1. HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS TAKE A BACK SEAT

A New York Times investigation found that the Department of Homeland Security under President Trump has redirected thousands of agents away from core national-security and public-safety missions to staff an aggressive deportation campaign. Units that normally investigate child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, terrorism financing, intelligence threats, and illicit Iranian oil networks have been depleted for weeks or months at a time, slowing investigations, allowing criminal networks to slip away, and reducing follow-up on child abuse reports from major tech companies. Even the Coast Guard and the federal law-enforcement training academy have diverted aircraft, personnel, and classroom space to immigration enforcement. Internal documents and interviews with dozens of officials show that pressure from the White House—particularly through Stephen Miller’s daily oversight calls—has turned DHS into what insiders describe as a “Department of Deportation,” with ICE’s budget projected to nearly triple and immigration operations consuming more than half of the department’s total funding. While DHS officials argue that immigration enforcement itself improves public safety, many current and former personnel warn that the neglect of other missions may carry serious, long-term security consequences. Write a structured analytical paragraph in which you evaluate whether shifting federal agents away from investigations into child exploitation, terrorism financing, and human trafficking in order to prioritize immigration enforcement weakens national security, and support your argument by referencing at least three specific findings or examples from the article.

2. TRUMP CUTS TIES WITH MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE

President Trump publicly revoked his support for Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, once one of his closest congressional allies, after she pushed for the full release of the Justice Department’s Epstein files and increasingly broke with him on foreign-policy priorities and domestic messaging. Trump attacked her on social media as unstable, disloyal, and overly critical, even hinting he would back a primary challenger in her Georgia district. Greene responded by accusing Trump of lying about her, arguing that he is trying to suppress the Epstein investigation, and positioning herself as more faithful to the “America First” populist movement than its own founder. The rupture ends a years-long alliance that began with her 2020 campaign and survived numerous controversies surrounding her conspiracy-theory comments, but it now reflects deeper tensions inside the Republican Party as lawmakers maneuver for influence, ideological ownership, and public attention ahead of a contentious vote on releasing the Epstein documents. Compose a short political analysis explaining how public breaks between a president and a high-profile congressional ally can influence party unity, voter perceptions, and future legislative battles, using the Trump–Greene conflict as a case study.

3. THE BBC’S CRISIS

The BBC was plunged into one of the worst institutional crises in its history after a misleadingly edited clip from a Trump Jan. 6 speech ignited accusations of political bias. Although BBC News executives were prepared to quickly acknowledge the editing error, the BBC board—split over whether to issue a narrow correction or a broader admission of systemic problems—blocked any public response. For seven days the broadcaster remained silent while criticism escalated from British lawmakers, right-leaning media, and eventually the White House. The internal standoff, shaped in part by political appointees like board member Robbie Gibb, ultimately led to the resignations of Director General Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness. The incident exposed deeper ideological divisions within the BBC over impartiality, editorial oversight, and political pressure, raising concerns about the influence of partisan board members and the broadcaster’s vulnerability in an era when missteps can be weaponized to undermine public-media institutions. Write a paragraph that examines how institutional silence during a media scandal can escalate public distrust, and illustrate your point by explaining how the BBC’s seven-day delay in responding to the editing controversy intensified the crisis.

4. JUDGE PAVES THE WAY FOR PLAINTIFF PAYOUTS

A federal bankruptcy judge announced he will approve Purdue Pharma’s restructuring plan, dissolving the company and requiring the Sackler family to pay up to $7 billion toward addressing the nationwide opioid crisis. Under the plan, Purdue will become a public-benefit company called Knoa Pharma, producing limited opioid medications and reinvesting profits into treatment and remediation programs. The settlement—one of the largest involving a single pharmaceutical company—includes compensation for nearly 150,000 individuals affected by opioid addiction, though many survivors may receive far less than originally projected and must prove their claims with documentation. The Sacklers, who for years demanded full immunity from civil lawsuits, will now face potential litigation after the Supreme Court ruled they could not shield themselves without filing for personal bankruptcy. States must set aside hundreds of millions in reserve funds to support future lawsuits, and some cities, like Baltimore, intend to pursue the family directly. The ruling brings a major chapter of the opioid legal fight to a close while raising new questions about accountability, fairness, and the limits of bankruptcy law in public-health disasters. Write a paragraph assessing whether the Purdue settlement adequately balances the goals of justice, compensation, and public-health remediation, and use at least two concrete details from the article to support your evaluation.

5. NEW PROSECUTOR TAKES ON TRUMP CASE

After Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was removed from the Georgia election interference case due to an “appearance of impropriety” stemming from her romantic relationship with a special prosecutor, the responsibility for the case fell to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia. When no county or regional prosecutor agreed to take it, the council’s executive director, Pete Skandalakis—a veteran prosecutor known for his nonpartisan approach—assigned himself to lead the review. Although charges cannot advance against President Trump while he remains in office, 14 other defendants, including Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, still face potential prosecution. Skandalakis received more than 100 boxes of documents and an eight-terabyte hard drive from Willis’s office, and he has the authority to pursue the case as originally envisioned, narrow the charges, or dismiss portions entirely. His decision comes amid intense political pressure, previous legal wrangling over Willis’s conduct, and ongoing debate about the independence and credibility of state-level prosecutions involving national political figures. Write a paragraph analyzing how the removal of a lead prosecutor for ethical concerns can affect public trust in a high-profile case, and use at least two details from the article to explain how Skandalakis’s appointment might either strengthen or weaken confidence in the Georgia election investigation.