1. SCIENTISTS FLEEING TO FRANCE

In response to rising political pressure and restrictions on academic freedom in the United States under the Trump administration, France’s Aix-Marseille University launched a program called Safe Place for Science to offer refuge to threatened researchers. The program received 298 applications in just one month, with 242 considered eligible, including applicants from prestigious institutions like NASA, Columbia, and Yale. Many used encrypted messages to express concerns about repression and censorship. The university will offer three years of funding to about 20 selected researchers. The initiative has gained support from former French President François Hollande, who is advocating for a new legal status in France called “scientific refugee.” This status would offer protection to researchers whose work is threatened by authoritarian regimes or hostile policies. Hollande’s bill argues that, like journalists or political dissidents, academics should be protected for the good of global progress—especially those researching issues like climate change. Supporters view the initiative as a way for France to uphold its Enlightenment-era legacy of protecting free thought and innovation. WRITE a short response answering this question: Should scientists and researchers be eligible for refugee protections if their work is restricted by their government? Why or why not? Use evidence from the article to support your argument. Then, reflect on how scientific freedom connects to larger ideas like democracy, innovation, and human rights. Would offering “scientific asylum” encourage other countries to follow France’s example?

2. LEADING NUTRITIONIST LEAVES, CITING CENSORSHIP

Dr. Kevin Hall, a leading nutrition scientist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has resigned early, citing censorship and interference by the Trump administration. Dr. Hall is known for groundbreaking research linking ultraprocessed foods—like chips and hot dogs—to overeating and chronic diseases such as obesity and Type 2 diabetes. He said he was recently barred from freely discussing a study that contradicted the administration’s claims and was told to remove his name from another paper that referenced health equity. NIH also restricted his ability to hire staff or buy materials for clinical trials. Outside experts say his departure is a serious loss for the scientific community and raises concerns about political influence over public health research. Though Dr. Hall plans to continue his work outside the government, he worries that censorship and funding cuts will hurt efforts to address America’s growing health problems. Explore the role of government funding in scientific research. Write a paragraph explaining how politics can influence public health and scientific studies, using Dr. Kevin Hall’s experience as an example. Then, consider the risks and benefits of government involvement in science. Should scientists have complete independence, or should elected leaders be able to guide research priorities? Support your opinion with facts from the article and your own reasoning.

3. JUDGE RULES AGAINST GOOGLE

A federal judge has ruled that Google broke the law to keep its monopoly over online advertising technology. Judge Leonie Brinkema found that Google acted illegally to dominate the tools publishers use to sell ad space and the software that connects buyers and sellers of digital ads. The decision comes after a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice and several states, who argued that Google’s control allowed it to charge higher prices and hurt publishers, competition, and consumers. The judge did not find enough evidence to support one part of the case—related to the tools advertisers use—but her ruling still deals a serious blow to Google. This is the second major legal loss for Google in under a year. The court may now decide whether the company should be forced to sell off some parts of its ad business. Google plans to appeal the ruling. The case is part of a broader crackdown on big tech companies, including ongoing lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, and Meta for anti-competitive behavior. Research what a monopoly is and how antitrust laws are used to prevent unfair business practices. Then, write a short explanation (5–7 sentences) of why monopolies are considered harmful in a free-market economy. Use Google’s case as an example: How might Google’s control of the advertising market affect websites, advertisers, and internet users? What should the government do when one company becomes too powerful? Be sure to support your opinion with specific examples or facts.

4. SCHOOL FUNDING SHOWDOWN

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Governor Tony Evers’ creative use of his partial veto power—which extended a school funding increase through the year 2425—is legal under the state constitution. Wisconsin is unique in allowing governors to veto specific words, numbers, and punctuation in budget bills to change their meaning. In this case, Evers changed a funding measure meant to last two years into one that could last 400 years by removing the “20” from “2025.” Critics, including Republicans and the state’s business lobby, argue this is an abuse of power and warn it could raise property taxes. Supporters say it’s a win for public education and within the rules. The decision highlights how broad and controversial Wisconsin’s veto powers are, and it may push lawmakers to revise the rules through a constitutional amendment. In a short essay, explain whether you agree or disagree with the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Governor Evers’ 400-year school funding veto. Consider both the legal aspect (is it within the rules?) and the political impact (is it fair or responsible?). Use evidence from the article to support your viewpoint, and discuss how this case might affect the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches in Wisconsin.

5. ARGUMENTS OVER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about a controversial executive order from President Trump that would end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and foreign residents. While lower courts have temporarily blocked the order nationwide, the administration wants those blocks lifted, arguing they go too far. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 but has left the pause in place until then. Birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. That right has been upheld for over a century, including in a key 1898 Supreme Court case. Critics say Trump’s order is unconstitutional and could undermine a core American principle. The Court’s decision to take the case has sparked debate over not only citizenship rights, but also presidential power and the role of lower courts in halting federal policies. Research the 14th Amendment and the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Then, write a short response (5–7 sentences) explaining how this historical background relates to the current debate over birthright citizenship. In your opinion, should the government be able to change who is granted citizenship by executive order? Why or why not? Use evidence from your research to support your answer.