A New York Times (Lean Left bias) report on Thursday claimed the FBI under former President Barack Obama found evidence suggesting Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) married a man suspected of being her brother to help him obtain a green card.

The Report: The Times article said that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security investigated the marriage in the summer of 2016, and "found some evidence that it was fraudulent" according to unnamed current and former officials. The case investigating a potential felony crime "stalled chiefly" because prosecutors concluded that it was outside a five-year statute of limitations. The officials told the Times that they had "limited investigative tools" because "prosecutors did not pursue the matter." The officials also mentioned that Mr. Elmi (Omar's ex-husband suspected of being her sibling) obtained a provisional two-year green card based on the marriage, of which he sought to make permanent. However, when immigration officials requested additional evidence about the validity of the marriage, "Mr. Elmi left the United States and abandoned his green card petition."

'Explosive Report': The Daily Wire (Right) highlighted that the allegations against the Democrat congresswoman "raise two potential criminal issues," explaining that "federal law prohibits knowingly entering a marriage only to obtain a green card, and all 50 states prohibit siblings from marrying." The Wire also said that "Obama called the Trump administration's probe into the Minnesota congresswoman 'appalling,' despite his FBI reportedly finding evidence that Omar committed marriage fraud." The article also said that "Omar says she was born in 1982," while pointing out that her "own memoir" points to her being a year older, explaining that "if true, would mean she was too old to receive citizenship through her father." The Daily Mail (Right) called the new report "explosive."

'Some Evidence': Some outlets on the left like Mediaite (Lean Left) did not provide as many details or context to the allegations surrounding Omar. Instead, the outlet highlighted that "Obama himself rebuked" the investigations and the "timing of aggressive investigative steps against a sitting lawmaker just before the November 3 midterm elections" has "also raised questions." The article also framed the developments around the New York Times report uncovering "some evidence."

RELATED: Ilhan Omar Addresses Federal Raid and Questions About Ex-Husband in Interview

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

An editor from The New York Times (Lean Left bias) acknowledged last week that the paper uses ideological labels for conservative academics and analysts much more than liberal ones, despite liberals being quoted more often.

The Details: In February, Texas law professor and Reason (Center) contributor Josh Blackman wrote NYT a letter to the editor after he was quoted twice in 24 hours and labeled a "conservative" both times. He then conducted a review of NYT coverage and discovered the trend. He argued that while the label was accurate in his case, the disproportionate framing shows "the media views a liberal position as a neutral position. And the conservative position is the other, the outlier."

For Context: Blackman wrote for Reason, "The Times did not publish the letter, so I posted it on the blog. I thought that was the end of the matter, but I was wrong."

Key Quotes: NYT editor Patrick Healy spoke with Blackman last week and published the 15-minute interview on NYT's site. In a transcribed excerpt, "I think there's real truth to your critique, and it's something we need to do a better job on. We're trying to give readers more factual context about who's speaking or why their views rise to the level of a story. Sometimes it's notable that it's a conservative legal scholar criticizing President Trump's politics. In the academy, there are a lot of liberals, but that doesn't justify it." In another portion of the interview, Blackman said the disproportionate labeling "has been a longstanding grievance of [his], and not just against The Times, against all the major media outlets."

How The Media Covered It: The story, which received attention this week, was not widely covered. AllSides found a few pieces of coverage from the right and center, but except for NYT's interview, none from the left. NewsBusters (Right) published an opinion on the story, and Fox News (Right) quoted a separate NewsBusters staffer in its news coverage. The Wall Street Journal Opinion (Lean Right) ran an opinion that lauded Healy for taking accountability and said, "Let's hope that people across the media industry will take Josh Blackman's criticism to heart."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Former Miss Switzerland Beatrice Keul accused President Trump of raping her in 1993, according to a report released by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. The allegation has renewed focus on Trump's past association with Jeffrey Epstein.

The Details: Trump has denied the claim and described the report as politically motivated. Keul, who was 24 at the time, told the House Judiciary Committee that Trump invited her to a suite in New York City's Plaza Hotel during a beauty pageant event. He then reportedly raped her, tore her dress and left her with bruises and other injuries. According to the report, Trump had previously offered to help Keul get a US visa and gain admission to New York University and continued to repeat those offers to pressure her to remain silent.

Epstein Ties: Keul also told investigators that Epstein had approached her at the same event and invited her to a gathering at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. Another claim included that Trump and Epstein used the "Donald J. Trump American Dream Pageant" as a "hunting ground" to "prey" on young girls ages 16 to 22.

