1. KENNEDY PUSHES C.D.C. TO SOFTEN ITS AUTISM–VACCINE LANGUAGE

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. personally ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to change its website so it no longer flatly states that vaccines do not cause autism. He argues that while large, high-quality studies have found no link between autism and the M.M.R. vaccine or the preservative thimerosal, there have not been similar big studies on other early-childhood shots like hepatitis B or the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine. Most public health experts say he is technically correct that some specific studies don’t exist, but they point out that more than 40 large studies involving millions of people have found no connection between vaccines and autism overall, while clearly showing that vaccines prevent deadly diseases. Critics accuse Kennedy of cherry-picking gaps in the data, moving the goal posts, and using his office to amplify doubt in a way that could drive down vaccination rates and put children at risk. Supporters say he is calling for more rigorous science and transparency, but former C.D.C. officials warn that changing the language without emphasizing vaccines’ life-saving benefits damages trust in public health. The clash highlights a deeper question: how much certainty is “enough” to guide public messaging, and what happens when political appointees override scientific norms. Write a well-organized paragraph in which you evaluate whether Kennedy’s change to the C.D.C.’s autism–vaccine language is a responsible use of his power as health secretary. In your response, briefly summarize the scientific consensus on vaccines and autism, explain how Kennedy justifies his position, and then argue whether his focus on remaining “gaps” in research is more likely to promote honest transparency or to cause harmful confusion for parents.

2. U.S. PEACE PLAN PUTS ZELENSKY UNDER INTENSE PRESSURE

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine is facing a new 28-point peace proposal from the Trump administration that would require major concessions to Russia, such as giving up control of parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, capping the size of Ukraine’s army, and renouncing any attempt to join NATO. In exchange, Russia would get economic rewards like re-entry into the G8 and a path back into the global economy, while Ukraine would receive some frozen Russian assets and vague “security guarantees” if Russia invaded again. Zelensky framed the plan as a painful dilemma between “loss of dignity” and the risk of losing the United States as a key partner, especially as American military aid has already been scaled back to mostly intelligence sharing. At the same time, his government is weakened by a corruption scandal, the Ukrainian army is under strain on the battlefield, and domestic support for some kind of negotiated settlement has risen sharply. Many European leaders are angry that the proposal was drafted directly between U.S. and Russian envoys without Ukrainian or European input and fear it would lock in a weaker, more vulnerable Ukraine. Russia, sensing Zelensky’s vulnerability, signals it is ready for either a deal on these terms or a continued war of attrition to seize more territory. The proposal forces Ukraine to weigh immediate relief from war against the long-term consequences for its sovereignty and security. Imagine you are a policy adviser writing a confidential two-paragraph memo to Zelensky. In the first paragraph, outline the strongest reasons to reject the U.S. proposal as it is currently written, using at least two specific terms that threaten Ukraine’s independence or security. In the second paragraph, suggest a strategy for how Ukraine could respond without simply saying “no” — for example, by proposing changes, rallying European allies, or using public opinion — and explain how that strategy might protect both Ukraine’s dignity and its chances of survival.

