1. ANOTHER AGENCY UNDER ATTACK

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect Americans from unfair financial practices. The ruling came after the administration fired hundreds of CFPB workers, shut down operations, and attempted to cancel key contracts. Judge Amy Berman Jackson said these actions violated the law and could lead to the agency’s permanent destruction, which only Congress has the power to do. The lawsuit, brought by the CFPB workers’ union and consumer advocates, argues that the administration’s moves are illegal and politically motivated. While parts of the agency have started to resume work due to court challenges, most employees are still on leave. This case highlights a major legal and political clash over the balance of power between the presidency and Congress, as well as the future of consumer protections in the U.S. Imagine you are a member of a student advisory panel asked to give input on whether a government watchdog agency like the CFPB should be reformed, eliminated, or protected. First, research what the CFPB does and who it helps. Then, write a one-page policy recommendation explaining your stance. Include arguments about why such an agency is important (or not), what changes you might propose, and how your position supports the rights and needs of ordinary citizens.

2. FORCING HEALTHY CHOICES?

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced a controversial new initiative allowing states to ban the use of SNAP benefits (also known as food stamps) to purchase soda, as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Speaking in West Virginia—a state that recently banned many artificial food dyes—Kennedy argued that the move would save lives and healthcare costs by encouraging healthier eating. However, there are legal questions about whether Kennedy has the authority to make such changes, since SNAP is controlled by the Department of Agriculture, not Health and Human Services. Critics, including hunger advocacy groups, argue the policy unfairly targets low-income people and distracts from deeper issues like lack of access to affordable healthy food. Supporters say it’s a step toward better national health. Meanwhile, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey has said he will seek a waiver to implement the soda ban, along with other health and fitness initiatives. Kennedy is pushing other governors to do the same, even as some question the science and fairness behind the proposal. Research both sides of the debate about whether states should be allowed to ban the use of SNAP benefits for purchasing soda, using trusted sources to gather information. Reflect on key questions such as: Does limiting soda purchases actually improve public health? Is it fair to restrict how low-income people spend their benefits? Are there more effective or respectful alternatives? After considering these questions, write a short policy proposal (200–300 words) that clearly states your position. Include at least two strong reasons for your stance and suggest one alternative approach for promoting healthier eating, such as offering incentives for nutritious purchases or funding community health programs.

3. TOP F.D.A. OFFICIALS RESIGN

Dr. Peter Marks, the top vaccine official at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), resigned after clashing with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promoted anti-vaccine views. Dr. Marks accused Kennedy of spreading misinformation and ignoring scientific evidence. During his time at the FDA, Marks played a key role in overseeing the safety and approval of vaccines, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. His departure comes as Kennedy pushes controversial changes to vaccine policy, including launching a new vaccine injury agency and promoting alternative treatments over vaccines. Critics, including medical experts and members of Congress, warn that Kennedy’s actions could harm public trust in vaccines and weaken the nation’s ability to protect people from deadly diseases. Dr. Marks said he tried to work with Kennedy and promote transparency, but ultimately felt the administration was not interested in facts. His resignation has raised major concerns about the future of vaccine regulation in the U.S. Write a reflective response analyzing the potential risks and consequences of having public health leaders who disagree on vaccine safety and effectiveness. Consider the role of science in public health policy and what can happen when political views conflict with medical evidence. In your response, discuss whether you believe Dr. Marks was right to resign and what his departure might mean for trust in government health agencies. Use evidence from the article and your own understanding of how public health works to support your position.

4. FLUORIDE OUT

Utah has become the first state in the U.S. to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water, a move that public health experts warn could harm children’s dental health. Fluoride has been added to water systems across the country since the 1940s to help prevent tooth decay. While some recent studies have raised concerns about potential risks, such as lower I.Q. in children exposed to very high fluoride levels, experts say these findings do not apply to the much lower levels used in water fluoridation. Governor Spencer Cox, who signed the law, claimed fluoride hasn’t significantly improved oral health in Utah, though researchers disagree and say the mineral provides clear benefits, especially for low-income communities that may not have access to regular dental care. The law reflects a broader trend of questioning long-standing public health practices, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, and could lead other states to consider similar bans. Write a short opinion piece evaluating whether or not you agree with Utah’s decision to ban fluoride from public water systems. In your response, explain your position using facts from the article, such as the historical reasons for fluoridation, recent scientific findings, and the arguments made by both public health experts and the governor. Consider the possible impacts on different communities, especially children and those with limited access to dental care. End your paragraph by suggesting what other actions, if any, should be taken to improve public health in relation to dental care.

5. LAW FIRMS FIGHT BACK

President Trump suffered legal setbacks after federal judges temporarily blocked parts of his executive orders targeting major law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. These firms had been involved in past investigations of Trump, and the president’s orders aimed to punish them by banning their lawyers from government buildings and jobs. The judges ruled that such actions were likely unconstitutional, particularly because they punished law firms for pro bono work—legal services provided for free to unpopular or underserved clients. While parts of the orders, like revoking security clearances, still stand for now, the legal community is divided over how to respond to Trump’s pressure campaign. Some firms, like Skadden Arps, have chosen to cooperate, promising millions in free legal work on causes the administration supports. Critics argue this is a dangerous capitulation that undermines the independence of the legal system. The controversy has sparked nationwide debate about free speech, legal ethics, and the role of lawyers in upholding democracy. Imagine you’re part of a law firm’s leadership team facing pressure from a political leader to change which clients you represent and what cases you take. Your job is to hold a team meeting and decide your firm’s response. Will you fight in court to protect your independence, or negotiate a deal to avoid government backlash? Write a one-page statement from your law firm explaining your choice. Be sure to include your reasons, what values your firm stands for, and how your decision will affect your reputation, your clients, and the future of the legal profession.