disillusioned by the Democratic party. The youth vote, once a reliable Democratic bloc, is becoming more contested, particularly among young men. As both parties look ahead, Democrats face the challenge of reconnecting with working-class and minority voters, while Republicans must navigate the risks of Trump’s polarizing leadership. The 2024 results demonstrate that voter demographics alone no longer dictate election outcomes—the shifting attitudes within those groups are reshaping the political landscape.

Boak, Josh and Thomson-Deveaux, Amelia. November 8, 2024. AP VoteCast: Voters who focused on the economy broke hard for Trump”. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/ap-votecast-voters-who-focused-on-the-economy-broke-hard-for-trump/.

Hagopian, Alicja. November 8, 2024. “How shifts among key demographic voting groups sealed Trump’s 2024 election victory”. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/election-trump-harris-demographic-breakdown-b2643412.html.

Levitt, Zach, Collins, Keith, Gebeloff, Robert, Khurana, Malika, and Hernandez, Marco. December 17, 2024. “See the Voting Groups That Swung to the Right in the 2024 Vote”. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/elections/trump-america-red-shift-victory.html.

Montanaro, Domenico, Moore, Elena, McMillan, Nick, Hanzhang Jin, Connie, and Wood, Daniel. January 9, 2025. “In this election, demographics did not determine how people voted”.

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/22/nx-s1-5199119/2024-election-exit-polls-demographics-black-latino-voters.

PBS News Desk. November 7, 2024. “Interactive: How key groups of Americans voted in 2024”. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/interactive-how-key-groups-of-americans-voted-in-2024-according-to-ap-votecast. 

Xiao, Eva, Murray, Clara, Vincent, Jonathan, Burn-Murdoch, John, and Suss, Joel. November 9, 2024. “Poorer votes flocked to Trump – and other data points from the election”. https://www.ft.com/content/6de668c7-64e9-4196-b2c5-9ceca966fe3f.

Escalating Trade Tensions: U.S. Tariffs on China Spark Economic Retaliation

Amelie Baveja

The US and China’s rocky relations have been marked by significant developments in technology and trade, highlighting the growing competition between both global superpowers. One of the most notable events is the recent unveiling of China’s artificial intelligence platform, DeepSeek, which some analysts have likened to a “modern-day Sputnik moment” (King and Nelson, 2025). Deepseek demonstrates capabilities comparable to leading U.S. AI models, but at a lower cost and without reliance on the most advanced semiconductor chipsㅡ which China did not have access to due to a trading ban imposed by the Biden administration. The announcement shook financial markets, plunging the Nasdaq composite into a 3% drop and Nvidia’s stock into a 17% decline (Valetkevitch, 2025). President Trump characterized DeepSeek as a wake-up call and a potential opportunity, announcing a $500 billion investment into an AI joint venture called Stargate, in order to ensure American leadership in the field (Körömi, 2025).

Trade tensions also remain quite high. On January 22nd, President Trump announced a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports, set to take effect February 1st (Silva, 2025). The administration signaled this tariff as a response to the ongoing flow of fentanyl from China into the USㅡ China is the principal supplier of fentanyl and methamphetamine precursors (Felbab-Brown and Dews, 2024). Although this tariff could pressure Beijing into cracking down on illicit drug production, it could also strain economic relations and disrupt supply chains. For China, the tariff threatens to slow its export-driven economy by making its goods more expensive and less competitive in the U.S. market. Conversely, the tariff could lead to increased production costs for companies that rely on Chinese-made components and raw materials, potentially increasing consumer prices. Supply-chain reconfiguration is a time-consuming process, and often leads to short-term shortages and operational inefficiencies. Overall, this could contribute to inflationary pressures in the U.S. economy (Crabtree, 2019).

Beijing also responded swiftly, announcing on January 25th increased tariffs on key American exports such as agricultural products soybean and corn, and restrictions on Chinese exports of rare minerals important to U.S. technology and defense industries (Baskaran and Shwartz, 2024). Chinese regulators have also hinted at increasing their scrutiny on American firms operating in China, signaling a preparation to escalate tensions. All of these initiatives will hurt American industries that rely on imports from and exports to China.

