1. AGENCY HEAD SPARED FOR NOW

The Supreme Court has temporarily stopped President Donald Trump from firing Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an agency that protects whistle-blowers—government workers who expose wrongdoing. Normally, the president can remove federal officials, but the law says the OSC leader can only be fired for serious misconduct. Trump’s administration argues that the president should have full control over the executive branch, while Dellinger’s supporters say the law protects watchdog agencies from political interference. This case is part of a larger debate over how much power a president should have. Some Supreme Court justices wanted to allow Trump’s firing immediately, while others believed the court should wait for a full review. The court’s decision is not final, and the issue could return soon when a lower court ruling expires. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also trying to remove thousands of federal employees, raising concerns about whether these actions are part of a larger effort to reshape the government. This case could set an important precedent for how much control a president has over independent government agencies. The president is in charge of the executive branch, but Congress creates laws that place limits on presidential power. Imagine you are a Supreme Court justice deciding whether Trump should be allowed to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Write a majority opinion (supporting Trump’s right to fire Dellinger) or a dissenting opinion (arguing that Dellinger should stay in place). Your decision should explain why the president should (or should not) have full control over government agencies and how this ruling could affect the balance of power in the U.S. government. Consider the impact on whistle-blowers, government accountability, and executive authority in your response.

2. THE TRUE COST OF CUTS

Elon Musk, who leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Donald Trump, has claimed that his team has saved the U.S. government $55 billion by canceling contracts, cutting federal jobs, and eliminating wasteful spending. The administration has celebrated these cuts, even suggesting that the savings could be returned to taxpayers in the form of a “DOGE dividend.” However, an investigation by journalists has found that many of these savings are based on mistakes, outdated information, and inaccurate math. Some of the contracts Musk’s team claimed to have canceled were already expired or ended under President Biden. Others were counted multiple times, inflating the numbers by billions of dollars. Even government experts who support spending cuts say that Musk’s team doesn’t fully understand how government contracts work. A major issue is that the canceled contracts disproportionately impact businesses run by women and minority groups, raising concerns that these cuts are targeting certain communities unfairly. While Musk’s supporters believe he is helping to reduce waste, critics argue that his team’s sloppy accounting and lack of transparency could cause serious problems for government programs. Many of these contracts support scientific research, environmental protection, and social services, meaning their cancellation could have long-term effects on communities. Despite the errors, the administration continues to promote the cuts as a major success, but questions remain about how much money has actually been saved and whether these changes will do more harm than good. Government spending is often controversial—some people believe cutting federal programs helps reduce waste and lower taxes, while others worry that cutting funding harms important services and vulnerable communities. Imagine you are a government analyst assigned to review the DOGE budget cuts. Write a short report (6–8 sentences) explaining what kind of mistakes you found, why they matter, and whether these budget cuts should continue. Consider how errors in spending reports might mislead the public and affect businesses, workers, and government programs. After writing your report, reflect in a paragraph on whether government savings should come at any cost, or if accuracy and fairness should be prioritized in budget decisions.

3. CUTS TO DISASTER RECOVERY OFFICE

The Trump administration is planning to drastically cut the Office of Community Planning and Development, which helps communities recover after major disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. This office, part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), distributes billions of dollars in federal aid to help rebuild homes, roads, and infrastructure that FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) does not cover. The administration wants to reduce staff by 84%, cutting the number of workers from 936 to just 150. Supporters of the cuts say they are part of a larger effort to make the government smaller and more efficient, but critics argue that these changes could slow down disaster relief and increase the risk of fraud. HUD already struggles to oversee the massive amounts of money it distributes after disasters, and further cuts could make it harder to track spending and prevent waste or abuse. The program also funds affordable housing projects, infrastructure upgrades, and job training, which means the cuts could have far-reaching effects beyond just disaster recovery. As climate change increases the frequency and severity of natural disasters, the need for fast and effective recovery efforts is more important than ever. The question now is whether cutting this office will actually make the government more efficient or if it will leave communities struggling when disaster strikes. Government programs must balance efficiency and cost-saving with providing necessary aid to people in crisis. Imagine you are a member of Congress debating whether to approve the HUD disaster recovery cuts. Write a short speech (6–8 sentences) arguing for or against these cuts. Consider whether it is more important to reduce government spending or to ensure disaster victims receive quick and effective help. After writing your speech, reflect in a paragraph on whether disaster recovery should be the government’s responsibility or if states and private organizations should take on more of the burden.

