Politics

Ending the Indoctrination: Why School Choice Is The Only Way To Save US Education

Published

1 month ago

December 4, 2025

Walk into almost any school board meeting today and it feels less like a talk about reading and math, and more like a political rally. Parents argue about “radical indoctrination.” Lawmakers argue about “patriotic education.” Teachers feel caught in the crossfire.

In 2025, a new executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K‑12 Schooling” promised to crack down on lessons about systemic racism, white privilege, and gender identity, and to push a more patriotic story of America instead. Supporters said it would protect kids. Critics said it was itself a political attempt to control what children learn.

Both sides are afraid that the other side will use schools to shape kids’ beliefs. That fear is not crazy. When almost every child must attend a system controlled by a small group of leaders, the risk of indoctrination is always there, no matter who is in charge.

School choice, where money follows the student instead of the system, offers a different path. It gives families the power to walk away from schools that push one narrow worldview, and to pick places that match their values and help their kids think for themselves.

This article breaks down what indoctrination really is, how the current system makes it possible, why school choice protects kids and improves learning, and what steps parents and voters can take right now.

What Indoctrination in Schools Really Means (And What It Does Not)

A lot of people use the word “indoctrination,” but they don’t always mean the same thing. So let’s start simple.

Indoctrination means teaching students what to think, instead of how to think.

It shows up when:

Only one answer is allowed on big questions about history, race, gender, or politics.
Students feel afraid to ask honest questions.
Kids are shamed, punished, or graded down for disagreeing with the teacher’s beliefs.

Both the right and the left accuse each other of this. Some conservative groups say schools are pushing “woke” ideas about race and gender, and dividing kids into victims and oppressors. Some progressive groups say schools are being pushed to hide honest history, silence LGBTQ students, and replace real debate with flag-waving slogans.

The 2025 executive order against “radical indoctrination” is a good example of this tug of war. It threatens to pull federal money from schools that teach ideas like systemic racism or gender identity, and it brings back the 1776 Commission to promote a patriotic version of U.S. history. Supporters see this as a fix. Critics see it as top-down political pressure on classrooms.

Honest teaching looks different. Honest teaching:

Covers hard topics like slavery, racism, and discrimination.
Shares more than one viewpoint where experts disagree.
Invites questions, even tough or unpopular ones.
Helps kids test ideas with evidence, not just feelings.

Indoctrination, by contrast, allows only one “correct” view and treats questions as a threat.

Teaching kids how to think vs telling them what to think

Picture two versions of the same classroom.

In the first classroom, the teacher writes a statement on the board, like “The United States has always been a force for good in the world,” or “America is a racist country.” Then the teacher says: “Your job is to explain why this is true.” Students who raise doubts get shut down. They learn quickly that the safe move is to agree.

That is telling kids what to think.

In the second classroom, the teacher writes the same statement, but adds: “Do you agree or disagree? Why?” Students read different sources, maybe a speech by a civil rights leader, a piece from a veteran, a historian’s article. They work in groups, question each other, and share what they find.

That is teaching kids how to think.

Critical thinking means:

Asking questions.
Looking at evidence.
Comparing different sides.
Changing your mind when the facts change.

Kids do not need a college-level philosophy lesson to do this. They need space to speak, listen, and think out loud without fear of being labeled or punished.

Why both political sides fear bias in public schools

People from different parties worry about different kinds of bias.

Many conservatives fear that:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) lessons paint all white students as oppressors.
Lessons on gender identity confuse kids or push ideas that clash with their faith.
Schools teach kids to distrust police, the flag, or their own country.

Many progressives fear that:

New rules will censor honest teaching on slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing racism.
LGBTQ students will be erased when schools avoid talking about gender or identity.
“Patriotic education” will turn into one-sided cheerleading that hides mistakes.

There are real cases on both sides. Some states have told teachers to avoid “divisive concepts.” Other districts have used training materials that treat some kids as automatic victims and others as automatic oppressors. Leaders in both camps have tried to block ideas they dislike.

