National History Day®(NHD) offers year-long academic programs that engage over half a million middle- and high-school students around the world annually in conducting original research on historical topics of interest. Since 1974, NHD has continuously improved history education by providing professional development opportunities and curriculum materials for educators. The largest NHD program is the National History Day Contest that encourages more than half a million students around the world to conduct historical research on a topic of their choice. Students enter these projects at the local and state levels, with top students advancing to the National Contest at the University of Maryland at College Park.
2026 Theme: Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History
To coincide with the commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, NHD’s 2026 theme is Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History. The distinctions among revolutions, reactions, and reforms are sometimes blurred. Revolutions and reforms are often reactions to ideas, actions, or events. In turn, revolutions and reforms inspire reactions. Think of it as a domino effect—knock one down, which knocks the next one down, which knocks . . .
The first question that comes to mind is, “Do students have to focus on all three words—revolution, reaction, reform?” No, students do not have to focus on all three aspects of the theme. It depends on the topic. If the topic involves all three, then students should be sure to include all three. The following are suggested topics related to the Carter Administration that fit within this year's theme, including hyperlinks to resources in the topic titles to get you started:
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
Whether advocating for unprecedented protections for public lands, or taking civil action to oppose an Alaska lands bill, Americans were heavily engaged in the most one of the most publicized public land reform battles in U.S. History. This culminated with a stroke of a pen on December 2, 1980, when Jimmy Carter signed into law what many hail as "the most significant piece of conservation legislation in United States History." The culmination of years of tense negotiations between the Federal Government, the State of Alaska, and Alaska Natives, ANILCA preserved more than 100 million acres of land in America's "Last Frontier", clarified subsistence rights for indigenous groups, and laid the foundation of the 49th State's economy supported by ecotourism and resource extraction. Emotions continue to run high in Alaska today over this legislation, with debate continuing over the constitutionality of its tenets.
The Antiquities Act was a revolutionary turning point in the legislative history of the U.S. It was the first law to establish that archeological sites on public lands are important public resources. It also authorizes the President to protect landmarks, structures, and objects of historic or scientific interest by designating them as national monuments; this was a critical tool for President Carter in securing passage of ANILCA. But is it the responsibility of the federal government to protect public lands? What rights do public land advocates or private interests have according to this law?
Does the United States have a responsibility to its people to provide political and economic stability abroad? Is it responsible for ensuring human rights abroad? Arab-Israeli conflicts between 1948 and 1973 initiated a series of human rights crises and significant disruptions to oil-dependent nations, including the United States who experienced double-digit inflation and unemployment in the 1970s. Confronting these issues, Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, met with Jimmy Carter, President of the United States of America, at Camp David from September 5 to September 17, 1978. These three leaders made a commitment unprecedented in modern diplomatic history to establish peace between Egypt and Israel that remains in place today.
Diplomatic Relations With China
Described by President Carter as "the most significant accomplishment" of his administration, the normalization of diplomatic relations with China was a revolutionary transition in U.S.-Sino relations, providing for the exchange of information and ideas between the United States and the most populous nation on Earth. This came at a time of détente, or easing of tension, between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Russians reacted by invading Afghanistan. Did President Carter have a greater responsibility to preserve détente or pursue diplomatic relations with China?
Women & People of Color in the Carter Administration
President Carter was committed to transforming the federal government to be more reflective of the society it serves. Through congressional legislation and executive action, he drastically increased the number of women and people of color serving in the federal government, establishing a revolutionary benchmark in representative democracy (see page four in link above). How did the Carter administration support the rights of all Americans, and what responsibility, if any, did it have to increase the number of women and people of color serving in the federal government?
Following Israeli victory in the Yom Kippur War, its adversaries reacted by imposing an oil embargo on the United States for its support of Israel. President Carter reacted by deploying all Constitutional options to reach new diplomatic agreements to secure energy. These would aim to combat high fuel prices, rising inflation and unemployment. How did the American people react during this crisis? What rights do Americans have to engage their government to solve such problems? Is it the federal government's responsibility to intervene in a free market economy under these circumstances?
Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 (ERA)
Strongly supported by President and Mrs. Carter, the ERA was a revolutionary campaign in U.S. history, seeking to declare men and women equal in our Constitution. How did people react to the ERA? How did each side appeal to the emotions of Americans to support their side of the debate? While not ratified, it continues to be a topic of significant interest and debate for legal scholars and society at large.
On November 4, 1979, revolutionary Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately 70 Americans captive, initiating a turning point in U.S. hegemony and diplomacy. President Carter committed himself to the safe return of all hostages while protecting America’s interests and prestige. He used his power as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military to order a rescue mission which ultimately failed and claimed the lives of eight service members. Tension and emotions in the U.S. ran high as the hostages ultimately remained in Iran for 444 days. Diplomacy would prevail on Carter's last day in office. His first act as a private citizen was to fly to Germany to meet with the 52 hostages freed from more than a year in captivity.
A benchmark in U.S. immigration law and policy, the Refugee Act of 1980 created the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program to provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival in the United States. This was in reaction to significantly increasing numbers of Cuban and southeast Asians seeking refuge in the U.S. This law provided refuge for those experiencing persecution in their native countries. But what is the federal government's responsibility to accept refugees, and how is this act relevant today?
These treaties were a catalyst in the reform of global trade and commerce in the 1960s and 70s by providing neutrality to vessels of all nations, and joint U.S.-Panama control of the Panama Canal until December 31, 1999, when Panama took full control of its operations. This was done to quell civil unrest and threats of revolution in Panama which had been increased during the Cold War. Numerous U.S. Senators took a calculated risk in supporting the treaty and President Carter, many of whom would not win reelection. The treaty also provided for U.S. military intervention if neutrality of the canal is threatened; did this treaty compromise the State Department's responsibility to promote U.S. interests abroad? Did the United States lose international prestige? Was there economic gain or loss? Has this treaty been proven justified, or should it be revisited?
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
At the end of December 1979, the Soviet Union sent thousands of troops into Afghanistan and assumed complete military and political control of Kabul and large portions of the country. May historians agree this was a reaction to the United States reforming its relationship with their communist adversary, China, and normalizing diplomatic relations with them. This event began a brutal, decade-long attempt by Moscow to subdue the Afghan civil war and maintain a friendly communist government on its border. Carter clung to hopes the Soviets would not invade but as the leader of the free world, the U.S. had to formulate a response. How did Jimmy Carter fulfill this responsibility? How effective was the U.S. response?
Do you still have questions about the contest or interested in getting individual or group assistance? Reach out to the Carter Library education staff.