America
Florida mandates anti-communism course for all middle and high school students starting 2026
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.
America
US national debt hits record $40 trillion as borrowing accelerates
The US national debt has reached a record $40 trillion as borrowing expanded at a historic pace.
The development has heightened investor concern over the state of US public finances, despite Donald Trump’s pledge to bring spending under control.
Gross federal debt crossed the threshold on Tuesday, according to Treasury Department data published on Wednesday.
Calculations by the Financial Times show that debt climbed by $3 trillion over the past year, registering the fastest rate of increase in history outside the pandemic period.
Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget think tank, said:
“This is like a giant, flashing ‘check engine’ light. It doesn’t mean your engine will melt down tomorrow, but it is a clear sign that things have gotten quite out of hand. And it’s not just the size of the number; it’s the speed at which we’ve reached it.”
The US national debt has surged over the past two decades, climbing from below $6 trillion at the start of the century (about $12 trillion in 2026 dollar terms) as massive public spending during the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic compounded enormous budget deficits.
In the past 10 years alone, the total debt load has doubled. Debt held by the public—a key gauge tracked by markets that excludes intra-governmental holdings—now exceeds $32 trillion, roughly equal to the size of the US economy.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects debt held by the public to surpass the post-Second World War record of 106% of GDP by the end of the decade and to reach 120% by 2036.
As borrowing increased, investors began demanding a higher premium to hold US bonds.
This has driven interest rates higher, leaving debt servicing costs larger than national defence spending.
The situation has created unease in Washington. On Wednesday, prior to the release of the debt data, the Treasury Department announced it would double its buybacks of long-term government debt in a bid to halt a recent sell-off.
Last week, the US paid its highest borrowing costs since 2001 to sell 30-year bonds.
Wednesday’s 10-year Treasury auction produced the highest yields since 2007 as investors fretted over the scale of the debt.
Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, said: “That is an awful lot of money being borrowed. It is going to feed on itself with interest expenses. If interest rates rise because of concerns about the high debt load, that will lead to even more interest expense. It’s a vicious cycle.”
Trump returned to office in 2025 promising to rein in “wasteful” government spending.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged to reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of Trump’s term.
However, measures to trim spending in some areas were offset by broad tax cuts in the president’s signature 2025 fiscal legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which will add more than $4 trillion to the debt by 2034.
Trump also requested an increase of more than 50% in annual defence spending, seeking $1.5 trillion in the largest budget request in US history.
The deficit fell to 5.9% of GDP in 2025 from 6.3% the previous year. The CBO expects the deficit to decline to 5.8% this year. The US national debt comprises years of accumulated deficits compounded by interest charges.
Analysts noted that both US political parties missed opportunities during periods of economic expansion to take significant steps toward curbing spending.
Calculations by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee indicate that over the past year, total national debt grew by roughly $7.9 billion a day, or approximately $91,000 per second.
Budget specialists said they hoped crossing the $40 trillion threshold would spur politicians from both parties to take meaningful steps to bring borrowing back under control.
Michael Peterson, head of the Peterson Foundation, a think tank dedicated to returning debt to a sustainable trajectory, said:
“My hope is that this serves as a national alarm and wake-up call to address our fiscal future. If we keep borrowing this much, we are going to face a day of reckoning in financial markets… People will wake up one day and decide: ‘You know what? I’m more worried about the United States now. I’m going to demand higher interest rates, or I’m going to put my money somewhere else.'”
America
Independent US oil firms set to sign output deals in Venezuela
Several independent US oil producers are expected to sign production contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company in the coming days.
According to sources who spoke to Politico on condition of anonymity because details of the event have not yet been made public, a signing ceremony involving several small US producers and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) was scheduled to take place in Houston on Tuesday (18 August) evening.
One source said Venezuela’s oil minister and the head of PDVSA’s exploration division were scheduled to attend the ceremony. Another source added that the event could be postponed until Wednesday morning.
The White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, was not expected to be officially involved in Tuesday’s ceremony.
However, the development follows a visit by senior officials to Caracas in late April, where they signed memorandums of understanding that established the framework for formal production agreements in the country, which holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Despite the tailwind provided by high crude prices, negotiations had stalled over key details such as dispute resolution, while officials in Caracas contended with two devastating earthquakes in June that claimed thousands of lives.
Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, announced new regulations last month that offer more favourable fiscal terms to international oil companies.
According to an industry source close to the negotiations, the signing of the contracts comes after the Trump administration renewed pressure on Rodríguez to ensure PDVSA concludes agreements with American firms.