For Context: Keul's allegations are included in a broader report by House Judiciary Committee Democrats that are examining Trump's connections to Epstein. In 2024, Keul also accused Trump of groping her and making unwanted sexual advances. Trump has not been charged in connection with Keul's assault allegations.

From the Left and Center: The story was generally covered more by outlets on the left and in the center. Newsweek (Center bias) emphasized that Keul feared for her safety after the report was released. Time (Lean Left) said the report's release "comes as Democrats are working to signal to voters how they will make use of their power" if they win midterms. It also placed Keul's claims within a broader pattern of alleged exploitation connected to Trump's social circle, including allegations against Paolo Zampolli, a former Trump administration official and Trump ally, who the report claimed was "an active participant" in the Epstein sex trafficking allegations.

From the Right: An opinion writer in Daily Wire (Right) opened with, "Well, would you look at that? Just days before the election, a brave woman has stepped forward to announce that Donald J. Trump, our commander in crime, raped her." The writer questioned Keul's credibility and argued that Democrats and liberal media outlets are applying a double standard by scrutinizing Trump while overlooking allegations of sexual misconduct by former President Bill Clinton. They generally used sarcasm and skepticism and suggested that when allegations of groping from Keul wasn't enough, the media tried "the R-word this time." Conversely, the Daily Mail (Lean Right) detailed Keul's allegations and descriptions of his relationship with Epstein.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

The FBI has arrested a CIA contractor for leaking classified "national defense information" to a journalist he had a "romantic" relationship with, who appears to be Aída Chávez (Left bias).

The Details: Ian Brinksman, a 42-year-old employee of a company that is under contract with the CIA, was arrested Friday, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Chávez was not named in the affidavit, though the information presented lines up precisely with reports published on her Substack, Capital & Empire. Brinksman allegedly sent a November 2025 email to a friend that said, "The lady I've been seeing is a journalist and recently went independent. So I've been helping her get that off the ground." The affidavit alleges he made an edit to an article of hers on March 13, 2026. Brinksman could face 10 years in prison if convicted.

The Journalist: Chávez was previously a left-wing activist and staffed at The Intercept (Left) and The Nation (Left). On her Substack, she said she's been published by The Washington Post (Lean Left), The Hill (Center), Responsible Statecraft (Center), and others. She has consistently posted articles based on "classified" CIA information, beginning with her first Capital & Empire article in October 2025. Her Capital & Empire reporting has focused entirely on US international affairs and mostly on the wars in Gaza and Iran. In her most recent October 5 report, she said the CIA was worried Israel was heading toward civil war and "total collapse." Before that, on September 28, she published a fundraising plea that prominently said she "published reporting based on classified CIA assessments." Chávez recently made her social media pages private, though an AllSides team member who follows her on X said she last posted on Friday, the same day Brinksman was arrested. She did not reply to a request for comment from Reuters (Center).

How The Media Covered It: The story was widely covered by outlets from the right and center. From the left, AllSides only found coverage from Raw Story (Left). Many outlets stopped short of mentioning Chávez's name, but The New York Post (Right), The Hill, and Jerusalem Post (Center), Reuters, and Daily Mail (Lean Right) did. The New York Post stood out in that it emphasized the relatively low engagement statistics for the reports on Substack.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

The US Federal Election Commission's (FEC) website was hacked, leading to the disruption of the agency's electronic filings system days before the November 3 elections.

Super PACs and Dark Money: Reuters (Center bias) was the first to report on the hack, saying that the information came from an email seen by the outlet. The article also mentioned a statement by the FEC saying the "electronic filing system is currently offline and our IT staff are actively working to restore service," adding that the system had been down since Monday night. Reuters highlighted that "the hack comes as so-called super PACs and dark money groups spend record sums in the final days of the races."

Majorities In Congress: The Daily Caller (Lean Right) highlighted that "The incident comes one week before the midterm elections, which will determine whether Republicans retain their majorities in Congress for the remainder of President Donald Trump's term." The article also mentioned that "The FEC oversees campaign finance disclosures, not election administration," explaining that "the outage is not expected to affect voters' ability to cast ballots" and adding that "the public can continue searching previously filed reports through the agency's online database."

'Largely Without Power': Outlets on the left like Politico (Lean Left) tended to frame the FEC as an entity that "has been largely without power since last year," explaining that "multiple commissioners departed and President Donald Trump moved to fire now-former FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, leaving the agency without a quorum." CNBC (Lean Left) also said the outage "hits an already weakened agency," adding that it "has had just two members since October 2025 and has lacked the four commissioners it needs to take official action since May 2025."