When one system controls almost all kids, every group fights to control that system. The school system itself becomes the prize in a never-ending culture war.

What research really shows about political bias in classrooms

Headlines often make it sound like every classroom is a political echo chamber. The research paints a more mixed picture.

Surveys of teachers often show that:

Many try to present more than one view on hot topics.
Most say they avoid pushing their personal politics.
They report feeling pressure from both sides to “stay safe” or “stay quiet.”

Student surveys suggest that:

Some students do hear political opinions from teachers.
Many say teachers allow discussion, but some topics now feel off-limits.
Laws about “banned concepts” or fear of complaints can lead schools to skip hard but important lessons.

In other words, there is less proof of mass indoctrination than social media claims. But the structure of the system is fragile. A single election, law, or executive order can tilt things quickly.

That fragility is the real problem. If one group gains power, it can use a centralized system to push its ideas from the top down, to every classroom at once.

How the Current US Public School System Opens the Door to Indoctrination

You do not need a grand conspiracy to end up with political classrooms. You only need a structure where a few people control what millions of children hear all day.

Right now, that is how U.S. public schooling works.

Centralized rules, strong unions, and large agencies shape what happens far more than individual families do. Funding, tests, standards, and approved textbooks mostly sit in the hands of lawmakers and education departments, not parents.

At the same time, academic results are sliding. National tests like the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that reading and math scores for high school seniors hit historic lows in 2024. About 45 percent of 12th graders scored below basic in math and about 32 percent scored below basic in reading. The drops are worst for struggling students.

So while adults fight about ideology, many kids cannot read, write, or do math at the level they need for real life.

Centralized control: when one system decides what every child hears

Centralized control sounds abstract, but kids feel it every day.

In practice, it looks like this:

State boards pick curriculum standards that say what topics teachers must cover.
Those standards drive which textbooks big publishers create and sell.
Federal rules and grants offer money if states follow certain priorities.
Local districts must fall in line if they want that money.

A single law can decide whether teachers can talk about systemic racism, gender identity, or climate change, or whether they must teach a certain version of U.S. history. A single executive order can push schools toward one “approved” story of America.

That means millions of kids can have their lessons changed overnight by people they will never meet.

Teacher unions, politics, and who really runs the classroom

Teacher unions are groups that represent teachers when they bargain over pay, job security, and working conditions. They give teachers a voice, and many members see them as a shield against unfair treatment.

But unions are also big political players. They:

Endorse candidates.
Spend money on campaigns.
Support or fight education laws.

Unions and advocacy groups often push back hard against orders they dislike, or push just as hard for policies they do like. Parents, school boards, and lawmakers join the tug of war. Classrooms sit in the middle.

Most teachers care deeply about kids. Many hate the politics. The problem is not that teachers are bad. The problem is that they work in a system that is big, rigid, and highly political by design.

Culture wars vs student learning: reading and math scores are slipping

While adults argue, student learning is not keeping up.

NAEP results in recent years show long-term struggles in reading and math, with sharp drops after COVID and only slow recovery. In 2024, nearly half of high school seniors tested below basic in math. Large gaps between the strongest and weakest students keep growing.

Education leaders share plans, task forces, and slogans, yet many students still leave school unready for college or skilled work.

When every news story about schools focuses on race, gender, or flags, less attention goes to basics like:

Early reading instruction.
Strong math teaching in middle school.
Mental health support.
Career and technical pathways.

The more centralized and political the system becomes, the harder it is to focus on what kids truly need.

Why School Choice Protects Kids From Indoctrination and Boosts Learning

School choice flips the script. Instead of funding a system and assigning kids to it by zip code, it funds students and lets families choose.

In simple terms, school choice means public money follows the child. Families can use that money at:

Traditional public schools.
Public charter schools.
Private schools.
Online or hybrid schools.
Home-education programs, in some states.

This does two big things.

First, it acts like a safety valve against indoctrination. If a school pushes a one-sided worldview, parents can leave, and the funding goes with the child. No group can hold kids captive inside one system.

Second, it pushes schools to earn trust. When families can walk, schools must focus on quality, respect, and real results.

