1. STRIKES SPARK FIGHTING IN THE MIDDLE EAST

President Trump ordered a major military attack on Iran without first getting Congress to approve it, which immediately reignited a long-running argument about who gets to decide when the United States goes to war. Critics say the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, while presidents often argue they can act quickly to protect national interests. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit presidents by requiring notice to Congress and setting time limits if lawmakers do not authorize the fighting. But presidents of both parties have often stretched those limits, and the law’s enforcement is politically difficult. This new conflict is now pushing Congress toward another high-stakes debate about whether it will try to reassert its authority. Create a “Civics Explainer” for students your age. In 6–8 sentences, define war powers and explain the basic disagreement between Congress and the president in this situation. Then write two short sections that explain why some people believe the president must be able to act fast without a vote and why some people believe Congress must approve major combat operations. End with one sentence proposing a practical compromise rule you think would be fair (for example, a fast emergency action plus a required vote within a short time).

2. A SUPREME COURT RULING COULD SHAKE UP MAPS

The Supreme Court is considering a major Voting Rights Act case about Section 2, a rule that has been used to challenge election maps that weaken the voting power of racial groups. If the Court weakens or strikes down Section 2, some states could try to redraw congressional districts—especially “majority-minority” districts—potentially changing which party has an advantage in the House. But whether this affects the 2026 midterms depends a lot on timing, because states have deadlines for primaries, early voting, and candidate filing. If a decision comes late, it could be too complicated (or legally risky) to change maps in time. Even if Section 2 changes, other protections like the Constitution can still be used in court fights about unfair maps. Write a news article that outlines what Section 2 is meant to prevent and why timing matters so much for elections. Conclude with 2–3 sentences answering this question: If a court decision arrives after voting has already started in a state, why would changing the map be challenging or unfair?

3. OLYMPIC CELEBRATION TURNS CONTROVERSIAL

The U.S. men’s and women’s hockey teams both won gold medals at the 2026 Winter Olympics, defeating Canada in exciting overtime games and helping Team USA set a record for gold medals. What should have been a shared moment of celebration quickly became controversial after President Donald Trump congratulated the men’s team and made a joking comment about “having to” invite the women’s team as well. Some of the men laughed during the call, which led to criticism online. Women’s team captain Hilary Knight called the remark “distasteful” and said it distracted from the women’s achievement, while also emphasizing the strong bond and respect between the two teams. Several men later apologized for how they reacted, while others said they were caught up in the moment and never meant to disrespect the women’s team. Write a paragraph that analyzes the difference between intent (what someone meant to do) and impact (how it comes across to the public). Use the hockey team as your example: describe one reason their choices might feel “normal” to them, and one reason those same choices might feel loaded to other people. End by giving one practical guideline you think championship teams should follow to protect unity during celebrations in a divided country.

4. SURGEON GENERAL NOMINEE DODGES VACCINE QUESTIONS

Dr. Casey Means, a wellness influencer and nominee for surgeon general, faced tough questions in a Senate hearing about vaccines, public health, and her qualifications. Senators pressed her to give clear answers—especially about whether she would advise parents to vaccinate children—while she often responded in a way that avoided taking a firm position, saying people should talk with their doctors. She emphasized chronic disease, ultraprocessed food, and environmental exposures, and aligned herself with the “Make America Healthy Again” movement connected to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The hearing also raised concerns about credibility and trust: the surgeon general is often seen as the nation’s public-health communicator, so vague answers on basic questions can become a major political and scientific flashpoint. Write a news analysis paragraph in which you evaluate how public officials should answer questions during confirmation hearings. In your response, explain why senators were pressing Dr. Casey Means for clear answers about vaccines and other health issues, and describe how her responses were viewed by some lawmakers. Then discuss why clarity matters when a nominee is being considered for a role often called the “nation’s doctor.” Conclude by explaining whether you think it is more important for nominees to give direct, specific answers during hearings or to speak more broadly about their overall goals, and support your reasoning with evidence from the article.

5. REP. OMAR CONDEMNS ARREST OF HER STATE OF THE UNION GUEST

Representative Ilhan Omar criticized the arrest of her guest, Aliya Rahman, during President Trump’s State of the Union address. Rahman was removed from the gallery and charged with unlawful conduct after Capitol Police said she refused orders to sit down, while Rahman said she was standing silently and that other people also stood at times. Omar argued the response was heavy-handed and called for a full explanation. The story also connects to Rahman’s earlier encounter with immigration enforcement, where she said she was injured, adding to concerns about how authorities use force and how rules are applied in tense political moments. In two paragraphs, analyze both sides of this story. In the first, explain the Capitol Police viewpoint: why do you think strict rules exist for the State of the Union gallery, and what might officers worry could happen if demonstrations spread? In the second half, explain Omar and Rahman’s viewpoint: why might people see this as unfair or inconsistent, especially if others were standing too? End with five questions you would ask if you were investigating what happened (for example, about warnings given, consistency, or medical accommodations).