RELATED: Fact Check: Are Voting Machines in Tennessee Flipping Votes for Marsha Blackburn?

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Serbia's student-led protest movement defeated longtime political leader Aleksandar Vučić in a snap parliamentary election after two years of demonstrations.

The Movement: Run by the "Students in Blockade" movement, the "Student List - Students Win" is a list of candidates selected by student assemblies to run the government if elected. Students themselves weren't included in the list; the candidates included doctors, university staff, activists, entrepreneurs and others across Serbia. It didn't name a candidate for prime minister. The List won approximately 140 of 250 seats in Serbia's parliamentary election on Oct. 25 with 52.7% of the vote. Vučić conceded the loss on Sunday night. The movement campaigned on three main priorities: fighting corruption, expanding education and innovation, and pursuing economic reforms.

For Context: The Serbian Progressive party (SNS) has governed since 2012. Vučić, a member of SNS, has served as prime minister from 2014 and 2017 and president of Serbia from 2017 until he resigned in Sept. 2026 to participate in the parliamentary election. His government has faced sustained protests after the 2024 Novi Sad railway station collapse, which killed 16 people. The "Students in Blockade" grassroots student movement led anti-corruption protests after the railway collapse. Vučić's government has denied accusations of corruption.

US Involvement: In recent months, Reps. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Bill Keating (D-MA) stepped up efforts to put pressure Vučić. In August, they introduced legislation that called for sanctions and said, "Democracy, rule of law, and anti-corruption must remain key pillars in the U.S.-Serbia bilateral relationship." Last week, days before the election, Wilson requested the Trump administration sanctioned four businessmen with ties to Vučić.

Uncertainty Ahead: Several outlets focused on what's next for the elected leaders. Fox News (Right bias) emphasized uncertainty from Serbian political leaders about the future of its government and foreign relations. It quoted the Vice President of the SNS who said the List "neither a program nor a coherent political ideology. In an essentially anarchic fashion, it opposed everything, claiming to fight for justice and against corruption." She also told Fox that "people may have wanted change…But the grim consequences of this movement in power will soon become apparent." Reuters (Center) wrote, "Now…comes the gritty business of governing" and that next steps "will determine the political stability of Serbia" and its foreign relations. The outlet also outlined uncertainty over whether the candidates can "form a cohesive government" and make the changes it ran on.

A Historic Election: Commentators on PBS (Lean Left) emphasized the historic nature of the movement and that it was run by young people. During the broadcast, Heather Conley from the American Enterprise Institute compared the win to other anti-corruption election wins since 2000, saying "this was truly people power" and that it's a "strike against Russia and China." An analysis in Foreign Policy (Center) argued that Serbia's student protestors deserved a Nobel Prize after it "proved that youth can achieve transformative change through nonviolent political engagement." Both PBS and Foreign Policy framed the movement as a win against Vučić's "corrupt regime," which controlled the majority of governmental power.

Foreign Media: Kremlin-funded RT (Lean Right) highlighted quotes Vučić made on election night in which he called the opposition "the executors of dirty work devised by someone else to bring down a sovereign country" and called out "various European countries and the American deep state." Hungarian Conservative (Lean Right) highlighted that one day after the election, Serbia's regional public broadcaster RTV apologized for having "remained silent, turned a blind eye, provided one-sided information and reported uncritically."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Two people named Dan Sullivan are running for senate in Alaska's midterm election, prompting a lawsuit from the Justice Department and speculation that this was an attempt to bolster the Democratic candidate's chances of winning. 

The Details: Alaska Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, a Republican, is running for reelection against several candidates, including Dan J. Sullivan, who has no party affiliation. The Democratic candidate on the ticket is Mary Peltola. Though Peltola has denied allegations of involvement in his candidacy, New York Times (Lean Left bias) reported that her team recruited Sullivan to run and tried to coax other candidates into the race as well, based on interviews, text messages, and lawsuit documents the outlet reviewed. 

Accusations of Interference: Peltola's former campaign manager Elisa Rios, who was fired in August, told The Times that Peltola was "definitely aware" of her team's involvement in recruiting Sullivan, though she was not directly involved. The Hill (Center) reported on Peltola's campaign's response to the investigation, citing the statement, "The Alaskans for Mary campaign has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign and did not recruit any candidates into the race." The Hill also noted that ballot stacking is a common practice and reported that "both parties have recruited fringe candidates this cycle and in previous years, hoping to siphon off votes."

