Connect with us

America

Florida mandates anti-communism course for all middle and high school students starting 2026

Published

on

Starting in the fall of 2026, every middle and high school student in Florida will be required to complete a social studies course on the history of communism — a sweeping curricular mandate that has drawn both institutional backing from conservative organizations and sharp rebuke from educators and academic historians.

The curriculum has been endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, the Trump-aligned conservative think tank; the National Association of Scholars (NAS), a right-leaning nonprofit; and the Civics Alliance, an NAS affiliate.

The move builds on a 2022 Florida law that established a mandatory annual Victims of Communism Day, observed each November 7 — the date marking the onset of the October Revolution in Russia in 1917. Under that law, schools are required to devote a minimum of 45 minutes each year to instruction on what the legislation describes as “the horrors of communism” and “the destructive nature of Marxism-Leninism.” The program is also expected to instill “respect for the founding principles of the American republic,” though those principles are left undefined in the statute.

The new curriculum formally extends that single-day observance into a full course requirement. It also deepens Florida’s alignment with the Phoenix Declaration: An American Vision for Education — a document developed by the Heritage Foundation and published in February 2025.

Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas, who announced the Declaration’s formal state adoption at a press conference, described it as a reflection of the state’s “connection with the Heritage Foundation.” The Declaration explicitly restricts instruction on sexual orientation, gender identity, racial inequity, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) — subjects the state has long characterized as pedagogically problematic.

In their place, the Declaration commits to curricula that purportedly cultivate “love of country” and teach children “to seek the good, the true, and the beautiful.” Florida remains the only state to have signed the Declaration. Kamoutsas and state education officials argue that the new History of Communism Standards will reinforce the Declaration’s principles and strengthen students’ “support for capitalism and free enterprise.”

The curriculum’s rationale, as articulated in official state materials, is unambiguous in its political framing:

“Young Americans’ open affection for socialism and communism is a result of never having been educated about the characteristic features of communism in practice: poverty, oppression, and mass murder. If students in New York had been taught the litany of horrific atrocities committed in the name of communism by Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, it would be hard to believe that Zohran Mamdani, for example, would receive such enthusiastic support.”

The state Department of Education’s press release further praised the standards, stating that “Florida is leading the nation in equipping students with an accurate and thorough understanding of how communist ideologies suppressed individual freedoms, abused power, and caused widespread suffering.”

The curriculum enumerates a broad range of topics to be covered: how communist espionage undermined US national security and continues to threaten the United States and its allies; how communists infiltrated the civil rights movement; and the mechanics of communist indoctrination.

The standards cast Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee as “champions of anti-communism.” They condemn collective ownership models, and extol the virtues of private property and individual wealth accumulation. Cuba receives particularly pointed treatment, labeled — unfavorably — as a prominent exporter of “revolutionary internationalism.”

Andrew Spar, president of the Florida Education Association, has been among the most vocal critics of the new curriculum. In a statement to Truthout, he said:

“Florida’s code of ethics requires educators to teach state standards. That’s the difficulty. Teachers already feel handcuffed. If they want to use their own resources or add supplemental reading or film, those materials first have to be approved by the district. We know that students in public schools need and deserve more than just math and reading instruction. They need honest history instruction. A democratic society requires students to learn how to think, not what to think. Debate and deliberation encourage creativity and the development of problem-solving skills. But that’s not what’s being encouraged.”

Spar also reported that teachers are increasingly anxious about the boundaries of permissible instruction. “The state should let teachers teach,” he said. “It’s concerning that the right wing says it wants to take politics out of education, but this mandate does the exact opposite.”

Spar is not alone in his objections. Despite opposition from the union and from the broader civic community, teachers and administrators expect the curriculum to be implemented at the start of the 2026–2027 academic year. Opponents nonetheless express hope that its negative reception will discourage other states from adopting the model.

Yale historian Timothy Snyder, writing on Substack, criticized the curriculum for reducing the United States to a crude superlative — “the best country in the world” — and for asserting that the US “should be defined as free and democratic regardless of what Americans or legislatures actually do.” Snyder concluded that the curriculum prevents any meaningful examination of the nation’s own history and forecloses substantive thinking about how best to protect and expand equality, justice, and freedom.