These latest tariffs and other developments follow years of economic friction between Washington and Beijing, with trade policy continuing to serve as a battleground for geopolitical competition. An all-out trade war is not entirely unlikely.

Baskaran, Gracelin and Schwartz, Meridith. December 4, 2024. China Imposes Its Most Stringent Critical Minerals Export Restrictions Yet Amidst Escalating U.S.-China Tech War, Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/china-imposes-its-most-stringent-critical-minerals-export-restrictions-yet-amidst.

Crabtree, James. December 14, 2020. US–China Strategic Competition, Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/11/us-china-strategic-competition/impact-us-china-economic-conflict-trade-and-investment-flows.

Felbab-Brown, Vanda and Dews, Fred. October 1, 2024. The fentanyl pipeline and China’s role in the US opioid crisis, Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-fentanyl-pipeline-and-chinas-role-in-the-us-opioid-crisis/.

Da Silva, João. January 22, 2025. Trump considers 10% tariff on China from February, BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyn3z4580do.

Körömi, Csongor. January 28, 2025. Trump: China’s DeepSeek AI is a ‘wake-up call’ for US tech, Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-china-deepseek-wake-up-call-for-us-tech/.

Nelson, Steven and King, Ryan. January 27, 2025. Trump calls China’s AI DeepSeek breakthrough ‘a wakeup call’ — but ‘positive’ if true, New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/01/27/us-news/trump-calls-chinas-ai-deepseek-breakthrough-a-wakeup-call-but-positive-if-true/.

Valetkevitch, Caroline. January 27, 2025. Nasdaq drops 3% as China's DeepSeek AI model hits tech shares, Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/nasdaq-futures-tumble-chinas-ai-push-rattles-big-tech-2025-01-27/.

The Role of the US in Global Climate Initiatives

Ainsley McLoy

The United States’ support for global climate initiatives has sharply declined in the wake of the shifting administrations. This dramatic change - amid rising sea-levels, Hurricane Helene and recent California wildfires – has drawn public scrutiny. However, precedent suggests that when it comes to energy markets, a growth-over-regulation mindset transcends party affiliation in favor of maintaining American strength. 

The Paris Climate Agreement was established in 2015 to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. 196 parties signed to pursue economic and social change to limit severe climate-repercussions (UNFCCC, 2015). However, US commitment to the treaty has been divided along party lines. The US first attempted to withdraw in 2017 under President Trump but re-entered in 2021 with Former-President Biden. The Biden administration then passed the 2021 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), enabling unprecedented investment in clean energy solutions and climate action, leading to major advancements in the manufacturing of electric vehicles, batteries and the national power grid. While this ambitious plan achieved some success in reducing emissions, its impact has still been rated “insufficient” by climate trackers (CAT, 2023), according to both the Paris Agreement and domestic objectives. CAT posits that to reach its climate goals, the US must “reverse the trend of increasing fossil fuel extraction.” Despite democratic support for climate policies, US oil still reached record levels of success in production and exportation – due to continued executive support and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

Amidst wars and global competition, the demand for oil and gas has only increased. Until green technologies are sufficiently advanced and implemented, the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels. And while the market craves petroleum, the United States is unlikely to cede the wealth and influence that accompanies supplying ‘black gold.’ This principle underlies the decisions of both parties to encourage American Oil and Gas (O&G) industries regardless of global climate agreements.

Trump’s stance on prioritizing O&G growth over regulation is quite clear. Executive order 14162, signed on inauguration day, demands The United States’ immediate withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change/ UNFCCC). In addition, it annuls associated climate obligations, and US financial support for the UNFCCC (The White House, 2025a). Moreover, the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan, established by Biden (Exec. order 14008) has been revoked. These orders are the first in a series of such plans. To this end, Trump has promised to expedite drilling permits on federal lands and has lifted the Department of Energy’s pause on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export license approvals (The White House, 2025b). However, his broader success depends on securing global energy markets for US oil. Potential tariffs and sanctions will reshape the United States’ role in the global oil market. President Trump’s initiatives to “make America affordable and energy dominant again” may come at the cost of new technologies, potentially leaving the US behind in the emerging clean energy markets.