DOJ Lawsuit and Controversy: The Justice Department sued Alaska election officials and asked a judge to prevent certification of the results if the incumbent Dan S. Sullivan loses due to votes for the unaffiliated Dan J. Sullivan. Fox News (Right) reported the DOJ's filing, which said, "The sole purpose of his candidacy is to benefit the Peltola campaign by reducing the number of votes for Senator Sullivan." Fox also highlighted criticism of Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), whom the outlet called "one of Trump's most prominent adversaries." Schiff accused the DOJ of trying to use its lawsuit to subvert the election, saying, "They don't have standing to bring this kind of a suit. It's not the federal government's business to run Alaskan elections. It's Alaska's business to do that…it just shows how complicit they are now in the Trump campaign to try to subvert the elections."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Immediately after his electoral defeat, the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered conservative presidential candidate Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro to surrender his passports and barred him from leaving the country.

The Details: Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes issued the ruling and said Bolsonaro is under investigation for his links to a money laundering operation. Bolsonaro was ordered to not have any contact with his friend Willer Tomaz, a lawyer linked to the suspected laundering of over $900 million. Bolsonaro, who called for the Sunday vote to be annulled, described the move as "political" and said he believes it is an effort to intimidate him. In the months leading up to the election, Moraes drew criticism and media coverage for his business involvement and alleged collusion with a banker who is under investigation for committing the largest banking fraud scandal in Brazilian history.

Sunday's Election: Brazil's incumbent progressive President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated Bolsonaro on Sunday, a result that shocked observers and media outlets across the spectrum. As polls neared closing time, both candidates requested the voting hours be extended for separate reasons. The Supreme Court approved the extension just as polling stations were about to close, meaning some had already closed and could not reopen. Outlets across the spectrum, like The New York Times (Lean Left) and Hungarian Conservative (Lean Right), have highlighted that some election lawyers think the results could be annulled. Supreme Court President Kassio Nunes Marques, who was appointed by Jair Bolsonaro, said the extension did not impact the count or electoral process.

Brazilian Lawfare: Bolsonaro's father, former President Jair Bolsonaro, was sentenced to 27 years in prison last year and banned from running for public office for attempting to hold onto power after he was defeated by Lula in 2022. In 2017, Lula was convicted of corruption but was released from jail after 580 days when the Supreme Court annulled his sentence. Ahead of the election, Lula said he wanted to win the election to keep Jair imprisoned.

How The Media Covered It: Several outlets on the left like Time Magazine (Lean Left), The New York Times, and The Guardian (Left) prominently highlighted Moraes' citation of the money laundering investigation as the reason Bolsonaro's passports were seized. Outlets from the right, like Hungarian Conservative, ZeroHedge (Lean Right), Townhall (Right) and Newsmax (Right), claimed Bolsonaro was being "targeted" and/or highlighted skepticism surrounding the election, including comments from President Trump that it "looked… rigged."

Media Perspectives: American journalist Glenn Greenwald (Center), who is based in Brazil and was charged with 126 felonies in 2020 related to his reporting on lawfare against Lula, offered lots of commentary on X. In one post he wrote, "If Bolsonaro had won last night's election and then a pro-Bolsonaro judge sent the Federal Police to seize Lula's passport and bar him from leaving the country -- every major western media outlet and liberal NGOs would be screaming about the authoritarian attack on Brazil's elections and the destruction of basic freedoms." American Democratic Socialist Twitch streamer Mike From PA responded to one of Greenwald's posts and wrote, "He's a fascist calling the election illegitimate and he's likely to attempt to flee to Miami for crimes. This is totally legitimate law-enforcement activity. Why are you so wrong on this?"

Editor's Note, 10/28/26: This article initially said Bolsonaro was ordered to submit his passport "hours" after his loss, based on a report from The Guardian. A new report from Associated Press (Left) quoted a lawmaker from Bolsonaro's party who claimed he was ordered to forfeit his passports seven minutes after his defeat. The lead has been changed to reflect the headline, using the word "immediately."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

The Trump administration is rolling back regulations designed to limit methane emissions from oil and gas operations. Media split in its reporting of how the decision will save consumers money and how it'll negatively impact global warming.

The Details: During a rally in Texas on Tuesday, President Trump announced plans to weaken federal methane regulations from the Biden administration, saying it would reduce costs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was preparing to ease requirements for low-producing oil and gas wells and end a program targeting major methane leaks, allowing for more routine flaring of natural gas. The Trump administration has said the existing rules impose excessive energy costs for producers and consumers. The Wall Street Journal (Center bias) reported the EPA estimated the changes could save $45 billion.

