Oklahoma high schools to teach 2020 election conspiracy theories as fact

As part of the latest Republican push in red states to promote ideologies sympathetic to Donald Trump, Oklahoma's new social studies curriculum will ask high school students to identify 'discrepancies' in the 2020 election results.
The previous standard for studying the 2020 election merely said: 'Examine issues related to the election of 2020 and its outcome.' The new version is more expansive: 'Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of 'bellwether county' trends.'
The revised curriculum standard comes at the behest of Ryan Walters, the state school superintendent, who has publicly voiced his support for Trump. In October, Walters lauded Trump in an interview, saying that 'Trump's won the argument on education'.
Walters, who has also advocated for ending 'wokeness' in public schools, went on to say: 'We have education bureaucrats that are left-wing, elitist, that think they know best for families, and they have become so radicalized that our families are going: 'What is going on here?''
Oklahoma's new social studies standards for K-12 public school students, already infused with references to the Bible and national pride, were revised at Walters' direction. The Republican official has spent much of his first term in office not only lauding Trump but also feuding with teachers' unions and local school superintendents.
'The left has been pushing left-wing indoctrination in the classroom,' Walters said. 'We're moving it back to actually understanding history … and I'm unapologetic about that.'
As part of his revisions, Walters also proposed removing education about Black Lives Matter and George Floyd's murder, Tulsa's NBC affiliate KJRH reports.
The outlet further reported that the revisions were expected to cost the state's taxpayers $33m in new textbooks and related material.
Other efforts by Walters include promoting Trump-endorsed Bibles across classrooms, as well as supporting an attempt to establish the US's first public religious charter school – a case the conservative-majority supreme court seems open to siding with.
The new standard raised red flags even among Walters' fellow Republicans, including the governor and legislative leaders. They were concerned that several last-minute changes, including the language about the 2020 election and a provision stating the source of the Covid-19 virus was a Chinese lab, were added just hours before the state school board voted on them.
A group of parents and educators have filed a lawsuit asking a judge to reject the standards, arguing they were not reviewed properly and that they 'represent a distorted view of social studies that intentionally favors an outdated and blatantly biased perspective'.
While many Oklahoma teachers have expressed outrage at the change in the standards, others say they leave plenty of room for an effective teacher to instruct students about the results of the 2020 election without misinforming them.
Aaron Baker, who has taught US government in high schools in Oklahoma City for more than a decade, said he's most concerned about teachers in rural, conservative parts of the state who might feel encouraged to impose their own beliefs on students.
'If someone is welcoming the influence of these far-right organizations in our standards and is interested in inserting more of Christianity into our practices as teachers, then they've become emboldened,' Baker said. 'For me, that is the major concern.'
Leaders in the Republican-led Oklahoma legislature introduced a resolution to reject the standards, but there wasn't enough GOP support to pass it.
Part of that hesitation likely stemmed from a flurry of last-minute opposition organized by pro-Trump conservative groups such as Moms for Liberty, which has a large presence in Oklahoma and threatened lawmakers who reject the standards with a primary opponent.
'In the last few election cycles, grassroots conservative organizations have flipped seats across Oklahoma by holding weak Republicans accountable,' the group wrote in a letter signed by several other conservative groups and GOP activists. 'If you choose to side with the liberal media and make backroom deals with Democrats to block conservative reform, you will be next.'
After a group of parents, educators and other Oklahoma school officials worked to develop the new social studies standards, Walters assembled an executive committee consisting mostly of out-of-state pundits from conservative thinktanks to revise them. He said he wanted to focus more on American exceptionalism and incorporate the Bible as an instructional resource.
Among those Walters appointed to the review committee were Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and a key figure in its Project 2025 blueprint for a conservative presidential administration, and Dennis Prager, a radio talkshow host who founded Prager U, a conservative non-profit that offers 'pro-American' educational materials for children that some critics say are not accurate or objective.
In a statement to the Associated Press, Walters defended teaching students about 'unprecedented and historically significant' elements of the 2020 presidential election.
Recounts, reviews and audits in the battleground states where Trump contested his loss all confirmed Democrat Joe Biden's victory, and Trump lost dozens of court cases challenging the results.
In addition to the curriculum revisions, a proposed rule approved by the state board of education in January mandates that parents enrolling their children in the state's public schools show proof of immigration status.
Describing the rule, which has been met with widespread outrage among parents, students and immigration advocates, Walters said: 'Our rule around illegal immigration accounting is simply that … It is to account for how many students of illegal immigrants are in our schools.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