What is the future for Climate initiatives without the US? COP29 concluded with a new financial plan to increase funds to developing countries from 100b to 300b (UNFCCC, 2024). It remains to be seen whether the US’ critical move will cripple green initiatives or be the catalyst for more efficient and less US-reliant climate plans. However, the forecast is looking somewhat positive. Although the United States government has withdrawn their membership and financial aid, other actors have stepped in. Bloomberg Philanthropies among other private organizations have committed to ensure the nation’s UNFCCC funding obligations are met (Bloomberg, 2025). Moreover, states and cities still hold substantial power to locally enforce Paris Agreement objectives. Coalitions such as America Is All In, composed of U.S. cities, states, tribal nations, businesses, schools, and institutions, are working to develop a national climate strategy on a non-federal level.

The United States is unlikely to play an official role in global climate initiatives for the next four years. Moreover, if managed successfully, American O&G will not only continue to be extracted from US soil, but it will also dictate global energy markets. While this is a pessimistic forecast for climate organisations, much will still be done to privately enforce the Paris Agreement and limit the severe consequences accompanying climate change.

Bloomberg Philanthropies. (2025). UN Special Envoy Michael R. Bloomberg Announces Effort to Ensure U.S. Honors Paris Agreement Commitments | Bloomberg Philanthropies. https://www.bloomberg.org/press/un-special-envoy-michael-r-bloomberg-announces-effort-to-ensure-u-s-honors-paris-agreement-commitments/.

Climate Action Tracker (CAT) (2023). USA. [online] climateactiontracker.org. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/. 

The White House (2025a). Putting America First In International Environmental Agreements – The White House. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/. 

The White House (2025b). Unleashing American Energy – The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/. 

UNFCCC (2015). The Paris Agreement. [online] United Nations Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.  

UNFCCC (2024). COP29 UN Climate Conference Agrees to Triple Finance to Developing Countries, Protecting Lives and Livelihoods. [online] Unfccc.int. https://unfccc.int/news/cop29-un-climate-conference-agrees-to-triple-finance-to-developing-countries-protecting-lives-and. 

Atlantic Council. (2025). Seven questions (and expert answers) about Trump’s first actions to transform US energy. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/seven-questions-and-expert-answers-about-trumps-first-actions-to-transform-us-energy/. 

Kerschner, S., Pullins, T. and Knijnenburg, S. (2025). US Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Impact and Next Steps | White & Case LLP. [online] Whitecase.com. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/us-withdrawal-paris-agreement-impact-and-next-steps.

Special Feature: The Life and Legacy of Jimmy Carter

Andrea Stephen

Born in the small rural town of Plains, Georgia on October 1st 1924, Jimmy Carter went on to serve as the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981. Carter is largely remembered for his work post-presidency: Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter established the Carter Center in 1982, dedicating their lives to humanitarian work, with a focus on protecting human rights and strengthening democracy (Dawson, 2024). The Carter Center worked with Habitats for Humanity to build homes for Americans in need and spearheaded various health-related campaigns and initiatives abroad (Dawson, 2024). Carter’s legacy as a humanitarian, post-Presidency, remained undisputed.

With his recent passing in December 2024, this special feature delves into Carter’s domestic and foreign policy record, examining his triumphs and failures to assemble a more nuanced understanding of Jimmy Carter's presidential legacy. 

Carter’s notoriously strained relationship with Congress meant that he failed to raise Congressional support for parts of his domestic agenda, particularly those that did not align with already-existing Democratic initiatives (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs”). However, Carter managed to pass legislation deregulating certain transport sectors, which led to decreased transportation costs for both consumers and corporations (Strong, “Domestic Affairs”). Additionally, and less discussed, is Carter’s support for Black civil rights and the rights of women and minority groups across America. Carter called for affirmative action hiring initiatives, anti-discriminatory policies, and equal rights initiatives; he bolstered the government’s enforcement of civil rights legislation and he supported legislation helping states tackle domestic violence and legislation. One such example was his amendment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect women from pregnancy-related employment discrimination (Dumbrell, 1995).