For Context: The Biden administration established its methane regulations in 2023, which required oil and gas companies to monitor and address leaks from existing and new facilities. It estimated the regulations would reduce methane emissions by about 80% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. According to the Journal, studies have shown that the gas wells account for approximately 60% of methane emissions from US natural-gas production and about 40% of those from US oil production.

How the Media Covered It: NBC News (Lean Left) framed the decision as coming ahead of midterms, where "numerous polls show that high fuel costs are a key issue for many voters." It also reported that scientists "consider methane to be about 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide" and is "responsible for roughly one-third of all global warming." Fox Business (Lean Right) quoted Trump saying the rollback will "save consumers and energy producers…$45 billion, while unlocking 210 millions of barrels of oil." In his speech, Trump emphasized the previous policy came from the "crooked" Biden administration. Wall Street Journal said "large oil and gas producers have supported federal methane regulations…because they want to keep selling their product to climate-minded buyers abroad."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

The Pentagon is reportedly planning for every major US military base to continue operating without outside help for 90 days if an attack cuts off power and supply chains.

'Mostly True': Snopes (Lean Left bias), in a fact-check article, called the claim "mostly true." The article highlighted a Fox News (Right) article that reported exclusively on the 90-day requirement and quoted Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell throughout the coverage. Snopes said that while Parnell shared the Fox report on X, he did not explicitly confirm the requirement and explained that this was why the outlet rated the claim "mostly true." The outlet also featured a video posted to Facebook explaining the plan, adding that the user who posted the video suggested that the plan "would leave civilians 'on their own' by taking away investment from shared resources."  

'Unprecedented Plan': Outlets on the right like Fox News and ZeroHedge (Lean Right) highlighted the "doomsday" nature of the plan, with ZeroHedge calling it "unprecedented." ZeroHedge said that "the ongoing threats to America's power grid come from both foreign adversaries and domestic saboteurs," and mentioned that "In February 2024, the NSA and other federal agencies warned that Chinese state-sponsored hackers linked to Volt Typhoon had compromised critical U.S. infrastructure networks, including energy, water, transportation, and communications systems."

'Planning For Disruptions': Fortune (Center) highlighted that America is not the only country preparing for disaster or attack, explaining that "Britain is telling families to keep canned food, bottled water, and cash on hand to get through three days of disruption." The article added that "the two efforts aren't known to be coordinated, and neither government has said that a new war is imminent," but added that "both are planning for disruptions that could leave homes and military installations without the services they depend on."

FORTRESS: The 90-day requirement is a part of the so-called Federal Operations for Resilience, Troop Resources, Energy, Supply, and Survivability (FORTRESS), which is "a broader military initiative aimed at ensuring American forces can continue fighting even if the civilian systems they depend on are disrupted," according to the Fox News article. The initiative was initially announced on September 30 by Pete Hegseth during a "State of the Force" speech in Quantico, Virginia. The plan, Fox laid out, "envisions portable nuclear reactors, large-scale battery storage and microgrids," but also includes plans for water, food, munitions, fuel, and "laying the groundwork for civilian factories to shift to defense production during a crisis."

RELATED: Hegseth Describes Culture Shift, New Military Projects in 'State of the Force' Speech 

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Voters in Tennessee, including Dolly Parton's sister Stella Parton, have taken to social media with complaints of malfunctioning voting machines that have defaulted to Republican candidates, sparking rumors of foul play. Local and national outlets across the political spectrum spoke with Tennessee officials about the potential user errors that have contributed to the issue.

The Details: Stella Parton wrote on Facebook, "In Tennessee last week at the Hermitage Library where I voted, I had to go back three times and correct my vote because it kept defaulting to Marsha Blackburn… Don't let them rig this election." Marsha Blackburn is the Republican candidate running for governor in Tennessee. The post received over 19.7 thousand reactions at the time of publication and sparked hundreds of comments from people who said they, or people they know, experienced something similar when voting early.

For Context: The Tennessee coordinator of elections Mark Goins said that this is a user error relating to the touch screens used to fill out the paper ballots rather than election interference. "It's not a vote flipping situation. It's normally like an unintended touch that they may not even realize," Goins said. The Davidson County Elections Administrator John Richardson told a local news channel that the county will provide voters with styluses to help prevent the touch screen issue moving forward. A Democratic lawmaker in Tennessee told the Tennessee Lookout (Lean Left bias) that while she doesn't "think it's indicative of any foul play," this is an issue that "keeps coming up and it needs to be addressed after this election, because it's not acceptable that people are having these problems."

