1. CONGRESS WATCHES A U.F.O. DOCUMENTARY

A small group of Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives gathered for a private screening of a new documentary called “The Age of Disclosure.” The film features 34 former and current government, military and intelligence officials talking about “unidentified aerial phenomena” (U.A.P.s), often called U.F.O.s. Some of them claim that they have seen nonhuman craft or beings and suggest there has been an 80-year cover-up of efforts to reverse-engineer crashed technology. One of the most prominent figures in the film is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who describes strange objects repeatedly flying over sensitive nuclear sites that the U.S. does not control or understand. Lawmakers like Representatives André Carson and Anna Paulina Luna hope the movie will build support for laws that force more government transparency about U.A.P. records. Others, like Representative Eric Burlison, say that after years of hearings, Congress now needs “receipts”—hard evidence, not just stories. The Pentagon’s official office that investigates U.A.P. still insists it has no verified proof of alien technology, and critics say some claims in the film are unproven. Supporters argue that whistle-blowers need stronger protections so they can speak openly without risking their careers. Imagine you are a member of Congress who just watched “The Age of Disclosure.” In 6 to 8 sentences, write a statement for your website explaining whether you think the government should release more information about U.A.P.s, using at least two details from the summary to support your opinion and mentioning one possible risk of sharing too much or too little.

2. CLIMATE TALKS WITHOUT A FOSSIL FUEL PLAN

At major climate talks in Belém, Brazil, called COP30, nearly 200 countries tried to agree on how to slow global warming but ended with a weak deal. The final statement warned about the dangers of climate change but did not directly mention fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, even though scientists say they are the main cause of rising temperatures. Oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia pushed hard to keep their main products from being singled out, and some African and Asian nations argued that rich Western countries should pay more because they caused most past emissions. About 80 countries, including many in Europe and Latin America, wanted a clear road map to move away from fossil fuels, but the world’s biggest economies did not sign on. The United States, under President Trump, boycotted the talks entirely, which many diplomats said removed a key source of pressure on other major polluters like China. Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, had hoped the summit would produce a strong plan to shift away from fossil fuels and protect tropical forests, but that did not happen. Instead, the deal only lightly referenced earlier promises from past meetings and focused more on increasing money to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate disasters. Critics, including small island nations and climate activists, said the outcome ignores science and leaves the planet on track for more deadly heat waves, floods and wildfires. Write a brief response explaining whether you think the COP30 outcome was fair to poorer, climate-vulnerable countries. In your answer, use at least two details from the summary (for example, who blocked stronger language, who didn’t show up, or what was left out) and explain one short-term benefit and one long-term risk of delaying a clear global plan to move away from fossil fuels.

3. JUDGE STOPS THE I.R.S. FROM SHARING TAX DATA

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a Trump administration plan for the Internal Revenue Service to share the home addresses of some migrants with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Normally, tax information is confidential, and federal law only allows the I.R.S. to share it when specific officials are working on specific investigations. In this case, ICE asked for information on about 1.3 million people, and the I.R.S. sent roughly 47,000 addresses to a single ICE official. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that this was illegal because one person could not realistically be directly involved in that many investigations. The lawsuit was brought by a taxpayer advocacy group, and the judge said the I.R.S. had gone “contrary to law” in sharing so much confidential data. The I.R.S. had encouraged undocumented migrants to file taxes for years, and many immigrants and lawyers believed their information would not be used to find and deport them. Studies show that unauthorized immigrant workers pay tens of billions of dollars a year in federal taxes, helping fund programs like Social Security and Medicare. The judge has now frozen the data-sharing agreement and must review any future attempts to hand over tax information to ICE. Do you think the I.R.S. should ever be allowed to share taxpayer information with immigration authorities? Write a balanced paragraph of 6 to 8 sentences where you first explain one argument in favor of sharing data and one argument against it, using details from the summary, and then clearly state your own position and how you think this decision might affect immigrants’ trust in the tax system.

4. ARTS GROUPS SAY NO TO RESTRICTED GRANTS

Some arts organizations around the United States are turning down federal grant money because they fear new rules will censor their work, especially projects focused on diversity, equity and inclusion (D.E.I.). After executive orders from President Trump, the National Endowment for the Arts now requires any group that takes its funds to certify that they do not run D.E.I. programs that violate federal anti-discrimination laws. The guidelines are vague enough that groups in New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon and New York worry that exhibits about civil rights, Pride events or social justice themes could put their funding or nonprofit status at risk. Organizations like the Railyard Park Conservancy, gallupARTS, the Denver Philharmonic and the Arts Center of the Capital Region have declined grants ranging from a few thousand dollars to $50,000 to avoid what they see as possible censorship. Leaders say they would rather find other sources of money than tone down or change their programming to stay “safe.” National arts coalitions have issued statements warning that if institutions follow political pressure instead of their mission, they could become propaganda tools for whoever is in power. At the same time, turning down federal grants can make it harder to pay artists, run galleries and keep community programs open, especially in smaller towns with fewer donors. Imagine you are the director of a small community arts center deciding whether to accept a federal grant with these new restrictions. Write a memo to your board explaining the trade-offs: what you could gain by taking the money, what you might lose in terms of artistic freedom, and what other funding strategies you might try if you decide to say no.

5. NETFLIX OPENS A REAL-WORLD “HOUSE” FOR FANS

Netflix, known for streaming shows and movies online, has opened its first permanent “Netflix House” inside a large mall near Philadelphia. Instead of just watching series at home, fans can step into themed spaces like a “Wednesday” carnival, a “One Piece” escape room, a virtual “Rebel Moon” mission and a mini-golf course with holes based on shows like “Bridgerton.” There are also show-inspired snacks at a restaurant called Netflix Bites and a store selling location-specific merchandise. The company has tested pop-up experiences in hundreds of cities and now wants permanent spaces in old department-store buildings, with locations planned in Dallas and Las Vegas. Netflix leaders say these Houses are meant to give “wish fulfillment” to fans who want to feel inside their favorite series, while also strengthening the brand and eventually making money. Marketing experts point out that as online spaces get crowded and A.I. fills the internet with more content, in-person events can help companies stand out. Not every show will get an experience — Netflix focuses on titles that are popular and that people actually want to “live inside.” For now, entry to the House is free, but players pay for activities, and Netflix hopes that the combination of fun, food and merch keeps people coming back whenever they visit the mall. Design your own interactive “house” based on a favorite show, game, book or movie (it does not have to be from Netflix). In 6 to 8 sentences, describe what visitors would see and do inside, how your space would make money without feeling like “just advertising,” and one way you would make it welcoming even for guests who have never seen the original story.