1. FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE OF MINNESOTA PROTEST GROUPS

During the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota, federal investigators conducted extensive surveillance of left-leaning organizations and people involved in protests. Homeland Security officials obtained years of financial records from labor unions and political groups, sent undercover agents to meetings, recorded license plate numbers, and entered private Signal group chats. The investigation eventually contributed to charges against 15 people accused of interfering with federal officers, and prosecutors described some actions, such as throwing ice blocks and creating road blockades, as violent or obstructive. However, many organizations and individuals subjected to surveillance were never charged with crimes, and some of the monitored activities involved peaceful organizing or political speech protected by the First Amendment. Civil-rights lawyers and former prosecutors argue that investigators may have started with political groups as targets and then searched for evidence against them, rather than beginning with evidence of criminal activity. The controversy has drawn comparisons to Cointelpro, the F.B.I. program that conducted extensive surveillance of political organizations during the 20th century. The case raises a fundamental democratic tension: The government has a legitimate responsibility to investigate violence and obstruction, but broad surveillance of lawful political activity can threaten privacy, free speech, and freedom of association. Create three categories — clearly protected political activity, clearly illegal conduct, and a gray area requiring more evidence — and place at least six actions from the story into them, such as attending a protest meeting, tracking federal vehicles, blocking a roadway, throwing objects, joining a group chat, or collecting protesters’ license plate numbers. For each gray-area example, identify what additional facts you would need before deciding whether government investigation was justified. Conclude by explaining why distinguishing between political dissent and criminal conduct is important in a democracy.

2. JEFF BEZOS-BACKED GROUP INVESTS IN LIVERPOOL

A group of investors that includes Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has purchased roughly 30 percent to one-third of Liverpool Football Club, one of England’s most prominent soccer teams. The consortium, called 1892 Holdings, is led by investor Amit Bhatia and also includes investments connected to Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin’s family and the Mittal family. Liverpool’s current owner, Fenway Sports Group, will remain the majority shareholder and continue controlling the club’s operations for now. However, the agreement gives the new investors an option to purchase a controlling stake within the next 12 months, although they are not required to do so. Bezos will not personally serve on Liverpool’s board, while representatives of the investment group will take board positions. FSG says the new investment could support Liverpool’s long-term growth by bringing additional business, technology, and investment expertise to the organization. The deal illustrates a larger transformation in professional sports, where famous clubs increasingly function not only as teams with devoted communities but also as enormously valuable global businesses attracting some of the world’s wealthiest investors. Analyze the deal from the perspective of a sports economist. Write a short analysis explaining why billionaire investors might view a famous soccer club as an attractive investment and what Liverpool might gain from access to additional capital and business expertise. Then identify two possible risks of concentrating ownership of major sports teams among extremely wealthy investors. Conclude by explaining whether professional teams should be viewed primarily as private businesses, community institutions, or a combination of both.

3. PROGRESSIVES TEST THEIR STRENGTH

A series of strong performances by progressive candidates is intensifying a debate over the future direction of the Democratic Party. Progressive candidates Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan won important Senate primaries, while democratic socialist Francesca Hong narrowly lost Wisconsin’s gubernatorial primary. Their campaigns demonstrate that candidates running against the party establishment can compete beyond heavily Democratic congressional districts, especially by attracting younger and more progressive voters. Yet results in Michigan and Wisconsin also suggest potential weaknesses among older, Black, moderate, and some working-class voters whose support Democrats may need in competitive general elections. Supporters of the movement argue that campaigns focused on affordability, health care, housing, education, and limiting corporate influence can build a new political coalition. Skeptics question whether some progressive positions will appeal broadly enough to independents and moderates in closely divided states. Comparisons have emerged with the Tea Party movement, which pushed the Republican Party to the right beginning in the late 2000s, although today’s progressive candidates do not all share the same ideology or organizational ties. Their success will ultimately be tested by whether primary victories can translate into winning broader electorates in November. Research the Tea Party’s influence on Republican primaries and general elections between 2009 and 2014, then compare that history with the progressive movement described here. Develop a one-page comparison examining candidate recruitment, relationships with party leadership, major policy goals, voter coalitions, primary success, and general-election risks. Finish by identifying one meaningful similarity and one important limitation of the analogy.

4. REDUCTION IN U.S.-SOUTH KOREA EXERCISES

President Trump has ordered the Pentagon to substantially reduce joint military exercises with South Korea, arguing that the drills are expensive and unnecessarily hostile toward North Korea. He also criticized South Korea for declining to participate in the U.S. war against Iran and pointed to his positive relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The annual exercises involve thousands of South Korean troops and are designed to prepare both countries’ militaries to operate together in a crisis. U.S. military officials have traditionally described the training as an important demonstration of the alliance’s commitment to regional security, while North Korea calls the exercises preparation for an attack. Trump’s decision comes shortly after North Korea resumed ballistic missile tests, prompting critics to argue that reducing training could weaken military readiness or reward Pyongyang without receiving concessions in return. Supporters of reducing such exercises could argue that scaling them back lowers costs and tensions and may create better conditions for diplomacy. The dispute illustrates a longstanding challenge in foreign policy: Actions intended to reassure allies and deter adversaries can sometimes make those same adversaries feel more threatened. Create a security dilemma diagram showing the situation from three perspectives: the United States, South Korea, and North Korea. For each country, explain how it might interpret joint military exercises, reduced exercises, and North Korean missile tests. Use arrows to demonstrate how one country’s attempt to increase its security could cause another to feel less secure and respond. Then write a brief diplomatic proposal describing one confidence-building measure that could reduce tensions without requiring any side to abandon its major security interests.

5. GOOGLE EXPANDS GEMINI A.I. ACCESS IN CLASSROOM

Google has expanded access to its Gemini artificial-intelligence tools for K-12 students using Google Classroom at schools that already permit student access to certain Gemini products. Students can now use a Gemini tab to seek help with assignments and create materials such as study guides, quizzes, flashcards, and images. Google argues that integrating the chatbot with Classroom can make A.I. assistance more relevant because it can connect with course materials supplied by teachers. The change is also part of growing competition among technology companies to establish their A.I. products in education. Some educators and parents, however, worry that frequent chatbot use could weaken critical-thinking skills or create privacy and safety problems for children. School technology officials have raised an additional concern: Companies can introduce or automatically enable new features faster than districts can evaluate them, leaving administrators responsible for discovering settings and opting out. Google says administrators can control Gemini access, including limiting it to particular groups of students. The debate therefore extends beyond whether A.I. belongs in classrooms to a larger question about who should decide when and how powerful new technologies become part of students’ education. Conduct an A.I. feature audit from the perspective of a school district reviewing Gemini before approving its use. Develop an evaluation rubric covering learning benefits, academic integrity, student privacy, age appropriateness, teacher control, transparency, and the ability to opt in or out. Apply your rubric to the features described in the story, marking each area as “ready,” “needs safeguards,” or “needs more information,” and justify each judgment with evidence. End by drafting one question the district should require Google to answer before making a final decision.