How the Media Covered It: Outlets across the political spectrum tended to clarify the potential user error issue with the machines rather than emphasizing rumors that the election was rigged. ABC News (Lean Left) addressed challenges with voting machines on a national level, writing that issues with touchscreen machines "don't signal election rigging." ABC claimed that "election officials say the touchscreen challenges are almost always the result of user error or an easily fixed screen miscalibration and say the number of complaints this year isn't higher than it has been in years past." It addressed social media claims about difficulties with machines in Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, and other states. Forbes (Center) noted that "this isn't the first year voters have reported problems with machines changing selections" and that there are known issues with some of the older touchscreen machines, including the ones used in many parts of Tennessee. ZeroHedge (Lean Right) reported on Parton's Facebook post and included various statements from state officials denying the alleged "vote flipping situation." ZeroHedge also wrote that voter turnout in Nashville, Tennessee, is already 15 times higher than it was in the 2022 midterm.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

The Mississippi Department of Public Safety released bodycam footage from the police officers involved in the deadly shooting of one-year-old Kohen Wiley in June. The Mississippi Attorney General had previously ruled the use of force as "justified." At the time of publication, Daily Mail (Lean Right bias) was the only coverage from the right AllSides found addressing the new footage, though other right outlets did cover the "justified" ruling.

The Details: Kohen Wiley was shot and killed in a car with his mother and aunt, who were accused of shoplifting from Walmart and were fleeing in their vehicle. Newly released footage shows both store security footage and film from the officers' body cams. The video shows five officers running towards the car with guns drawn as they yelled for the driver to stop. The officers were on the right side of the vehicle as it reversed into another car in the parking lot before pulling forward and turning left. Four gunshots can be heard as the car passed by the officer.

For Context: Officers we called to the Walmart because of calls about shoplifting, though Kohen Wiley's mother nor his aunt, the other two women in the car with him, were never charged. On October 19, Breitbart (Right) reported that the Mississippi Attorney General's office announced that it found the use of force justified, and the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation said that Wiley's aunt drove towards and struck one of the officers. The officer who fired the fatal shots resigned from his position, though he was cleared of criminal wrongdoing. His lawyer said, "The driver of the vehicle was attempting to kill those 5 officers, and Hunter Foster had no choice but to discharge his weapon."

How the Media Covered It: The footage was covered more heavily by the left and center, with little-to-no coverage from the right found outside the Daily Mail. The Intercept (Left) wrote that the cop "was not in danger" when he fired the shots and claimed that the officer "positioned himself in front of the vehicle" and fired shots after the vehicle passed him and "posed no threat." BBC (Center) included Wiley's family's response that the shooting was not justified and their lawyer's statement that the allegation of shoplifting "does not warrant the death" of a child. It also noted that the Walmart security footage appears to show that one officer was near the front of the moving vehicle when the other officer opened fire.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Since President Trump's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff met with both Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and Russian President Putin last week, new reporting has emerged on both past and potential future peace plans for Ukraine.

For Context: Shortly after the Witkoff-Putin meeting ended, Zelenskyy spoke with Fox News (Right bias) host Brian Kilmeade and said he would accept freezing the conflict along the current lines of control as the first step towards diplomacy and developing a peace plan.

Latest Terms: In an opinion from The Economist (Left), the outlet claimed: "Ukrainian officials lack full details of the latest proposals, but the outline is familiar." The Economist said there would be a demilitarized zone in Donbas, US-Russia business deals, the lifting of sanctions, an investment package for Ukraine, and EU membership in exchange for abandoning its NATO ambitions. It added that the "newest sweetener" is "an offer to restart Russian gas sales to Europe," which are planned to be completely finished by the end of the year. The reported details were mentioned in commentary on X and Ukrainian media, though it remains unclear how much of the information was recently confirmed by The Economist.

Looking Forward: Putin's foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov spoke on Russian state television on Sunday, offering further updates on the status of negotiations. Hungarian Conservative (Lean Right) highlighted that he confirmed the US, Ukraine, and Russia will hold trilateral negotiations on November 4. Trilateral negotiations have long been something Ukraine has pushed for, but Putin has rejected. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy also confirmed the trilateral talks. The Washington Times (Lean Right) highlighted that Ushakov believes the European Union should play a bigger role in them than it has so far.