While Carter had varied levels of success legislating parts of his domestic agenda, the administration’s biggest achievements- and what Carter is most remembered for now- were his energy and environmental policies. The administration's energy policy primarily focused on addressing the US’ dependence on imported energy supplies. Carter established the Department of Energy “to regulate existing energy suppliers and fund research on new sources of energy”, specifically sustainable sources of energy (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs”). The administration passed revolutionary legislation such as the Emergency Natural Gas Act and the Energy Security Act which streamlined the domestic natural gas allocation process and allocated $20 billion in funding for public-private energy initiatives (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs”). Carter also authorized $1 billion in funding to increase solar power production, which he hoped would reduce the dependence on imported energy (Hughes, 2024). The success of Carter’s energy agenda was partially hindered by Congressional opposition to parts of his agenda, as well as external actors and events- i.e. OPEC and the Iranian Revolution- that raised global oil prices (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs”). Ultimately, despite domestic and external setbacks, Carter’s energy package boosted national production and energy stockpiles, creating a major surplus of US energy in the 80s which resulted in lowered energy prices, and reduced the US’ dependence on imported energy supplies (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs”).

Carter pursued an ambitious environmental agenda. He was a pioneer in the climate movement, worrying about climate change long before it entered mainstream discourse (Barrow, 2025). In this vein, Carter passed legislation creating the first set of national efficiency standards for vehicles and household appliances, and installed solar panels on the White House’s roof (Barrow, 2025). Carter championed land conservation initiatives, creating new national parks, expanding protections for redwood forests in California. He was particularly focused on preserving the Alaskan environment, designating over 55 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as federally protected land, and passing the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act which increased environmental protections while also enshrining fishing and hunting rights for rural Alaskans (Hughes, 2024). Carter also passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), creating a “Superfund” which funds the EPA’s cleanup of toxic waste sites (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2024).

Carter’s domestic achievements- and his presidential legacy- are tarnished by public blunders, controversial speeches, and other scandals which led to poor media portrayal and public perception of Carter’s presidency (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs”). Additionally, current attempts to dismantle environmental protections and rollback climate change legislation further dismantle and distort perceptions of Carter’s domestic legacy. Despite varied levels of success for parts of his domestic agenda, Carter’s presidential legacy should ultimately be characterized by his administration’s overwhelming progress towards energy independence, increasing environmental protections, and taking steps to address climate change. 

Carter’s foreign policy agenda cannot be understood without understanding his beliefs and motivations. Carter’s policies were significantly shaped by (1) his deep religious faith, and (2) his progressive and reformer views that science and technology could ameliorate peoples’ lives (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs”). Carter’s belief in the rule of law and self-determination for everyone shaped his foreign policy approach (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs”). This is particularly significant as the administration sought to navigate the intricate postcolonial international arena. Notably, Carter was wary of exercising American power abroad (i.e. military intervention) (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs”). This stance undeniably shaped his administration’s strategy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War as well as navigating complex international crises. 

Human rights were central to Carter’s foreign policy as he sought to make the US a leader in the promotion of universal human rights (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs”). In reality, the Carter administration had a mixed human rights record. They criticized the Soviet Union for its human rights violations and implemented sanctions against multiple nations due to their egregious human rights records (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs”). However, the administration simultaneously refused to end arms sales to Iran despite its deteriorating human rights record (Guerrero, 2016), failed to condemn allies for anti-democratic actions, and ultimately ended up stifling its criticism of the Soviet Union in order to advance arms control negotiations (Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs”).

Despite the shaky state of Carter’s human rights agenda, Carter engaged in diplomacy, successfully navigating complex international issues and mediating crucial agreements, particularly the Panama Treaties and the Camp David Accords. The Carter administration’s foreign policy agenda sought to improve relations with South and Central America, dispel international perceptions of the US as an interventionist power, and negotiate a robust peace settlement in the Middle East (Takeyh and Weiss, 2024). 