School choice is not owned by one party. Conservative parents, progressive parents, and politically independent parents can all use choice to find schools that match their values and still teach kids how to think.

What school choice is (and what critics get wrong)

There are a few main types of school choice:

Vouchers: The state gives a set amount of money for each child, which parents can use for private school tuition.
Education savings accounts (ESAs): Parents get a portion of their child’s education funding in a controlled account and can spend it on approved uses, like tuition, tutoring, or online classes.
Charter schools: Public schools that are free to attend but run by independent groups under a contract, with more flexibility and more accountability for results. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has basic guides on how these schools work.
Open enrollment: Families can choose public schools outside their assigned zone if seats are open.

Critics worry that school choice will:

Drain money from neighborhood public schools.
Help only wealthy or well-connected families.
Spread radical content with taxpayer funds.

Poorly written laws can create problems. But well-designed programs can require:

Clear admission rules.
Strong transparency about curriculum and results.
Basic safety and anti-discrimination standards.
Extra support for low-income and special-needs students.

The goal is not to blow up public education. The goal is to give families real options and make every school earn its students.

How choice breaks the monopoly on kids’ minds

Think about how you pick a doctor.

If one clinic treats you badly, ignores your questions, or pushes treatments you dislike, you can switch. Because you can leave, clinics have a strong reason to listen and respect you.

Now imagine if the government assigned you one clinic based on your address, and it was almost impossible to change. That clinic could get lazy, rude, or political, and you would still be stuck.

That is close to how many school systems work today.

School choice breaks that monopoly. If one school leans too far into politics or censors key facts, parents can move their child. Funding follows. Schools that listen and teach well grow. Schools that ignore families shrink.

You do not have to clean every bit of politics out of the system. You give families the power to pick learning spaces that match their values and still focus on academics. That balance is far more realistic in a diverse country.

Evidence that school choice can raise achievement and satisfaction

Research on school choice is large and still growing. It is not perfect, but patterns are clear enough to see.

Studies of charter schools and voucher programs in several states find that:

Many charter schools, especially those serving low-income students and students of color, improve graduation rates and college entry compared with nearby district schools.
Some voucher programs show gains in reading and long-term outcomes, though short-term test score results can be mixed.
Parent satisfaction almost always rises when families have more options, even when test score gains are modest.

A good entry point into this research is the EdChoice research library, which groups studies by program and outcome.

The key idea is simple: when families have information and real choices, they can match kids to programs that fit their needs. That helps both freedom and learning at the same time.

A Parent’s Guide: How to Use School Choice to Protect Your Child From Indoctrination

Big policy talks matter, but parents need concrete steps too. Even if you live in a state with limited school choice, you still have tools.

Questions to ask any school about values, curriculum, and free speech

When you visit a school or talk with leaders, bring questions like these:

How do you teach controversial topics such as race, gender, and politics?
Do you present more than one side when experts disagree?
Are students free to share different views, as long as they are respectful?
Can parents see curriculum, lesson plans, and reading lists?
How do you choose guest speakers or outside programs?
What happens if a student feels pressured to agree with a certain view?
How do you handle bullying or harassment tied to beliefs or identity?

You are listening less for a perfect script and more for an attitude. Look for openness, humility, and respect for both students and parents.

How to compare school options: public, charter, private, and home education

Different types of schools have different strengths. From an indoctrination and freedom point of view, here is a quick snapshot:

Option	Pros for freedom and fit	Possible concerns
Neighborhood public	Free, local, known structure; some choice of programs	Less flexibility, district politics, assigned by zip code
Public charter	More flexibility in teaching, mission, and schedule	Waitlists, quality varies by school
Private	Clear value or faith focus, strong culture options	Tuition costs, scholarship access, uneven quality
Home education	Full control over content and pace, strong family input	Time demand on parents, social and activity planning

Whatever you pick, do three things:

Visit and sit in on classes if possible.
Talk with other parents and older students.
Look at student work samples, not just scores or brochures.

