The campaign of Senator Flávio Bolsonaro acknowledged Wednesday that his official profiles incorrectly listed a postgraduate specialization he did not complete [1].
This correction comes during a high-stakes presidential bid, where the academic credentials of candidates often serve as benchmarks for professional competence and personal integrity.
The error appeared across multiple platforms, including the senator's official Senate profile, his LinkedIn page, and his profile for the Alerj, the Rio de Janeiro State Assembly [1, 2]. These pages stated that Bolsonaro had completed a postgraduate specialization in Political Science at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) [1, 3].
The discrepancy surfaced after UFRJ confirmed it has no record of the senator ever completing those postgraduate studies [1, 2]. Following this verification, the campaign team addressed the issue on Aug. 12 [1].
The campaign said there was an error in the curriculum information [1, 2]. The team has since moved to correct the official profiles to reflect the senator's actual academic history [1, 3].
Bolsonaro is currently navigating a presidential campaign in Brazil, where official biographies are scrutinized by opposing candidates and the public [1, 5]. The removal of the degree follows reports that the university's records did not align with the public claims made on his professional pages [2, 4].
The incident highlights the role of institutional verification in political campaigns. While the campaign categorized the inclusion of the degree as a mistake, the presence of the claim on official government-hosted profiles, such as the Senate page, increased the visibility of the error [1, 2].
“The campaign said there was an error in the curriculum information.”
The admission of a curriculum error during a presidential campaign can create vulnerabilities regarding a candidate's transparency. By correcting the record after university verification, the Bolsonaro campaign seeks to neutralize potential accusations of intentional deception, though the proliferation of the claim across official government sites suggests a lack of internal vetting before publication.
