1. TRUMP’S TRIP TO ASIA

President Trump kicked off a high-profile trip to Asia with dramatic ceremonies and fast-moving diplomacy, positioning himself as a dealmaker while pursuing deeper strategic goals. On the first day of the tour, he announced several agreements with Cambodia, Thailand, and Malaysia—including a peace deal and economic arrangements—though many details showed little immediate change in trade policies. Despite the pageantry, the underlying purpose of the trip appears to be strengthening U.S. influence in Southeast Asia and countering China’s dominance in critical minerals and technology supply chains. The U.S. continues to pressure Beijing with tariffs, and China has retaliated by restricting exports of rare earth minerals essential to advanced manufacturing. Supporters say Trump’s approach gives him leverage ahead of his upcoming meeting with President Xi Jinping, while critics note his unpredictable diplomacy—including recent conflicts with Canada and aggressive moves in Venezuela—may strain alliances rather than stabilize them. The trip highlights the complex balance between spectacle and strategy in American foreign policy. Imagine you are a U.S. diplomat traveling with President Trump on his Asia trip. Write a paragraph describing how you would advise the president to balance showmanship and strategy during meetings with Asian leaders. Include one goal the United States hopes to achieve on this trip, using details from the article, and explain what you would recommend the president do publicly to maintain strong relationships with Southeast Asian nations.

2. U.S. MONITORING ISRAEL-HAMAS CEASE FIRE IN GAZA

The U.S. military has begun flying surveillance drones over the Gaza Strip to monitor a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, according to American and Israeli officials. The drone flights, approved by Israel, are intended to provide Washington with independent intelligence to verify that both sides are following the agreement negotiated by the United States, Qatar, and Egypt. The surveillance feeds support a new Civil-Military Coordination Center in southern Israel staffed by U.S. personnel who are tracking humanitarian aid, security issues, and potential violations. The cease-fire has been under strain due to occasional outbreaks of violence and disputes over the return of the bodies of Israelis and Palestinians. U.S. officials are also wary that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could abandon the deal, especially as political pressure inside Israel remains intense after two years of war. While the U.S. has previously used drones in Gaza for hostage recovery efforts, some analysts view the new missions as unusually assertive oversight of an ally, reflecting limited trust and the high stakes of preventing renewed conflict. In a well-developed paragraph, evaluate the benefits and risks of the U.S. using drones to enforce a cease-fire in a foreign conflict. Begin by summarizing the purpose of the U.S. surveillance missions using at least one detail from the article. Explain at least one positive and one negative outcome that drone monitoring could create for civilians or peace efforts. End your paragraph by stating whether you think the potential benefits outweigh the risks and give a brief explanation for your conclusion.

3. SCHOLARS WARN ABOUT DISREGARD FOR LAWS

President Trump has ordered the U.S. military to carry out deadly strikes on boats suspected of drug smuggling near South America—actions that legal experts say have no valid legal justification under U.S. or international law. The administration claims the killings are lawful by invoking familiar concepts like “self-defense” and “armed conflict,” yet it has offered no detailed legal argument showing how drug trafficking meets the standards required for wartime use of lethal force. In past administrations, even controversial programs—like Barack Obama’s drone strikes—were accompanied by lengthy internal legal analyses and public explanations to justify the government’s actions. Under Trump, however, officials have refused to provide legal reasoning, even in classified congressional briefings. Critics argue that the administration is attempting to rewrite legal reality by declaring drug cartels to be wartime enemies solely on presidential authority, while also punishing executive-branch lawyers who raise objections. Scholars caution that this growing trend—governing by “presidential determination” rather than legal standards—is eroding the rule of law, weakening traditional checks on executive power, and placing both democracy and military ethics at risk. The controversy highlights a fundamental question: What happens when a president stops caring about whether an action is lawful? Write a news article analyzing why legal justification is necessary when a president uses military force. Include at least two specific facts from the article to explain the concerns raised by legal experts. Explain how ignoring legal standards might affect the rule of law, the ethical responsibilities of service members, and trust in government.

4. UNIVERSITY SHUTS DOWN FRATERNITY AFTER HAZING INCIDENT

Rutgers University’s chapter of Alpha Sigma Phi has been permanently shut down following a hazing incident that critically injured a 19-year-old student in mid-October. Police found the student unconscious in the fraternity’s basement, and investigators believe he was electrocuted after coming into contact with exposed wiring. Hazing is prohibited under Rutgers policy, national fraternity rules, and New Jersey’s anti-hazing law—a statute strengthened after the 2017 hazing-related death of Timothy Piazza. The national fraternity organization stated that all members directly or indirectly involved will be expelled and urged prosecutors to apply strong penalties to prevent future incidents. The house, already cited for serious safety violations—including missing fire alarms and exposed wiring—has now been declared uninhabitable. The Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office is continuing its investigation and considering criminal charges. This case highlights ongoing concerns about hazing culture, campus safety, and whether universities and fraternities are doing enough to prevent dangerous behavior. Write one to two paragraphs explaining what specific policies colleges should adopt to prevent hazing and improve student safety in fraternities and other organizations. Include at least two facts from the article to show why stronger policies are needed. Describe two or more clear actions schools could take, such as improving building inspections, increasing staff supervision, or enforcing stricter punishments for hazing. Explain why each proposed solution would help protect students from harm. End your response by stating whether universities, national fraternity organizations, or both should be responsible for enforcing these safety measures and justify your reasoning in a complete sentence.

5. CLIMATE RULE IN QUESTION CAUSES CONCERN

The Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration has proposed eliminating the endangerment finding, a foundational scientific and legal ruling that requires the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The original finding, issued in 2009, affirmed that pollutants like carbon dioxide and methane pose a danger to human health by driving climate change. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argues that the regulation is too costly for industries, especially automakers, and claims the economic burden outweighs the risks of a warming planet. However, major corporations — including some in the oil, gas, automotive, and electric power sectors — warn that removing the rule could backfire. Without a federal standard, states and cities could adopt different climate policies, creating a confusing patchwork of regulations and opening the door to more lawsuits targeting businesses for climate damages. Leading scientific organizations strongly criticize the administration’s climate research as inaccurate and warn that ignoring overwhelming climate evidence undermines public health and safety. Legal experts note that eliminating a rule tied to a major Supreme Court decision could trigger years of litigation, leaving industries without stability or clear guidance. The controversy reflects a central conflict: balancing economic concerns with scientific responsibility and the urgency of climate action. Write an opinion article explaining whether the federal government should keep the endangerment finding or repeal it. In your article, include at least two facts from the article to support your explanation of why the issue matters. Clearly state your position on whether regulating greenhouse gas emissions at the national level is necessary. Explain how repealing the rule might affect businesses, states, and the public. Include who you believe should have the primary responsibility for addressing climate change in the United States and briefly explain your reasoning.