Ask yourself: “Does this place respect my child’s mind, my family’s values, and honest debate?”

What to do if you feel your child is being pressured or silenced

If you sense a problem, act, but stay calm and focused on your child’s wellbeing.

Talk with your child. Ask open questions. “What did the teacher say?” “How did you feel?” “Did you feel safe to speak up?”
Gather examples. Save assignments, emails, and notes. Write down dates and what was said.
Meet with the teacher. Share your concerns in a respectful way. “My child felt pressured to agree with this idea. Can we talk about how to handle disagreement in class?”
Go to the principal if needed. If things do not change, bring your notes and ask for a plan. Ask about alternative assignments or a classroom change.
Know your child’s rights. Groups like the ACLU’s student rights page explain free speech protections for students.
Consider a school change. If the culture does not improve, look at charter, private, or home-based options, or at least supplement at home with books and discussions that balance what your child hears in class.

Your goal is not to win a political fight. Your goal is to protect your child’s mind and keep their love of learning alive.

Conclusion: Saving Education by Trusting Families First

The real danger in U.S. education is not only one side’s ideology. It is the power of a single, centralized system over millions of children. Indoctrination becomes possible whenever families cannot walk away.

School choice is the most peaceful and fair way to protect kids from political games and raise learning at the same time. It breaks the monopoly on children’s minds and lets parents choose schools that respect both their values and their child’s curiosity.

If you care about honest education, start local. Learn what your state allows, support policies that expand choice, talk with other parents, and stay involved in your child’s learning.

A freer, more honest, and more effective school system is possible. It starts with a simple belief: families, not distant bureaucrats, should decide what kind of education their children receive.

Politics

Tim Walz Exposed For Faking Financial Records In State Audit

Published

3 days ago

January 11, 2026

VORNews

MINNESOTA – A new report from Minnesota’s nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) is putting Governor Tim Walz’s administration under fresh pressure. The audit, released earlier this month, reviewed the Department of Human Services (DHS) Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) and found that state staff created and backdated documents during the audit process.

Auditors say the records appear to have been made to cover for weak oversight and questionable grant payments tied to more than $425 million in taxpayer funds.

The report adds to a growing list of concerns around fraud and waste in Minnesota social services. Walz announced on January 5, 2026, that he will not run for re-election. Many critics link that decision to the string of scandals and investigations that have followed his administration.

Major Problems With Grant Oversight

The OLA report runs about 70 pages and focuses on behavioral health grants paid out from July 2022 through December 2024. Auditors listed 13 key findings, including several problems flagged in earlier reviews. The report described repeated breakdowns, such as:

Missing required progress reports from grantees
Payments were approved even when the paperwork was late or incomplete
Weak monitoring, including site visits that were not done or not documented
Heavy use of non-competitive single-source grants without clear support for the decision

Over the period reviewed, BHA awarded more than $425 million to about 830 organizations, mostly outside government. The money was meant to support mental health care and substance use disorder services. Auditors said BHA lacked basic internal controls to track performance and confirm proper use of funds, which increased the risk of fraud and misuse.

One example in the audit drew sharp criticism. A grant manager approved a payment of nearly $680,000 to a single grantee for one month of work, and the file did not show proof that the services were delivered. The employee left state service days later and took a consulting job with the same organization. That sequence raised serious conflict-of-interest concerns.

Audit Says Walz Staff Fabricated and Backdated Documents

The most serious finding involved the audit itself. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall said the office saw signs of a “systemic effort” to alter the record, something she described as unheard of during her 27 years with OLA.

Auditors found cases where records were created after the audit began and then dated to look older. In one example, documents claimed monitoring visits happened in May 2024, October 2024, and January 2025. Auditors concluded those records were actually created in February 2025, after the audit was already underway and information requests were out.

Randall called the practice unacceptable and said it damaged trust in the review process. The report suggests the altered paperwork was used to make long-running oversight problems look fixed after the fact, instead of addressing them in real time.

