Merloe provides strategic advice on elections and democracy in the United States and internationally. He worked with former President Jimmy Carter on elections and democratic transitions on four continents.
On Oct. 1, President Jimmy Carter turns 100 years old. According to reports, he is concerned about the dynamics surrounding the 2024 election and hopeful that the United States will turn the page. That is no surprise given his devotion to this country and his dedication to fostering genuine elections around the world.
He first observed a foreign election in 1989 as co-leader, with former President Gerald Ford, of the joint international election observation mission to Panama organized by the nonpartisan National Democratic Institute and what is now the International Republican Institute. His role in helping to expose Manuel Noriega’s attempted fraud in that election had profound effects in Panama and inspired Carter to do more. Often working with NDI, he guided The Carter Center into the forefront of international election observation in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
In my role of almost three decades leading NDI’s international election programs, I had the honor of working closely with Carter in numerous elections. I witnessed him bring together for the first time in years the two antagonistic leaders of Bangladesh and negotiate their renouncing violence in an upcoming election. I saw him help Liberia’s contentious presidential candidates accept electoral results. He brought international attention to the credibility of Palestinian elections and promoted confidence in Peru’s post-Fujimori elections when public trust was fragile.
His successful bridge building in such hyper-polarized circumstances was aided by his reputation for listening, analyzing and offering recommendations based on ethical principles, rather than an advantage of the moment or some personal transactional consideration. In 2005, Carter joined NDI’s then board chair, Madeleine Albright, and other dignitaries at a commemoration led by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to launch the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, which is now endorsed by more than 50 international organizations in an ongoing implementation process that guides their work.
In keeping with that spirit, on the International Day of Democracy (Sept. 15.), five leading organizations — International IDEA, The Carter Center, NDI, the International Foundation for Election Systems and the Kofi Annan Foundation — launched the Model Commitments for Advancing Genuine and Credible Elections. The commitments, already supported by nine other key international organizations, provide a basis for dialogue around safeguarding and improving electoral processes in any country — including in the United States. While the urgent challenges of securing election administration, protecting the right to vote, addressing disinformation and potential disruptions, plus curtailing threats and potentials for political violence are of immediate concern to countries heading to elections, the commitments provide a wider context.
As one of the people involved in developing the declaration of principles and the model commitments, I can attest that they were inspired by the examples set by Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Madeleine Albright and so many others who dedicated themselves to bringing about genuine elections and advancing democracy.
On the occasion of his 100th birthday it is fitting to shine a bright light on this aspect of President Carter’s rich legacy of accomplishments in this country and around the globe. Hopefully, we will amplify his legacy as we move ahead, both here and abroad.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with U.S. President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on May 27, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Trump met with his Cabinet days after saying a peace deal with Iran was“ largely negotiated” amid expectations around the re-opening the Strait of Hormuz.
The worst deal in the history of deals
As a former Republican, sometimes it’s fun to look back on the things we — I was part of a “we” at one time — criticized Democrats for, and not all that long ago.
Remember, if you will, when Republicans condemned former President Bill Clinton for pardoning his brother and his corrupt donor friend Marc Rich?
Or, remember when Republicans wagged their fingers at former President Barack Obama’s golf outings? Or his executive orders? Or his Syrian “red line”?
Or all the times Republicans went after former President Joe Biden’s gaffes?
While those criticisms may have been justified at the time, they look patently ridiculous next to our current president’s cartoonish and downright dangerous offenses.
Offenses like pardoning Jan. 6 insurrectionists — nearly 100 of whom have gone on to be arrested for, charged with, or convicted of crimes separate from the events of that day.
Or wreaking havoc on the global economy by instituting reckless tariffs on friends, neighbors, and enemies alike?
Or taking a proverbial sledge hammer to countless government agencies that have put every American in danger, whether on airplanes, in hospitals, at job sites, or in natural disasters.
That’s just a few, but nothing looks worse next to his predecessors than Donald Trump’s supposed Iran deal, at least as it’s outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, the details of which Trump was loath to share.
And for good reason — they are shockingly bad and humiliating for the U.S.
I remember Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA from 2015 very well. I, along with many Republicans as well as a cadre of foreign policy experts, criticized that deal for its obvious and problematic concessions to a very bad actor who we’ve long known could not be trusted. But trust was what we gave the Iranian regime, as well as sudden access to a boatload of cash — $100 billion, to be exact.
All of Obama’s provisions were temporary, which would allow Iran to restart enriching uranium upon their sunset; the deal didn’t address Iran’s ballistic missiles, or its funding of terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas; the supposed “anytime, anywhere” inspections came with a 24-day delay, if Iran so chose, giving them ample time to hide any suspect materials; and it didn’t require any congressional authority.
In short, I’d argue it wasn’t a great deal. But as bad as it was, it looks like the Magna Carta next to Trump’s.
Trump’s deal would give Iran immediate sanction relief and access to $300 billion, presumably to use to fund terror proxies; it doesn’t secure any upfront limits on uranium enrichment or missile development; it allows Iran to charge for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz in the future; and it calls for Israel to stop its attacks on Hezbollah, another win for Iran.
Neither Americans nor the Middle East are safer than we were 100-plus days ago when Trump decided to pursue this folly. And in fact, our economy is weaker for it. But Iran is unquestionably stronger and more emboldened.
They’ve seen Trump’s weakness, unseriousness, and frighteningly limited appreciation for history. They’ve seen him retreat on most of his core threats to the regime, from bombing their cultural sites to ending a civilization overnight. And they’ve taken notice as he’s abandoned the promises that were supposedly central to his justification for war in the first place — regime change, liberating the Iranian people, and removing Iran’s nuclear materials.
What a waste of blood and treasure, not to mention American might and power, only so that our enemies can watch us limp desperately toward a conclusion that’s being described — by the right — as “unthinkable,” “appeasement,” and “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.