Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing questions over a U.S. military strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean on Sept. 2, especially a second strike that killed two shirtless survivors clinging to the overturned hull after the first attack. At a defense forum in California, he refused to promise that the full video of the operation would be released, even though President Trump has said he is fine with making the footage public, and he denied a report that he had given a verbal order to “kill everyone,” calling it “patently ridiculous.” Key lawmakers who viewed the video say it clearly shows survivors trying to flip the boat back over, raising concerns under the laws of armed conflict, which forbid attacking shipwrecked enemies who are out of the fight; Hegseth, however, argues that the men “could still be in the fight” by contacting another boat by radio and points to another recent case where surviving smugglers were captured rather than killed as proof that the protocol has not officially changed. The dispute highlights tensions between transparency and operational secrecy, as well as deeper questions about how far the U.S. can go in its lethal campaign against drug smugglers without committing war crimes. In a short analytical essay, explain how the Sept. 2 strike tests the laws of armed conflict by laying out the strongest argument that the second strike was illegal and then the strongest argument that it was justified, and end by clearly stating which side you find more persuasive and what you think should happen with the video evidence.

Australia is about to enforce a groundbreaking law that forbids children under 16 from having accounts on major social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat, shifting responsibility onto tech companies to remove underage users rather than punishing teens or parents. Many teenagers interviewed in Melbourne say they doubt the ban will change their lives much, because social media is already woven into their friendships and daily routines and because they know how to get around age checks using VPNs, fake birthdates, or parents’ information, while parents themselves are deeply divided over whether strict limits help kids develop healthier habits or simply delay the problem. Supporters argue that the law will give families “backup” against addictive design and harmful content, freeing up time for offline activities and modeling a tougher global stance on tech companies, but critics warn that it may just spark an endless “whac-a-mole” of new apps and workarounds without forcing platforms to fix their algorithms or address mental health harms. The experiment turns Australia into a test case for whether top-down age bans can realistically “rewire” digital behavior in a generation that has grown up online. Imagine you are an adviser to Australia’s communications minister; write a policy brief in which you first describe one likely benefit and two major weaknesses of the under-16 social media ban based on the teens’ experiences in the article, then propose one specific additional policy (such as design rules, school programs, or parental tools) that you believe would make the law more effective in protecting young people without completely cutting them off from the online world.

A new U.S. national security strategy document under President Trump formally declares that European nations should take “primary responsibility” for their own defense, questions America’s guarantee of Europe’s security, attacks the European Union as a threat to “political liberty,” and openly urges Washington to align with “patriotic” — effectively far-right — parties on the continent. European governments have already begun spending more on defense and building new military structures, but they still rely heavily on U.S. capabilities even as the strategy paper echoes Russian talking points about the E.U. and Ukraine, deepening fears that Washington wants to weaken European integration and free U.S. tech companies from European regulation. Some analysts argue this could become a moment of “European awakening,” pushing the E.U. to become more militarily independent and politically assertive, while others think leaders will swallow the insults, flatter Trump, and cling to the security umbrella they see as essential in the face of an openly threatening Russia. The strategy leaves Europe with an uncomfortable dilemma: cling to a superpower that is now officially skeptical of the alliance, or accelerate a risky push toward strategic autonomy that it is not yet fully prepared to sustain. Drawing on the article, write a two-part response in which you first explain why Trump’s new strategy document feels like a turning point for Europe’s security and political identity, and then argue whether you think European leaders should prioritize holding the U.S. close (even at the cost of humiliation) or rapidly building their own independent military and political power, making sure to address at least one risk and one potential long-term advantage of the path you choose.

After an Afghan refugee was charged with shooting two National Guard members in Washington, the Trump administration has moved quickly to tighten immigration rules, including halting asylum decisions, pausing benefits for people from 19 already-restricted countries, and now announcing plans to expand its travel ban list to more than 30 nations. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says the U.S. should block people from countries that lack stable governments or reliable records, arguing that if those states cannot “help us vet” their citizens, the United States should not admit them, though she declined to specify which new countries will be added. Critics counter that the people being targeted have already gone through intense screening and that piling on new restrictions amounts to collective punishment driven by fear and politics, traumatizing refugees and long-term residents who suddenly find their visas, work permits, and paths to safety disrupted overnight. The rapid escalation shows how a single violent crime can be used to justify sweeping policy changes that will affect thousands of people who had nothing to do with the attack. Write a structured argument in which you first summarize the administration’s main justification for expanding the travel ban and then critique that justification from the perspective of civil rights and basic fairness, finally stating whether you believe security concerns here truly outweigh the harms to vetted refugees and long-term residents and what alternative response, if any, you would recommend.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a major case on President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign residents — a direct challenge to the long-standing reading of the 14th Amendment. Lower courts across the country quickly blocked the order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” citing the amendment’s text and the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a man born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents was nonetheless a U.S. citizen. The administration now asks the justices to adopt a narrower interpretation, claiming that the amendment was meant only to cover formerly enslaved people and their descendants, not the children of “aliens” who are here temporarily or illegally, and argues that the current understanding has had “destructive consequences.” Civil rights groups like the A.C.L.U. warn that reversing or weakening birthright citizenship would upend over a century of precedent, risk rendering countless U.S.-born children effectively stateless, and fundamentally alter what it means to belong in America. Assume you are a law clerk asked to write a briefing memo for a Supreme Court justice; in one cohesive piece of writing, explain how the text of the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark precedent support the current understanding of birthright citizenship, summarize the Trump administration’s argument for “restoring” the amendment’s original meaning, and then give your own reasoned assessment of which interpretation is more persuasive and what the broader consequences would be if the Court upheld the executive order.