Part of a Larger Wave of Fraud Claims

The DHS audit lands during a broader crackdown on alleged fraud in Minnesota’s public programs. Federal and state investigators have been looking into suspected wrongdoing that could add up to billions of dollars across Medicaid, child care, housing stabilization, and nutrition assistance programs. More than 1,000 current and former workers have come forward as whistleblowers, alleging retaliation, deleted data, and pressure to stay quiet about fraud reports.

Congress has also taken an interest. The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), has expanded its review of Minnesota’s handling of these programs. Comer has publicly blamed Walz for ignoring warning signs and has called on Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison to testify in February 2026. He has also pushed for cooperation with document requests.

Minnesota Republicans, including Rep. Kristin Robbins, say the state ignored auditor warnings and whistleblower complaints for years, with some concerns dating back to 2009.

DHS Response and Growing Calls for Accountability

Acting DHS Commissioner Shireen Gandhi said she was alarmed by the findings about backdated records and promised a full internal review. She also said DHS plans to tighten training, supervision, and internal controls.

Critics say those steps should have happened long ago. House Speaker DeMuth described the report as proof of a culture marked by fraud, negligence, and deception, and called for immediate reforms and possible prosecutions. Some federal lawmakers have warned that funding could be at risk if the state cannot show stronger accountability.

Walz has defended his administration in past disputes by pointing to third-party audits, paused payments in higher-risk areas, and new anti-fraud efforts. Still, the latest audit raises hard issues about who knew what, who allowed weak controls to continue, and whether anyone will face criminal charges for falsifying public records.

What This Means for Public Trust

This audit is not just about paperwork problems. It goes to public trust in the state government. The grants were meant to help Minnesotans dealing with mental illness and addiction. Auditors say the funds went out without strong safeguards, and when oversight finally arrived, staff allegedly tried to recreate a paper trail to show compliance.

With investigations still active at the state and federal levels, the fallout could shape the final chapter of Walz’s time as governor. For many Minnesotans, the biggest issue is simple: they want clear answers, real consequences, and proof that taxpayer dollars will be protected going forward.

Related News:

JD Vance Exposes Walz’s Fraud and CNN’s Lies in White House Presser

Politics

Sen. Joni Ernst Targets Minnesota Nonprofit Amid Fraud Scandal

Published

5 days ago

January 9, 2026

VORNews

Sen. Joni Ernst Targets Minnesota Nonprofit

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, is moving to stop more than $1 million in federal funding set aside for a Minnesota addiction recovery nonprofit. She says the earmark raises red flags tied to Minnesota’s widening nonprofit fraud scandals.

The group, Generation Hope MN, is Somali-led and has drawn attention for listing the same address as a Somali restaurant and for links to well-known Democratic lawmakers.

Ernst plans to offer a Senate amendment that would shift the money away from the nonprofit and send it to fraud detection and enforcement instead. Her move adds to a growing GOP push for tighter controls on federal spending, especially in Minnesota, where investigators say major social service programs have been exploited for large sums.

Ernst Moves to Re-route the Money

“The amount of fraud coming out of Minnesota is shocking, and I’m worried we’re only seeing part of it,” Ernst said in a statement. “Congress should fix the problem, not keep feeding the same system that let it happen.”

The funding totals $1,031,000 for Generation Hope’s “Justice Empowerment Initiative.” The program is described as offering substance use recovery support, mental health services, job training, and educational help for East African residents in the Twin Cities. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) requested the earmark, and Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith backed it in the Senate.

Generation Hope MN started in 2019 as a 501(c)(3). On its website, it says its mission is to build “a better, safer, and more connected community” for people dealing with addiction within the broader East African community.

Recent reports, though, have raised concerns about its setup. Those reports point to the nonprofit’s registered address above a Minneapolis Somali restaurant and claim that several leaders share the same home address.

No charges have been filed against Generation Hope. Still, Ernst and other critics say the group’s profile looks similar to patterns seen in Minnesota’s fraud cases, where some nonprofits have been accused of abusing federal and state programs.

Political Connections Add More Attention

Omar, Klobuchar, and Smith have supported programs tailored to immigrant communities across Minnesota, including the state’s large Somali-American population. Omar’s office has promoted the earmark as part of efforts to address opioid addiction in her district.

