Courts, Crackdowns, and Civil Right Violations: 6 New Stories You Probably Haven’t Seen

AllSides analyzed under-covered and omitted stories across the political spectrum this week. Here’s what you may have missed:

What The Right Missed

Trump Admin Authorizes DHS to Cancel FEMA Grants for Any Reason

What’s The Story? Twenty-five states and Washington, DC, sued the Trump administration over its new requirements for states to receive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding. The requirements include voting certifications, mail-in voting restrictions, and compliance with federal immigration laws, allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel grants for any reason.

Why The Miss? Washington Examiner (Lean Right) was the only outlet on the right that initially covered this story. Many outlets on the left questioned the legality of the requirements and potentially biased withholding of disaster relief. ABC (Lean Left), for example, reports that multiple courts have found the requirements to be “unlawful and unconstitutional.” Such rulings would’ve incentivized outlets on the right to frame their coverage defensively, as Washington Examiner emphasized the lawsuits coming from “blue states” in its headline. Thus, many avoided coverage entirely.

Trump Admin Admits to Biased Funding Cuts to Environmental Research

What’s The Story? The Trump administration admitted to cancelling 284 green energy research grants, worth a total of $7.5 billion, in October, “solely” based on states’ support for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. The cuts were “not based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor,” according to Department of Energy (DOE) deputy Jack Novak.

Why The Miss? The New York Times (Lean Left) highlighted the DOE’s previous framing that the cuts were based on economic optimization. Much like the previous FEMA example, outlets on the right likely dodged this story to avoid drawing attention to both the Trump administration’s bias and DOE’s narrative shift.

What The Left Missed

California AG Threatens to Fine Pregnancy Centers $20M Over Abortion Pill Reversal

What’s The Story? California Attorney General Rob Bonta threatened to fine two pregnancy resource centers $20 million for encouraging abortion pill reversal. Bonta accused the centers, Heartbeat International and Real Options, of violating Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws, though no evidence suggests the treatment is harmful.

RELATED: RFK Directs FDA to Review Abortion Pill Mifepristone Amidst Debate Over Its Safety | AllSides

Why The Miss? “The target is not fraud,” wrote a commentator for RealClearPolitics (Lean Right). “These charities offer their services for free. It is not patient harm. There is no evidence of any patient being harmed. It is not even illegal conduct. The underlying treatment remains perfectly legal. The target is speech.”

Eighty-eight percent of Democrats believe “the US has gone too far in restricting free speech,” according to a 2015 NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. Outlets on the left suggesting a Democratic lawmaker is infringing on free speech may have resulted in cognitive dissonance for left-leaning readers.

Image Credit: Rahul Mukherjee/NPR

Even some outlets on the right avoided covering this story, likely due to the potential cognitive dissonance for pro-choice conservatives. Furthermore, a Daily Wire (Right) commentator criticized, “Nothing has been done on the side of the Trump administration to stop states such as California from canceling those organizations that are offering women another option.”

Immigrant-led Group to Sue Mamdani Over City-Run Grocery Stores

What’s The Story? The Multicultural Business Coalition (MBC) plans to sue New York City over Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) over his efforts to open five city-run grocery stores – reported New York Post (Right) – “claiming the $70 million project will create unfair competition for nearby stores.”

Why The Miss? The Post’s exclusive report gave voice to MBC Chairman Frank Garcia, who criticized, “The mayor doesn’t seem to want to sit down with us.” Though Garcia said the lawsuit “should be a non-partisan initiative,” some media on the left likely missed this story to avoid drawing attention to the Post’s negative framing of Mamdani, a self-described Democratic Socialist. The Post also emphasized MBC’s immigrant leadership in its headline, exhibiting an abnormal contrast between immigrants and Democratic lawmakers.

RELATED: What to Make of DSA's Rise and Revisions | AllSides

What Everyone Missed

Immigration Enforcement Enacted ‘Widespread Civil Rights Violations’ – Report

What’s The Story? Immigration enforcement agents carried out “widespread civil rights violations” under the Trump administration in 2025, according to the “Agents of Chaos and Cruelty” report published by the ACLU (Lean Left) earlier this month. The report, part of the group’s “affirmative vision report series,” cited “a pattern of civil rights violations of excessive force, racial profiling, intimidation, and abuse by both federal officials and state and local law enforcement.”

It found that roughly 400 of the 1,200 enforcement cases studied involved “misconduct by immigration agents.” “Critically,” the group stated, “the report highlights how oversight measures have failed to hold immigration agents accountable… [and it] urges policymakers to call for transformative change to our immigration system.”

Why The Miss? NPR (Lean Left) was the only mainstream outlet to cover the series, which aims to “explore how the Trump administration’s immigration agenda has harmed communities nationwide, gutted asylum and other legal pathways, undermined our democracy, and wreaked havoc on key industries and weakened the American workforce,” according to the ACLU.

Outlets may have dodged this story due to the ACLU’s widely accepted bias toward the left, along with the openly inflammatory and biased nature of the series – both factors that could portray a lack of credibility and expose narratives to conservative criticism.

Justice Thomas Rejects Recusal Push in Monsanto v. Durnell

What’s The Story? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declined to recuse himself from the recent “Monsanto Co. v. Durnell” case that found Monsanto not liable for omitting cancer warnings from Roundup, a popular weed killer. Thomas, who favored Monsanto in the case, worked as an attorney for the company in the 1970s, which some argued presented a conflict of interest. “Toxin Free USA” lobbied for his recusal, stating, “Continuing to hear a case in which a justice has a longstanding connection to one of the parties – and declining to explain why no conflict exists – diminishes public confidence in the Court and undermines the integrity of our judicial system.”

Why The Miss? The White House also sided with Monsanto in the 7-2 decision, in a split away from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement. Conservative Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Washington Examiner’s (Lean Right) initial report highlighted a “fractured MAHA-MAGA relationship” and suggested “the decision will likely drive a wedge between the GOP and MAHA swing voters.” That fracture likely discouraged outlets on both the left and right from further harping on the case and Thomas’ involvement.

RELATED: The Insight: Is America Getting Healthier? | AllSides

Malayna J. Bizier is a News Analyst and Social Media Editor for AllSides. She has a Right bias.

This piece was reviewed and edited by Henry A. Brechter, Editor-in-chief (Center) and Product Manager Evan Wagner (Lean Left).