Why Jimmy Carter is ‘No Saint’

While Jimmy Carter’s legacy is often celebrated in the United States, especially in the context of his humanitarian efforts and Habitat for Humanity projects, for many Salvadoran Americans, his presidency is remembered with a much more complex lens.

Carter’s foreign policy decisions, particularly his stance on El Salvador, are not as universally lauded as his work in domestic affairs. In the early 1980s, as President Carter prepared to leave office, the U.S. found itself deeply involved in Latin America. The situation in El Salvador was dire, with the U.S. government backing the Salvadoran military in a bloody civil war. Carter’s administration approved millions in military aid to support the Salvadoran government’s fight against leftist insurgents. Yet, the Salvadoran government’s tactics, including death squads targeting civilians, caused alarm among human rights advocates.

In February 1980, Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, whose tragic assassination would later capture global attention, wrote to President Carter urging him to halt military assistance. Romero’s appeal was clear: the Salvadoran military, which was receiving U.S. aid, was systematically repressing the population, including the assassination of priests, union organizers, and teachers. Romero’s plea fell on deaf ears. The U.S. continued sending over $10 million in aid, including weapons and training for the Salvadoran military. A month after the archbishop’s letter, Romero was gunned down in the pulpit, a tragic event that would later be linked to U.S.-trained military officers.

The Tragic Ties to Personal History

For many Salvadoran families, like mine, Carter’s foreign policy hit close to home. In 1980, my father’s aunt, Maria, was murdered by a death squad in San Miguel, the same town where Romero had once served as a priest. The violence in El Salvador escalated rapidly, forcing my parents to flee. The Salvadoran Civil War, a proxy battle during the Cold War, would ultimately take the lives of over 75,000 Salvadorans, with reports suggesting that up to 85% of the violence against civilians was committed by government forces.

Carter left office as the war reached its peak, but the devastation continued. When Ronald Reagan took office, U.S. aid to El Salvador intensified, with over $1 billion flowing into the country by the end of the decade. Unlike Carter, Reagan saw the Salvadoran military as a key ally against communism, and funding increased dramatically under his watch. For Salvadoran refugees like my family, the personal cost of U.S. policy was clear. In 1981, my aunt drove my mother and sisters to the airport, only for that very aunt to be murdered by a death squad days later. My mother and sisters were left to rebuild their lives in Los Angeles, part of the wave of refugees fleeing the violence.

Reflections on Modern Politics

The echoes of Carter’s foreign policy decisions in El Salvador can still be heard today. As the Biden administration faces scrutiny for its support of Israel amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza, one can’t help but draw parallels to the U.S. support for the Salvadoran military. Just as El Salvador’s story was shaped by global power struggles, today’s foreign policy decisions often leave ordinary citizens to bear the brunt of those choices.

In the context of today’s politics, many wonder how future generations will view these decisions. Carter’s humanitarian efforts, like his work with Habitat for Humanity, are commendable, but they don’t erase the consequences of his foreign policy. For Salvadorans who lived through the war, the suffering caused by U.S. intervention is an indelible part of their history. And for those of us whose families fled the violence, the wounds left by Carter’s foreign policy are still felt.

A Legacy in Question

As President-elect Donald Trump begins his term, the questions about foreign policy persist. What lessons will be learned from the past, and how will the actions of current leaders shape history’s view of them? While Carter’s domestic legacy is often celebrated, for many Salvadorans, his presidency is marred by the bloodshed of a conflict that was, in part, fueled by U.S. intervention.

As time passes, it becomes increasingly clear that Carter’s legacy cannot be defined solely by his domestic achievements. For those of us who lived through the consequences of his foreign policies, the story is far more complicated. I won’t be placing a lily on Carter’s grave any time soon.

For those interested in exploring this deeper history, I encourage you to listen to Sacred Scandal: Nation of Saints, a podcast series I produced last year that delves into the life of Oscar Romero and the struggle of Salvadoran citizens during this tumultuous period.

---

If you’d like to dive deeper into the impact of Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy, be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for more in-depth analyses of history’s most complicated figures.