4. THE ETHICS OF DIPLOMACY

Marco Rubio, once a strong critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, now finds himself in a difficult position as Trump’s Secretary of State. In the past, Rubio called Putin a “bloodthirsty butcher” and pushed for strong U.S. support of Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 invasion. But now, under Trump’s orders, he is leading negotiations to end the war and possibly turn Russia into a U.S. ally. This shift is surprising given Rubio’s history of warning against trusting Putin. Critics argue that these peace talks are rewarding Russia for its aggression, especially since Ukraine is not included in the negotiations. Some experts say Rubio is ignoring his own past warnings and adopting Russia’s perspective in the talks. Others suggest that he may be trying to influence Trump behind the scenes, ensuring that any deal does not give Russia too much power. Meanwhile, Russia refuses to give up any Ukrainian territory, making a fair compromise difficult. This situation raises important questions about diplomacy, loyalty, and how much the U.S. should compromise to end a war. Diplomats often have to negotiate with enemies to prevent war or protect national interests. Imagine you are an advisor to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Write a brief strategy memo (6–8 sentences) explaining how he should approach these negotiations. Should he push for a fair peace deal that includes Ukraine, or should he accept Russia’s demands to quickly end the war? After writing your memo, reflect in a paragraph on whether negotiating with leaders like Putin is necessary for peace, or if it sets a dangerous precedent by rewarding aggression.

5. IDENTITY IN SPITE OF ADVERSITY

A new Gallup survey reveals that nearly one in 10 U.S. adults now identifies as L.G.B.T.Q., a significant increase from previous years. This rise is mainly driven by younger generations, with almost a quarter of Gen Z adults (ages 18–27) identifying as L.G.B.T.Q.. The largest group within this community is bisexual women, while the number of people identifying as transgender has also doubled since 2020. Experts say this growth reflects greater societal acceptance, but they warn that political and legal changes could reverse progress. Under President Trump’s administration, there have been major rollbacks of L.G.B.T.Q. rights, including banning transgender people from military service, restricting gender-affirming healthcare for minors, and limiting discussions of gender in schools. These policies have raised concerns that fewer people may feel safe coming out, especially in states that have introduced laws targeting L.G.B.T.Q. individuals. Some researchers believe that if discrimination increases, fewer people will openly identify as L.G.B.T.Q., even if the actual number of people in the community remains the same. Despite growing acceptance, the survey highlights ongoing challenges. Many L.G.B.T.Q. individuals, especially in conservative areas, still face stigma, mental health struggles, and legal discrimination. At the same time, younger generations are increasingly rejecting rigid labels, with more people identifying along a spectrum of sexual and gender identities rather than fixed categories like gay or straight. The data suggests that while L.G.B.T.Q. visibility is increasing, the fight for full equality and protection under the law is far from over. The way people express their sexuality and gender identity is influenced by laws, culture, and social attitudes. Imagine you are a researcher studying L.G.B.T.Q. identity over time. Write a short analysis (6–8 sentences) explaining how political decisions, like those made by the Trump administration, might affect how many people openly identify as L.G.B.T.Q. in the future. Consider whether restrictive laws could cause numbers to decrease, even if the actual percentage of L.G.B.T.Q. individuals remains the same. After your analysis, write a reflection paragraph on whether government policies should have a role in defining or restricting personal identity, and how society can ensure that everyone feels safe expressing who they are.