23 minutes ago

• The Independent

Middle East situation ‘perilous', says Lammy amid calls for more talks

The situation in the Middle East is 'perilous', the Foreign Secretary said as he urged Iran to negotiate with the US. David Lammy flew from Washington to Geneva on Friday to meet Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi alongside his French and German counterparts as the UK continued to press for a diplomatic solution to the Middle East crisis. The talks followed US President Donald Trump's announcement that he would delay a decision on joining Israeli strikes against Iran for up to two weeks. Speaking after the meeting, Mr Lammy told reporters: 'It is still clear to me, as President Trump indicated yesterday, that there is a window of within two weeks where we can see a diplomatic solution.' Urging Iran to 'take that off ramp' and talk to the Americans, he said: 'We have a window of time. This is perilous and deadly serious.' He added that the US and Europe were pushing for Iran to agree to zero enrichment of uranium as a 'starting point' for negotiations. But Mr Araghchi said Iran would not negotiate with the US as long as Israel continued to carry out airstrikes against the country, and insisted his country's nuclear programme was entirely peaceful. Both sides continued to exchange fire on Friday, with Iranian missiles targeting the city of Haifa while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tel Aviv's military operation would continue 'for as long as it takes'. Meanwhile, the UK Government has announced it will use charter flights to evacuate Britons stranded in Israel once the country's airspace reopens. Mr Lammy said work is under way to provide the flights 'based on levels of demand' from UK citizens who want to leave the region. The move follows criticism of the Foreign Office's initial response, which saw family members of embassy staff evacuated while UK citizens were not advised to leave and told to follow local guidance. The Government said the move to temporarily withdraw family members had been a 'precautionary measure'. On Friday, the Foreign Office announced that UK staff had also been evacuated from Iran, with the embassy continuing to operate remotely. But the Government continues to advise British nationals in the region to follow local advice, rather than urging them to leave. The US evacuated 79 staff and families from the embassy in Israel on Friday local time, according to the Associated Press. Mr Trump told reporters his national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was 'wrong' when she told lawmakers in March that US intelligence officials did not believe Iran had been building a nuclear weapon. The president also suggested it would be 'very hard to stop' Israeli strikes on Iran to negotiate a ceasefire.

Telegraph

30 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'

Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.

New Statesman​

33 minutes ago

• New Statesman​

The left is rallying against war with Iran

Photo byAll eyes are on the White House, as the conflict between Iran and Israel enters its second week. Donald Trump has yet to commit to direct American involvement, telling reporters he would decide in the next two weeks. When he does, Keir Starmer will need to make a decision. Will the UK fall in behind its allies (the US and Israel) or will it keep its distance? This is an extremely delicate situation. The UK would be on difficult legal ground if it did get directly involved militarily, as it has not been directly attacked, nor have any of its Nato allies. Equally, it would not be in the country's interests to see an Iranian escalation which threatened shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, or the UK's military bases in Cyprus. Though Starmer has yet to make his position plain – he has repeated his assertion that this is a 'fast-moving situation' – whichever decision he takes is likely to lead to political friction. Inside the Labour Party, it already is. Though the UK is not directly involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, the same criticisms which have plagued the government on the ongoing war in Gaza have been applied here. Britain continues to technically supply arms to Israel through the F45 fighter jet programme and its belated sanctioning of far-right members of the Israeli government (Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich received sanctions last week) has been widely criticised. Increased UK involvement in the Middle East could lead to an escalation of these criticisms from the left, both within and outside of the Labour party. The potential for active UK involvement in the war in the Middle East is not likely to sit well with some Labour MPs. The scars of the Iraq war run deep among Labour politicians and party members. One backbench MP was clear: there are a lot of people in the Labour party who would not want to go to war in Iran. And while they said that while this is mostly concentrated among the old guard of MPs (those elected pre-2024), members of the new intake share their apprehension. The MP added that this concern could even stretch to the Cabinet, and that it would be better for Starmer to align the UK with its European partners and Canada, rather than remain at the beck-and-call of Trump and the US. Today Emmanuel Macron announced a European proposal to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. 'Britain has to have a recalibration of who they're dealing with,' the MP said. How Starmer deals with this conflict is also being watched closely by the leftward coalition which is forming outside the party. Among this broad extra-parliamentary group there is agreement that the UK must not be led into this conflict to serve US interests. Today (21 June), the Palestine Solidarity Campaign will stage a march from Russell Square to Westminster, with speakers including the Independent (former Labour) MP Zarah Sultana and Paloma Faith. Jeremy Corbyn and Zack Polanski will also be in attendance. This group is of course, dead against any direct UK involvement in the conflict. Corbyn told me, 'The last Labour government made the mistake of following the US into a catastrophic war and refusing to build its own, independent, ethical foreign policy. Human beings abroad paid the price.' The former Labour leader, who recently brought a 10-minute rule bill calling for an independent inquiry into the UK's involvement in Gaza, called on the government 'to learn the lessons of the past, otherwise it will be remembered for the less secure and less peaceful world it has helped to create'. His sentiments were similarly echoed by the Green Party deputy leader, and candidate for party leadership, Zack Polanski, who said: 'Starmer claims to support de-escalation – yet continues to back a government committing genocide in Gaza, arms its military, shares intelligence, and now refuses to rule out dragging us into another catastrophic war.' Polanski, who has said he thinks the UK should withdraw from Nato, similarly pointed to the lessons of history on this. He added: 'We saw in 2003 what happens when a prime minister chooses loyalty to an American president over the will of the British people. They must learn from that shameful chapter in history.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Privately, though, there is concern from those who are sympathetic to Gaza on the left that this escalation could only lead to more polarisation. Prior to Israel's strikes on Iran – and Iran's retaliation – it felt as though opinion on Gaza was on the cusp of a turning point, with more MPs feeling able to speak out about what they saw as indiscriminate Israeli aggression. This new stage of the conflict opens up a new attack-line. As Corbyn, Polanski, or other pro-Gaza MPs and politicians call for the end of arms sales to Israel, the worry is that critics will fire back that these MPs would leave Israel defenceless from Iran. None of this puts the Prime Minister in an easy position. Starmer has already received extensive criticism for being slow to act on sanctions and arms sales. If he commits to more UK involvement in this growing conflict, it will open him up to even further attacks from the left (and could even run the risk of more Labour losses to the Gaza independents or an equivalent organised party in 2029). Memories of Iraq, and the political damage that terrible conflict wrought on the Labour party have certainly not dissipated; the left are keen that no one forgets. [See also: The dangerous new neoconservatism] Related