Failed 2023 Effort: Over the weekend, The Financial Times (Center) published a nearly 5,500-word report that chronicled the 2023 back-channel peace efforts of a few influential private citizens. The report claimed a deal was floated to Putin at the beginning of 2023 that he partially agreed to. Russia would withdraw its forces to pre-2022 lines of control, Ukraine would recognize Russian control of Crimea and grant Russia a corridor to access it from eastern Ukraine, Ukraine would get NATO defense guarantees, and Russia would open negotiations with the US on separate security guarantees. Putin reportedly told former East German spy Matthias Warnig, "If we can agree on the border and on NATO, then we can discuss everything else."

Ukrainian film producer Alexander Rodnyansky reportedly "could barely get" Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and his top adviser Andriy Yermak to look at the proposal, as they were adamant about not giving up territory. Reportedly, according to Putin, the Biden administration did not consider the backchannel legitimate and believed its own diplomatic channels with the Kremlin were sufficient. FT said "former US officials" offered a different account and said Ushakov never mentioned the backchannel in official communications. FT said that Putin's demands have since "ballooned" and that the backchannel participants "believe the US and Ukraine missed a potential opportunity to secure peace on far more favourable terms than Putin is now willing to entertain."

FT Reporting Confirmed: A few days after FT's report, Ukrainian member of parliament Oleksiy Goncharenko confirmed the peace proposal's authenticity and contents and added more context. Goncharenko said Russia would have forfeited "300 billion in frozen assets" for the reconstruction of Ukraine, Ukraine would have adopted a law that made reconquering Crimea via invasion illegal, and that Zelenskyy rejected the deal.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

A federal appeals court hearing Sunday over the Justice Department's voting lawsuit against California closed without a ruling.

The Details: The hearing was spurred by an appeal by the Trump administration claiming that a district judge did not act on the matter quickly enough to address the allegations of roughly 20,000 potential noncitizen voters on California's voter rolls. Two out of the three judges on the panel were critical of the Trump administration's emergency effort to set aside thousands of California's mail-in ballots tied to alleged noncitizens. The judges questioned the legal arguments provided by the government and whether the court has jurisdiction to make a ruling considering the Constitution's Elections Clause, which states that state legislatures have authority over the times, places and manner of congressional elections, subject to congressional regulation.

'Trickle Of Prosecutions': Outlets on the left like MS Now (Left bias) and ABC News (Lean Left) tended to highlight officials saying that a preliminary analysis of the 20,000 names showed 200 of the names having "a high percentage" of being citizens. MS Now also highlighted the recent arrests of 28 people on the 20,000-name list, saying these 28 cases "represent just over one-tenth of 1% of the 20,000 'likely noncitizens' who DHS claims are registered to vote in California." According to the article, MS Now reviewed the charging documents that have been made public, revealing that "some of the election-related charges loudly touted by DOJ officials in press conferences and on social media appear to have been quietly dropped." MS Now also compared the "trickle of prosecutions" to the nationwide numbers, saying that while the administration is "portraying noncitizen voting as a civil right epidemic," the numbers remain low.

'Already In Jeopardy': Outlets on the right like The New York Post (Right) tended to highlight the urgency behind the issue, saying that "Los Angeles' top federal prosecutor fears noncitizens could be illegally casting ballots in California as dozens of polling places opened across LA County Saturday," adding that he warns "the state could be trying to run out the clock before disputed votes are counted." The First Assistant US Attorney Bill Essayli also said it is "very highly likely" that the California elections are "already in jeopardy" as "noncitizens have already voted." According to Essayli, the "biggest fear is they're just going to try to run out the clock until all the ballots have been processed, in which case there will be nothing we'll be able to do after the election," explaining that "Once they count the ballots, there's no way to go back and undo that."

RELATED: DOJ Arrests 28 for Voter Fraud in California

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

CBS News (Lean Left bias) and the Trump administration have offered different accounts of a recent deportation involving a Malian immigrant in Texas.

60 Minutes Segment: Moussa Diawara, 57, lived in Texas for about 25 years before being deported to Ghana in July. He told CBS's 60 Minutes that shortly after arriving in Ghana, Ghanaian officials detained him and forced him onto a flight to Mali where he became homeless and was left without money or identification. According to CBS, Diawara feared persecution in Mali due to his Christian religion. It also reported that documents issued to Moussa by the Department of Homeland Security during his deportation, including luggage tags and a medical form, listed Mali as the destination.

Asylum Application: DHS countered these reports and said Moussa claimed to be gay in his asylum application and that he feared being persecuted for his sexual orientation if he was sent back to Mali. Fox News (Right) reporter, Brooke Taylor, shared Moussa's asylum application on X where he had written, "When I became teenager…I was more comfortable being intimate with boys rather than with girls" and "Since I came to the USA I had the possibilities to express my feelings to men without an embarrassment no reserve." Moussa had also written in the application that his situation had "worsened" when he switched to Christianity. The Trump administration also said that the tags were produced by contractors at the detention facility Moussa was at and the medical form's destination entry was a clerical error. 