The source said these efforts included outreach by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss how increased oil revenues could assist the country following the devastating earthquake earlier this summer.
The source added:
“Delcy reached a renewed awareness that increased oil production is the way to rebuild after the earthquakes and to achieve what her government wants to do for the people suffering from the earthquakes.”
David Goldwyn, president of the international energy consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies, said investments from independent oil producers and boosting output from existing fields would serve as the “primary source of new oil growth for the next few years” for Venezuela.
“While the oil majors are trying to buy time to see how the political situation clarifies and whether they can cherry-pick the best assets, independent companies can de-risk their projects in the short term,” Goldwyn said.
However, Goldwyn noted that these investments would add no more than 300,000 barrels per day to the country’s oil production over the next year, falling far short of the multi-million-barrel increase that officials in Caracas and Washington wish to see.
“Until the framework improves, electricity is restored, and the political picture becomes clear, all we will see is incremental production growth,” the strategist said.
America
US-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs
Diplomatic tensions between the two countries remain at a peak as the US government considers new sanctions targeting a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court.
According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), the Trump administration is evaluating new measures against Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom it sanctioned last year on human rights grounds before subsequently rescinding that decision.
Washington’s renewed focus on the magistrate threatens to widen the rift between Brazil and the US across trade and political spheres, casting a shadow over upcoming elections in Latin America’s largest nation.
A little over a year ago, De Moraes was subjected to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused him at the time of engaging in a “repressive censorship campaign, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions,” including measures directed at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro, an ally of Donald Trump, was sentenced last year to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.
However, sanctions targeting the judge, his wife, and a company owned by his family were lifted in December following a meeting and phone conversations between Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
According to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, US interest in De Moraes was revived partly due to a case that ignited a debate over press freedom in Brazil.
The judge authorized police raids against a journalist and two sources as part of an investigation into media coverage concerning a Supreme Court justice and his family.
De Moraes defended the action, arguing that the information in question had been illegally obtained and disclosed, thereby endangering the safety of the justice’s family.
The judge gained global prominence several years ago following a public conflict with Elon Musk, which briefly led to the billionaire’s X platform being blocked in Brazil.
Supporters say he “helped protect Brazilian democracy against a wave of misinformation.”
However, critics, including the Trump administration, view him as violating free speech rights.
“He went after the president’s supporters. Not just Elon Musk, but MAGA supporters in Brazil as well. Even if we want to build good relations with Brazil, it is clear that this man is an adversary,” said a person familiar with the US government’s thinking.
Another person stated that the reimposition of Magnitsky sanctions is “under evaluation,” noting that such sanctions entail the freezing of US-based assets and a prohibition on American companies and individuals conducting business with targeted parties.
While it remains unclear whether or when a decision will be reached, any such move would intensify an escalating retaliatory spiral between the two most populous countries in the Americas.
Tensions initially erupted more than a year ago when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil while demanding that prosecution proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped.
That tariff was subsequently invalidated by the US Supreme Court.
A brief period of de-escalation since then has drawn to a close, with the US applying a 25% import tariff on numerous Brazilian products in July.
Last month, Brazil denied entry to two Trump envoys over concerns regarding potential interference in its upcoming October elections. Washington rejects those allegations.
Lula, who is seeking re-election for a fourth presidential term, suggested that the US might act to support his main opponent, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the jailed former leader’s son.
The 80-year-old president has also engaged in a sharp public exchange of words with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
On Sunday, thousands of supporters gathered to welcome Lula at a stadium in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo, for the official launch of his election campaign.
Lula originally achieved prominence in the area during the late 1970s as a union leader heading metalworkers’ strikes.
Speaking at the venue, Lula said, “I thank the working men and women of this country who believed that someone like themselves could achieve more than someone different from them. As long as I am alive, I will not stop fighting, and I will not allow the right [to prevail].”
-
Middle East2 weeks agoTrump’s Board of Peace drafts first Gaza base contract
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUS lawmakers seek terrorist designation for Polisario Front
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoNATO faces severe structural and logistical deficits, Professor Erenel warns
-
Europe2 weeks agoCDU unrest raises doubts over Merz’s future as chancellor
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan set to sign defence pact
-
America2 weeks agoWealthy Americans drive surge in New Zealand golden visa demand
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia defense agreement: An attack on one will be considered an attack on all
-
Interview4 days agoDaniel Davis warns US strategy fails against Iranian defense grid