Critics say the request lands at a sensitive time. Minnesota remains under heavy scrutiny after major federal investigations into nonprofit fraud. The best-known case involves Feeding Our Future, a now-closed organization accused of taking $250 million from a federal child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prosecutors have charged more than 70 people in that case. They say the losses reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Other probes have focused on Medicaid-funded autism services, housing stabilization programs, and childcare-related spending. Together, alleged misuse across programs could exceed $1 billion. Many defendants in these cases are Somali, though prosecutors say the schemes involve people from many backgrounds.

Ernst’s staff says they found the Generation Hope earmark while reviewing a broader spending package. She argues that putting the money into Department of Justice enforcement work would do more for taxpayers than sending it to an organization now facing questions.

ACLJ Files FOIA Requests for Records

The dispute escalated after conservative attorney Jay Sekulow said the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests tied to Minnesota grant programs.

On his radio show and social media, Sekulow called it a “major FOIA” push to “gather intel” on what he described as large-scale fraud being uncovered in the state. The requests went to agencies that include the Department of Health and Human Services, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, and the Governor’s Office. They seek documents tied to grant oversight and investigations, including alleged fraud connected to daycare and other social service programs.

The filings reflect a wider demand from conservative groups for more public records and clearer oversight. Sekulow has criticized what he calls weak guardrails, saying, “That’s not compassion. That’s corruption,” in recent broadcasts.

What This Means for Minnesota Nonprofits

The fraud cases have put Minnesota in the national spotlight. They have also led to congressional hearings and pauses on some federal payments. The Small Business Administration has opened probes into Somali-linked organizations, and Senate Republicans, led by Ernst, have asked for detailed reports on which programs were hit.

Supporters of community-based funding say these programs serve people who often struggle to access help, including immigrants facing language and cultural barriers. Generation Hope has not been named in any active prosecution. Offices for Omar, Klobuchar, and Smith have not responded to requests for comment on Ernst’s amendment.

As Congress works through the spending bill, Ernst’s proposal could slow the larger package and force a fight over earmarks and oversight. With fraud estimates rising and politics heating up ahead of the midterms, the battle over Generation Hope’s funding has become part of a bigger debate about how federal dollars should flow to nonprofits.

For taxpayers, the focus remains on whether new safeguards will stop future abuse or whether more cases are still waiting to surface.

Politics

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Urges Khamenei’s Removal

Published

6 days ago

January 8, 2026

Jeffrey Thomas

Iran's Exiled Crown Prince Urges Khamenei’s Removal

TEHRAN, Iran – A new wave of nationwide protests is putting heavy pressure on the Islamic Republic, in what many describe as the biggest challenge since the 2022 Mahsa Amini demonstrations.

Crowds in cities across Iran have marched for 11 straight days, chanting against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and calling out the name of exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as a sign of change. The unrest has reached more than 21 provinces, fueled by a sharp economic crisis and growing public anger.

The current protests began on December 28, 2025. They first centered on rising prices, a falling rial, and shortages of everyday goods. Early scenes from Tehran’s Grand Bazaar showed people rallying over the cost of living. Within days, many demonstrations shifted into direct demands to end the current system of rule.

Human rights groups that have reviewed and verified videos say chants have been heard in cities including Isfahan, Mashhad, and Ilam. Protesters have shouted “Death to the dictator,” aimed at the 86-year-old Khamenei, along with “Reza Shah, bless your soul,” a slogan that recalls the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty.

In Tehran, clashes have been intense. Riot police on motorcycles have pursued demonstrators through city streets, using tear gas and live ammunition, according to reports and video shared by monitors. On Tuesday, confrontations near the main market reportedly left several people wounded as shopkeepers joined in. Western Iran and smaller towns have also seen strong turnout, with security forces struggling to slow the pace of protests.

Rights groups, including Iran-based monitors, say at least 36 people have been killed since the unrest began. Hundreds more have been injured, and thousands have been arrested. Khamenei has publicly acknowledged economic complaints, but he has also described the demonstrations as “riots” pushed by foreign enemies.