Following previous administrations’ negotiations with Panama, in 1997, Carter entered negotiations with Panama over the Panama Canal (Strong, 1991). These negotiations were significantly shaped by increasing Panamanian nationalism and rising criticism from the rapidly decolonizing world, both of which made it harder for the US to justify and maintain its relationship with- and particularly, its interference in- Panama (Strong, 1991). Despite immense Congressional and public opposition, Carter successfully pushed Congress to ratify both Panama Treaties, thereby handing control of the Canal to Panama (Takeyh and Weiss, 2024). These treaties ultimately strengthened US-Panama relations. But more importantly, they reflect Carter’s ability to navigate the complexities of the decolonized world and successfully pass legislation in spite of massive domestic opposition.

The 1978 Camp David Accords, codifying the peace settlement between long-time adversaries Israel and Egypt, are undeniably the administration’s most notable achievement. The Accords are seen as such a hallmark victory because Carter not only managed to keep the two nations at the negotiating table despite the interference of other actors and difficulties emerging from ongoing political developments, but he successfully brokered peace in a historic set of agreements (Takeyh and Weiss, 2024). The Camp David Accords also set the stage for future regional agreements brokered by succeeding administrations (Takeyh and Weiss, 2024). In the end, despite some setbacks, the Carter administration's foreign policy achievements are essential components shaping Carter’s presidential legacy. They reflect his exemplary diplomacy, characterized by his ability to navigate the complex international environment and successfully negotiate historic agreements despite domestic and international obstacles.

For a variety of reasons, Jimmy Carter’s legacy is often overwhelmingly shaped by his post-presidency achievements and important work advancing human rights and democracy. Yet, delving into Carter’s presidency reveals the complexities shaping his domestic and foreign triumphs and failures. Thus, while it is easy to emphasize the administration's failures, examining Carter’s presidency in the context of the complex domestic and international environment he faced reveals the historic nature of his policy achievements. Ultimately, Jimmy Carter’s legacy should be characterized by the overwhelming achievements of his presidency. Domestically, Carter’s energy and environmental policies pushed the US towards increased energy independence and environmental protections, both of which continue to influence domestic policy. Carter was a pioneer with his climate change legislation, and it remains a key national concern. His decision to make the US a leader in the promotion of human rights continues to shape the US’ foreign policy rhetoric, and the administration’s diplomatic achievements had lasting impacts, setting the foundation for negotiations occurring to this day.

Barrow, Bill. January 6, 2025. “Jimmy Carter raised climate change concerns 35 years before the Paris Accords”. https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-carter-environment-climate-green-7c010bcb149f64e7644ba343d0816eac. 

Dawson, Christopher. December 31, 2024. “Building homes, eradicating disease: President Carter’s humanitarian impact around the world”. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/31/world/president-carters-impact-around-the-world/index.html.  

Dumbrell, John. 1995. The Carter Presidency: A Re-Evaluation. 2nd ed. Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press.

Guerrero, Javier Gil. 2016. The Carter Administration and the Fall of Iran’s Pahlavi Dynasty: US-Iran Relations on the Brink of the 1979 Revolution. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hughes, Rebecca Ann. December 31, 2024. “Solar panels and saving energy: Jimmy Carter will be remembered as America’s first green president”. https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/12/31/solar-panels-and-saving-energy-jimmy-carter-will-be-remembered-as-americas-first-green-pre. 

Smith, David. January 6, 2025. “‘He was prescient’: Jimmy Carter, the environment and the road not taken”. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/06/jimmy-carter-environment-climate-change. 

Strong, Robert A. “Jimmy Carter and the Panama Canal Treaties.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 21, no. 2 (1991): 269-286. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550717. 

Strong, Robert A. “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs”. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://millercenter.org/president/carter/domestic-affairs.

Strong, Robert A. “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs”. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://millercenter.org/president/carter/foreign-affairs.

Takeyh, Ray, and Gideon Weiss. December 29, 2024. “The Legacy of Jimmy Carter’s Foreign Policy”. https://www.cfr.org/article/legacy-jimmy-carters-foreign-policy.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. October 8, 2024. “What is Superfund”. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/what-superfund.