1. PUBLIC HEALTH OUTRAGE

A $9 million stockpile of contraceptives meant for women in war zones and refugee camps may be destroyed by the Trump administration, sparking outrage from public health advocates and lawmakers. The contraceptives—including birth control pills, IUDs, and implants—are stored in a U.S.-funded warehouse in Belgium. The supplies were purchased under the previous administration, but their future is now uncertain after the dismantling of USAID programs that once managed their distribution. U.S. officials say no decision has been made yet, though concerns have grown over reports that the stockpile might be incinerated. Critics, including U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lisa Murkowski, called this potential action a waste of taxpayer money and a step back from America’s leadership in global health. European officials and international aid groups have also pushed for the supplies to be redistributed instead of destroyed. One group, MSI Reproductive Choices, even offered to take the supplies and deliver them at no cost—but the offer was rejected. The Trump administration has raised concerns that some of the supplies may include drugs used to induce abortion, though they have not confirmed this. Meanwhile, clinics in places like Liberia, already affected by USAID cuts, report empty shelves and a lack of basic health supplies. Advocacy groups warn that destroying the contraceptives would hurt women and girls around the world by increasing the risks of unplanned pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and maternal deaths. The article highlights how foreign aid and public health policy can have real consequences across the globe. Write a brief policy memo from the perspective of a public health advisor. Recommend what the U.S. government should do with the contraceptive stockpile. In your response, explain the health, ethical, and financial impacts of your recommendation and address at least one potential counterargument.

2. VACCINE EXEMPTIONS ON THE RISE

New federal data shows that U.S. childhood vaccination rates have declined again, while the number of parents claiming vaccine exemptions has reached a record high. Only 92.5% of kindergartners received the required measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine during the 2024–25 school year, down from 95% before the pandemic—the threshold needed to prevent disease outbreaks. At the same time, 4.1% of kindergartners were exempt from one or more required vaccines, mostly for nonmedical reasons. This drop in vaccination comes during the worst U.S. measles outbreak in over 30 years. Public health experts warn that lower vaccine coverage increases the risk of more outbreaks. Some states, like Texas, have made it easier for parents to opt out of vaccinations, even as case numbers rise. Meanwhile, officials at the CDC and other federal health agencies have shifted to softer messaging about vaccine importance, putting more emphasis on personal choice rather than public safety. Critics say this change could further erode public trust and lead to greater health risks. Vaccination requirements for school have long helped protect communities from serious diseases, but growing political divides, misinformation online, and changing policies are challenging that system. While the majority of parents still vaccinate their children, experts worry that rising exemptions and access issues could have long-term effects on public health. Write a short editorial that takes a position on whether vaccination should remain a strict school requirement or allow more flexibility for personal choice. Consider the balance between individual rights and protecting public health. Support your argument with evidence from the article and your own reasoning about the risks and responsibilities involved in school vaccination policies.

3. TRUMP’S TARIFFS IN COURT

The Trump administration is facing a major legal challenge over its use of presidential power to impose tariffs without congressional approval. A federal appeals court heard arguments this week after a lower court ruled that President Trump overstepped his authority by applying sweeping tariffs under a law meant for national emergencies. The Justice Department is defending the tariffs, saying the president has long been granted wide discretion in trade matters. However, business groups and state officials argue that the president’s actions go beyond what the law allows. Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify new tariffs is unprecedented. Critics argue this law was not designed for trade issues and warn that allowing it could give the president unchecked power over economic policy. Meanwhile, major companies say the tariffs are raising prices and damaging their businesses. Several states and business groups have joined lawsuits, and experts predict the case may eventually reach the Supreme Court. The legal fight raises deeper questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress in regulating trade, and the limits of executive authority. While Trump insists tariffs are vital to protect American jobs and negotiate better deals, others warn they may hurt consumers and destabilize the economy. The court’s decision could reshape how U.S. trade policy is made in the future. Write a short essay discussing the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to economic policy. Should the president be able to impose tariffs without Congress’s approval in times of economic pressure or international conflict? Support your answer with examples from the article and consider how unchecked executive power might affect global trade, American businesses, and consumers.

4. COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS

A legal watchdog group called the Legal Accountability Center has filed formal bar complaints against three Justice Department lawyers who defended Trump administration policies in court. The group accuses the lawyers of misleading a federal judge during a case about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (C.F.P.B.), where the administration was allegedly trying to shut down the agency. Internal emails later contradicted the lawyers’ claims in court, prompting the judge to block the agency’s closure and strongly criticize the Justice Department for being dishonest. These complaints come during a time of growing tension between federal judges and the Justice Department. Judges have expressed concern over what they see as the department ignoring court orders, especially in cases related to immigration. In a rare move, Attorney General Pam Bondi recently filed her own misconduct complaint against a federal judge, accusing him of making political comments at a judicial conference. A whistleblower also accused a senior department official of instructing staff to ignore court orders to fulfill Trump’s deportation goals—despite these accusations, the official was confirmed as a federal judge. The Justice Department has denied all wrongdoing, saying its lawyers act with integrity. But watchdog groups like the Legal Accountability Center argue that lawyers working for the government have a duty to uphold the law, even when pressured by political leaders. Write a brief analysis of the legal and ethical issues raised by this story. What responsibilities do government lawyers have when defending policies in court? Do you think bar complaints are an effective way to hold them accountable? Consider both the risks and benefits of using professional discipline to check legal behavior in politically charged cases. Conclude with your opinion on whether the Justice Department’s actions in this case crossed the line.

5. STATE BOOSTS COLLEGE FUNDING

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey has proposed a $400 million plan to support college and university research in response to major funding cuts by the Trump administration. The proposal aims to protect and create jobs in research and development, especially in Boston’s colleges and hospitals, which are central to the state’s economy. Half of the funding would go directly to research at hospitals, universities, and independent institutions, while the other half would support partnerships and operations at public universities. The plan would use money from the state’s rainy day fund and the new “millionaires tax,” which raises taxes on income over $1 million. Some Republican leaders oppose the plan, arguing those funds were intended for K-12 education or more urgent needs, like the public defender shortage. Meanwhile, higher education leaders welcomed the move, especially public universities that lack large endowments and are more vulnerable to federal budget cuts. Healey emphasized that the plan isn’t just about replacing lost federal money, but about maintaining Massachusetts’s global leadership in research and innovation. Some faculty members also warned about protecting academic freedom during negotiations with the federal government. While the funding won’t fully replace federal support, many believe it will help the state’s research institutions weather uncertain times. Write a short editorial analyzing whether Governor Healey’s proposed $400 million plan is a responsible and effective response to the loss of federal research funding. Consider the economic importance of research in Massachusetts, the use of emergency and tax funds, and the political debate around how money should be spent. Use evidence from the article and collect information from reliable sources on how research funding affects your own state or future career plans.