Reza Pahlavi’s Message From Exile Gains Traction

Reza Pahlavi, 65, the son of Iran’s last shah, has become a key figure for many protesters. Speaking from the United States, he released a video message in Farsi this week that spread widely online. He urged people inside Iran to unite around disciplined, large-scale action. He also called for coordinated chants at set times and said change should not depend on foreign military involvement.

“I am more ready than ever to return to Iran and lead the transition to democracy,” Pahlavi said, while stressing that any shift must be driven by Iranians themselves.

In several cities, pro-monarchy chants have returned, including “Javid Shah” (Long live the king) and “This is the final battle; Pahlavi will return.” The slogans have been heard from Arak to Rasht, pointing to renewed interest among some groups in secular and nationalist options against clerical rule.

Pahlavi has spoken positively about recent U.S. actions abroad while continuing to frame change in Iran as an internal effort. His comments have also boosted activity among the Iranian diaspora, with rallies reported in cities such as London and Paris, as international leaders watch events unfold.

Security Crackdown Intensifies as the Death Toll Rises

Iranian security forces, including the Basij militia and the Revolutionary Guards, have responded with harsher tactics. Verified footage shared by activists shows officers beating protesters and firing into crowds. There have also been reports of night raids and internet blackouts in provinces such as Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari and Ilam, steps that appear aimed at disrupting coordination.

Activists have documented at least 36 deaths, while warning that the real figure could be higher. In one reported incident, a police colonel was killed during clashes in Tehran. Kurdish and Baloch opposition groups have issued threats of retaliation, with one coalition claiming responsibility for targeting a law enforcement officer.

In his first comments last week, Khamenei promised to “put rioters in their place.” He also signaled limited openness to discussing economic problems, similar to his approach during the 2022 unrest. That has not eased the anger. Judiciary officials have also warned that there will be no leniency for people accused of “helping the enemy.”

Iran’s crisis has gained extra attention because of major news out of Venezuela. On January 4, U.S. forces under President Donald Trump captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in an operation that led to his detention in New York on drug charges, according to reports. Trump has publicly praised the move, saying he plans to “run” Venezuela’s oil resources and warning other authoritarian governments.

Some protesters in Iran have responded by calling on Trump directly. Videos show crowds chanting pleas such as “Don’t let them kill us,” and some clips show streets being renamed after Trump. Signs have also appeared with messages like, “Trump, help us like you helped Venezuela,” reflecting fear of a violent crackdown and hope for outside backing.

Trump said last week that if Tehran “violently kills peaceful protesters,” the U.S. “will come to their rescue.” Iranian officials have condemned the Venezuela operation as a breach of sovereignty, and the comments have increased anxiety inside the regime about foreign action.

Reports Claim Khamenei Has a Backup Plan to Flee to Russia

As protests continue, Western media outlets have cited intelligence reports claiming Khamenei has a fallback plan to leave Iran for Moscow if security forces lose control. The plan reportedly includes travel with up to 20 relatives and aides, with support from Russia. If true, it highlights how much Tehran depends on close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

There have also been unverified claims that Iraqi militias could enter Iran to help with a crackdown. Similar rumors have circulated during past protest waves. At the same time, internet disruptions and heavy security deployments in Tehran point to a government under strain and trying to regain control.

In Tehran today, the mood remains tense and unsettled. Demonstrations have continued despite large security deployments, with 19 protests in the capital reported since Monday. At night, chants of “Don’t be afraid, we are all together” have echoed from neighborhoods, while bazaar merchants and students keep pushing back against pressure to stay home.

Kurdish political groups have backed calls for a nationwide general strike on Thursday, which could raise the stakes even more. With inflation climbing and water shortages looming in some areas, many people say daily life is becoming harder by the week.

No one can say for sure whether this movement will force real change or face another brutal crackdown. But for many Iranians taking the risk to protest, the message is direct: they don’t want decades more of unchecked theocratic rule.