President Trump is breaking away from traditional conservative legal networks like the Federalist Society, criticizing their past influence on his judicial appointments and signaling he wants to pick judges based more on personal loyalty than ideology. He’s frustrated that some judges he appointed, including Federalist Society-approved ones, have ruled against his agenda, such as blocking tariffs or immigration policies. Trump recently nominated an appeals court judge with no deep ties to conservative legal groups but a history of aggressively supporting his goals. This shift has caused concern among legal conservatives who worry Trump is prioritizing political loyalty over qualifications, potentially damaging long-term judicial credibility. The American Bar Association is also being sidelined from its traditional vetting role in Trump’s second-term nomination process, further signaling a more politicized and less independent approach to judicial selection. Read about the relationship between President Trump and the Federalist Society and consider the role of outside organizations in selecting judges. Then, write a short essay analyzing whether judges should be chosen for their legal philosophy, their loyalty to a political leader, or a mix of both. Support your opinion with examples from the article and your own understanding of how the judicial system is supposed to function in a democracy.

The U.S. government has canceled a nearly $600 million contract with Moderna to develop a bird flu vaccine using mRNA technology. This decision, made under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., reflects skepticism toward mRNA vaccines—despite their widespread success during the COVID-19 pandemic. The cancellation also ends the U.S.’s ability to pre-order doses in case of a future outbreak. Many scientists are concerned because the H5N1 bird flu virus has already spread widely among birds, cattle, and some humans, raising fears of a future pandemic. mRNA vaccines are considered by experts to be the fastest and most adaptable option for responding to a rapidly changing virus. Critics say canceling the contract weakens America’s preparedness and appears to be politically motivated rather than based on scientific evidence. Research the history of pandemic preparedness in the United States and the role of vaccine technology in managing disease outbreaks. Then, write a short opinion essay explaining whether or not you agree with the decision to cancel the Moderna bird flu vaccine contract. In your response, consider both the scientific and political perspectives discussed in the article. Be sure to include at least one scientific fact about how mRNA vaccines work and one argument related to government responsibility during a public health crisis.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently made two emergency rulings that removed legal protections from more than 500,000 immigrants who were living in the country lawfully through programs like humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status. These decisions mean that many people from countries such as Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua are now considered deportable, even though they followed legal procedures and shared personal information with the government. The rulings come as the Trump administration intensifies its efforts to deport immigrants and streamline removal processes, especially using “expedited removal,” which bypasses regular court hearings. Critics say the decisions are harsh and dangerous for people fleeing crisis situations and may discourage compliance with immigration procedures in the future. Because these individuals are easy to locate, having already registered with federal agencies, they may be especially vulnerable to deportation under the new policies. Write a short essay analyzing how the Supreme Court’s decisions might affect public trust in the U.S. immigration system. In your response, consider how legal immigrants might feel about following official processes if their status can be quickly changed, and what this might mean for future immigration enforcement. Use evidence from the article to support your opinion.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has vetoed a bill that would have banned landlords from using rent-setting algorithms—technology often blamed for driving up housing costs. The software, used by major landlords and developed by companies like RealPage, analyzes private data from multiple landlords and offers rent price suggestions. Critics argue this reduces competition and leads to higher rent prices. Although RealPage denies wrongdoing, it is currently facing a federal lawsuit, joined by several states including Colorado. Governor Polis said existing laws already address illegal price-fixing and argued that rent algorithms could help make housing more efficient if used correctly. Housing advocates were deeply disappointed by the veto, saying it favors big landlords over renters. Meanwhile, some U.S. cities have passed their own restrictions on rent algorithms, and questions are being raised about whether AI in housing should be more tightly regulated. Research what rent-setting algorithms like RealPage do and how they work. Then, write a short response explaining whether you think these types of algorithms should be banned, regulated, or left alone. Use evidence from the article and at least one other source to support your opinion. Be sure to consider both sides of the issue: how the software might help manage housing more efficiently versus how it might hurt renters.

For decades, the United States has been the top destination for international scientists and students, helping to drive innovation in medicine, technology, and space exploration. But now, that dominance is at risk. Under President Trump, the U.S. has cut billions in research funding, laid off scientists, and made it harder for international researchers to get visas or stay in the country. These changes are pushing young scientists to work in places like Austria, Japan, and Australia instead. Many experts warn that the loss of international talent and reduced collaboration could damage global science, slow progress in areas like climate research and cancer studies, and hurt America’s influence in the world. Scientists who once viewed the U.S. as the best place to work are now choosing not to come — or even canceling trips — because they no longer feel welcome or safe. Write a response explaining how cutting research funding and reducing opportunities for international scientists might affect the future of science in the United States and around the world. Use examples from the article to support your explanation, and consider how these decisions could impact both innovation and international collaboration.