3. GREENE’S EXIT EXPOSES A REPUBLICAN IDENTITY CRISIS

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, once one of Donald Trump’s fiercest loyalists, suddenly resigned from Congress while denouncing the direction of the Republican Party under his leadership. In a viral video, she recast herself as the “true” defender of the MAGA movement, accusing Trump and party elites of abandoning core promises to ordinary supporters and hinting that she was pushed out to avoid a humiliating primary defeat backed by the president. Her departure shows that Trump still has the power to punish even former allies, but it also spotlights growing fractures inside the GOP over foreign policy, immigration, economic populism, and how far to go with culture-war rhetoric. Conservative figures from Vivek Ramaswamy to Tucker Carlson to Ted Cruz are increasingly arguing in public about what the party should stand for after Trump, including disputes over support for Israel, attitudes toward white nationalist figures, tariffs, and legal immigration. Vice President J.D. Vance is widely seen as a leading 2028 contender, and activists are openly trying to pull him toward their preferred vision of “post-Trump” conservatism. Some Republicans believe Trump’s grip is slowly weakening, even as his core base remains dominant, while critics warn that the party has no clear philosophy to hold it together once he is gone. Greene’s exit, and the fights it reveals, suggests the GOP is entering a messy transition in which loyalty to Trump and competing definitions of “MAGA” will collide. Write a short op-ed (about two paragraphs) in which you argue what you think should define the Republican Party after Trump — loyalty to a single leader, a clear set of policy ideas, a cultural identity, or some combination. Use at least two examples from the summary (such as Greene’s resignation, conflicts over Israel or immigration, or the 2028 jockeying) to show how different factions are pulling the party in different directions, and explain which direction you believe is most sustainable in the long run and why.

4. CENSURE FEVER SHOWS A BROKEN HOUSE DISCIPLINE SYSTEM

In the House of Representatives, censure — a formal public rebuke that used to be rare and reserved for serious misconduct — has become a routine weapon in partisan warfare. Lawmakers from both parties are now racing to the floor with privileged resolutions to condemn one another for alleged ethics violations, controversial texts, or scandalous behavior, often before the Ethics Committee or the courts have fully investigated the claims. Recent efforts have targeted members over everything from texting with Jeffrey Epstein to accusations of domestic violence, financial misconduct, and handpicking a successor. Some of these resolutions succeed, others fail, and a few are quietly dropped amid rumors of backroom deals, deepening mistrust. Veteran members warn that this “censure arms race” is eating up floor time, inflaming tensions, and cheapening what was once a serious sanction. A bipartisan pair has proposed raising the threshold for censure or committee removal from a simple majority to 60 percent of members present, hoping to force broader agreement before such punishments can pass. Ethics experts say that when censures are based on incomplete facts or raw politics, they damage public trust and further erode already-low confidence in Congress. The debate is no longer just about individual bad actors; it’s about whether the House can police itself in a fair, credible way. Do you think the House should make it harder to censure members, or would that just protect politicians from accountability? In a focused paragraph, explain your position on the proposed 60 percent vote requirement, using at least one reason related to fairness or due process and one reason related to public trust or political polarization, and then suggest one additional reform (besides changing the vote threshold) that could make discipline in the House more legitimate.

5. TRUMP AND MAMDANI TRADE PRAISE AFTER A BITTER CAMPAIGN

After months of attacking each other in harsh terms, President Trump and New York City’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, met in the Oval Office and emerged sounding surprisingly cooperative. Trump, who had previously portrayed Mamdani as a dangerous radical, now called him “rational” and said he was confident the city’s first Muslim mayor could do a good job. Mamdani, a democratic socialist who campaigned as a fierce critic of Trump and a defender of democracy, described the meeting as “productive” and said they had focused on areas of agreement in serving New Yorkers. Both men avoided direct confrontation on their most divisive positions and instead highlighted shared goals, even as Trump has threatened in the past to send the National Guard into New York City and cut off billions in federal funding. Their sudden friendliness angered some of Trump’s hard-line allies, who had branded Mamdani a “jihadist terrorist sympathizer,” and puzzled supporters who remembered the campaign’s extreme rhetoric. The scene captured how political enemies can quickly soften their tone once both sides have something to gain — Trump wanting a cooperative big-city partner, Mamdani needing federal support for his city. It also raises questions about whether such “common ground” moments reflect genuine compromise or simply strategic image control. Write a two-paragraph reflection analyzing what this meeting suggests about political polarization in the United States. In the first paragraph, explain how Trump and Mamdani’s shift from trading insults to exchanging praise might help reduce tensions or improve governing for New Yorkers. In the second paragraph, consider the skeptical view: discuss why some people might see this sudden cooperation as hypocritical or purely strategic, and explain whether you think voters should welcome this kind of pragmatism or demand more consistency from their leaders.