Historian Ellen Schrecker, a leading authority on right-wing political repression and McCarthyism, told Truthout that the curriculum contains numerous factual distortions requiring direct correction:

“They are throwing out random facts about alleged communist attacks on American values. What students will be taught is a vision of a nonexistent communist threat. The portrayal of an out-of-control left — socialist and communist — constantly trying to undermine American security is simply false. We also need to look at what’s missing from the curriculum. For example, in the section on McCarthy, there is no mention that people lost their jobs and genuinely suffered as a result of his attacks.”

Like Snyder, Schrecker finds the curriculum’s depiction of the United States as a beacon to the world deeply problematic. “The curriculum presents the US as largely perfect, with its great, white, male, Christian leaders, while warning that the country can be threatened by external socialist or communist forces,” she said. “There is no mention of people within the US who were oppressed or had limited opportunities. There is also a vague ‘us versus them’ framing that focuses on individual rather than collective responses.”

John White, a professor of English and Adolescent Literacy at the University of North Florida, also expressed concern about the factual claims embedded in the History of Communism Standards:

“The right says teachers shouldn’t indoctrinate students, yet they’ve produced a curriculum that indoctrinates students into a particular point of view. The curriculum conflates communism and socialism as if they were a single ideology. It ignores the fact that Joseph McCarthy is widely recognized as a discredited demagogue. Worse still, the term ‘communism’ appears to function as a catch-all slogan for any idea the right finds objectionable.”

White noted that many of his students pursue social studies education because of a genuine love of history and politics. “They don’t want to view the world through a binary lens of good and evil, or to place racism, sexism, and homophobia in the ‘bad’ category while placing blind patriotism in the ‘good’ category,” he said. “Students don’t need everything handed to them pre-packaged. This curriculum is the antithesis of good teaching because it undermines critical thinking.”

None of these objections appear to have given the Florida Department of Education or Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration any pause. State officials view the History of Communism Standards as the natural successor to Americanism vs. Communism, a mandatory course taught to Florida middle and high school students between 1962 and 1983.

That earlier requirement was enacted in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. Its stated purpose was to teach Florida’s children “the dangers of communism, the ways to fight communism, the evils of communism, the fallacies of communism, and the false doctrines of communism.”

Linda Camarasana, a retired professor of English at the State University of New York at Old Westbury, took that course in 1976 at a high school in North Miami Beach.

“We knew the purpose was to teach us the evils of communism and emphasize American superiority,” she told Truthout. “But at the time, North Miami had a very liberal population, and so did our teachers. We learned about the conditions that led to the Russian Revolution and caused the people to rise up.”

Camarasana said that despite the ideological intent of the course, she and her classmates came away with a balanced perspective — one that encouraged independent inquiry and research.

Both DeSantis and Kamoutsas are determined to ensure that the current History of Communism Standards afford neither students nor teachers any comparable flexibility to examine systems of government on their own terms.

As Kamoutsas declared at the 2025 press conference, halting “the resurgence of communist ideologies in the United States and around the world” is Florida’s stated educational priority. He and the state Department of Education have expressed confidence that the curriculum will soon be adopted by other states as well.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

America

Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports

Published

2 days ago

on

10/09/2026

By

The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.

According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.

In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.

As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.

Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.

Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.

On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.

These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.

Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.

CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.

That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.

A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.

Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.

The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.

White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.

The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.

During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.

In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.

The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.

Continue Reading

America

Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races

Published

3 days ago

on

09/09/2026

By

A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.

These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.

According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.

The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.

Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.

Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.

Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:

“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”

The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.

Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.

Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.

More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.

The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.

According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.

Continue Reading

America

Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives

Published

3 days ago

on

09/09/2026

By

Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.

The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.

Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.

Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.

“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”

In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.

Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.

Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.

Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.

Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.

Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.

In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.

Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.

“They are gambling with our lives”

Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.

However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.

Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.

Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.

On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.

It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.

Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.

A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.

Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey