1. A YEAR INSIDE KASH PATEL’S F.B.I.

After returning to office, President Trump appointed Kash Patel to lead the F.B.I., arguing that the agency needed an overhaul. Patel, who had never worked inside the bureau, replaced Christopher Wray and was confirmed by a narrow Senate vote. Over the following year, more than 20 percent of the bureau’s work force was reassigned to immigration enforcement, shifting resources away from long-running investigations into terrorism, cybercrime, public corruption and white-collar crime. Several senior officials and agents who worked on investigations involving Trump were fired or forced out, including members of the elite public-corruption squad known as CR-15. Former employees described a “culture of fear,” citing the expanded use of polygraph tests to identify media leaks, loyalty concerns and abrupt dismissals without clear misconduct findings. Supporters of Patel argue that he is restoring focus on violent crime and accountability, while critics contend that political pressure and public messaging have begun to override investigative norms. The debate raises deeper questions about the independence of federal law enforcement, the balance between executive power and institutional safeguards, and whether changes in priorities strengthen or weaken national security. In a well-developed paragraph of 8 to 10 sentences, analyze how leadership changes can affect the mission and culture of a law enforcement agency. Use at least three specific examples from the article—such as shifts in investigative priorities, the use of polygraphs, firings, or social media strategy—and explain how each example connects to the broader concept of institutional independence. Conclude by evaluating whether strong executive control increases accountability or risks politicization.

2. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ERSASES CLIMATE AUTHORITY

The Trump administration announced it was eliminating the “endangerment finding,” a 2009 scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. That finding had served as the legal foundation for federal limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other emissions from vehicles, power plants and oil and gas facilities. By revoking it, the Environmental Protection Agency removes its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Administration officials argue that the law was intended to address direct, localized pollution and that regulating global emissions oversteps the agency’s authority. Critics counter that decades of research show climate change contributes to extreme heat, wildfires, rising sea levels and public health risks, and they warn the repeal could increase emissions and weaken environmental protections nationwide. Several states and environmental groups have pledged to challenge the decision in court, and the dispute is likely to reach the Supreme Court. The decision also raises economic questions, including the impact on fossil fuel industries, electric vehicle manufacturing and the possibility of a patchwork of state-level climate laws. Write a response that evaluates both the legal and scientific dimensions of this decision. First, summarize the administration’s legal argument in your own words. Then explain the scientific consensus described in the article and why it matters for policymaking. Finally, assess which branch of government—Congress, federal agencies, or the courts—should have primary authority over climate regulation, and defend your reasoning with evidence from the story.

3. HOMELAND SECURITY SEEKS TO UNMASK ANTI-ICE ACCOUNTS

The Department of Homeland Security has sent hundreds of administrative subpoenas to companies like Google, Meta and Reddit seeking identifying information behind anonymous social media accounts that criticize or track Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Unlike traditional search warrants, administrative subpoenas do not require prior approval from a judge. Government officials say the requests are intended to protect ICE agents and investigate potential threats. Civil liberties advocates argue that the practice risks targeting constitutionally protected speech and places the burden on private individuals to challenge subpoenas in court. In at least one case involving social media accounts that posted alerts about ICE activity in Pennsylvania, the subpoena was withdrawn after legal challenges. Technology companies say they review requests and sometimes notify users so they can contest them. The controversy highlights tensions between public safety, government transparency and First Amendment protections in the digital age. Write an opinion article that addresses this question: Does the use of administrative subpoenas in this context protect public safety, or does it threaten free expression? Incorporate at least two specific details from the article—such as the difference between warrants and administrative subpoenas or examples of withdrawn requests—and explain how they shape your conclusion. Your response should acknowledge the strongest counterargument before clearly defending your position.

4. MEASLES OUTBREAK SPREADS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

More than 40 measles cases were reported at Ave Maria University in Florida, marking one of the largest recent outbreaks on a college campus. Other universities have experienced exposures or quarantines, raising concern that measles — once considered largely eliminated in the United States — is resurging. Before widespread vaccination began in the 1960s, measles infected most children and caused hundreds of deaths each year. Today, many college students grew up in an era of high vaccination rates and may not have natural immunity, and an increase in personal or religious exemptions has left some communities vulnerable. Health experts warn that even small declines in immunization can allow highly contagious diseases like measles to spread rapidly in campus settings, where students live and socialize in close quarters. Public health officials are refining response plans and reconsidering vaccine requirements as national case counts climb. Write an analytical paragraph of 8 to 10 sentences explaining why college campuses are especially vulnerable to outbreaks of preventable diseases. Use evidence from the article about vaccination patterns, immunity, and campus life. Then propose one policy change—either stricter vaccine mandates, expanded exemptions, or improved public health education—and evaluate its likely benefits and drawbacks in a balanced way.

5. HEALTH DATA DISAPPEARS DESPITE PROMISES OF TRANSPARENCY

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became U.S. health secretary, he pledged “radical transparency.” Yet over the past year, multiple types of federal health data have been delayed, scaled back or discontinued. Annual abortion surveillance reports were postponed, overdose monitoring programs like the Drug Abuse Warning Network were shut down, smoking-prevention campaigns were halted, and certain food safety tracking requirements were reduced. Information related to LGBTQ health and transgender students was removed or altered following executive orders. Meanwhile, ethics disclosures for newly appointed vaccine advisory committee members have not been fully published. Administration officials say changes reflect shifting priorities and improved efficiency, while critics argue that reduced access to data undermines research, public health planning and government accountability. Compose a letter as if you were writing to Secretary Kennedy, Use at least three examples from the article to illustrate how limiting or altering public health data can affect researchers, policymakers or citizens. Conclude by explaining whether you think he has fulfilled his promise of “radical transparency” and how his decisions have affected citizens.