For Context: Moussa came to the US when he was 32 on a tourist visa. He overstayed his visa and filed for asylum. In 2012, a US immigration judge ruled that Diawara could be deported but that he couldn't be sent to Mali because he'd likely face persecution. While in the US, Moussa married a woman and had two children.

How the Media Covered It: CBS often described Moussa as "a Texas dad" and framed the instance as an outcome of poor immigration policies and bad execution from the Trump administration. It quoted Moussa describing his detention in Ghana as "kidnapping" and included criticism from immigration attorneys and Democratic lawmakers. James Percival, the seventh general counsel of DHS, said Moussa's claim showed just "how bad the immigration fraud problem is." Washington Examiner (Lean Right) focused on the Trump administration's response to the 60 Minutes segment.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Several European countries, including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, and Albania, have seen demonstrations escalate into violence and vandalism for the second consecutive weekend.

For Context: Unrest has been the most intense in France, where it began in late September. Last weekend, all the previously mentioned countries saw protests turn violent. The left and right have split on diagnosing the motives behind the protests and riots. Media and commentators on the left have routinely described them as reactions to dissatisfaction with affordability and quality of life, whereas some on the right have suggested the severity of the riots is the result of poor immigration policies.

RELATED: The Insight: How France's School Protests Became a Violent and Political Spectacle | AllSides

France: According to France's interior ministry, over 1,300 were arrested, and 53 officers were hurt on Saturday. The ministry also said police responded to 75 fires and 24 shops that were looted. AFP (not rated) reported on a few protesters who were hurt. BBC News (Center bias) noted that the reported 142 arrests in Paris were "less than half" of the arrests made last Saturday. Organizers said there were over 800,000 protesters nationwide, whereas the ministry said it was 410,000. Similar to how it framed them last week, CNN (Lean Left) described the protests as "mostly peaceful."

Italy: Protesters reportedly clashed with police in Rome, Milan, Turin, Bologna, and Florence. Last week, the Italian government deployed 500 soldiers to Milan after demonstrations turned into looting and arson. Ahead of this weekend's unrest, police reportedly carried out 150 searches in Milan and 20 other cities. The New York Post (Lean Right) reported on protesters who stormed the Roman Colosseum carrying Palestinian flags. It also highlighted that soldiers in Milan were not equipped with weapons, only zip ties, according to the defense ministry.

Belgium: Protesters reportedly clashed with police in Brussels. Reuters (Center) wrote, "The clashes ​were much smaller and less violent than those that took ​place last week in Belgium."

Portugal: For the second consecutive weekend, police cleared tent encampments and made arrests in Lisbon and Porto. Portugal's protests have focused on the country's housing crisis. Police cleared about 100 tents in Lisbon, arrested 25, and reported seven minor injuries. A protester reportedly said that 60 demonstrators were hurt and called for more protests. About 50 tents were dismantled in Porto.

Spain: A total of 100 people were arrested in Barcelona on Saturday, and about 25% were minors, according to the Catalan interior ministry. It added that 34 fires were set and 14 stores were looted or vandalized. Spain's most-read paper, El País, said it obtained a report from the Spanish interior ministry that said it intercepted communications from Jihadist groups that called for attacks on police officers in Spain and Portugal.

Albania: Over 300 police and protesters were reportedly injured in Tirana – where violent unrest has gone on for a few weeks now. Albania has seen protests since the end of May, kickstarted by Jared Kushner's plan to put a luxury resort on an island near Vlorë. Many have argued, however, that the protests have been about deeper political issues. The latest bout of unrest has largely been described by mainstream media as "anti-government."

RELATED: Albanians Protest Against Jared Kushner's Luxury Island Resort Plan | AllSides

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Two former senior FBI officials have been taken into custody on charges of allegedly lying to Congress about their involvement in FBI investigations related to Hunter Biden's laptop, according to the US Department of Justice. 

The Details: FBI Director Kash Patel announced the allegations against Nikki Cole Floris, 46, and Bradley Benavides, 56, who surrendered to authorities Friday after a criminal complaint accused each of making materially false statements to the House Judiciary Committee during interviews in 2023. Prosecutors allege both testified that the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force was not involved in the Hunter Biden investigations. Patel said on X that "documentary evidence, contemporaneous communications, and witness accounts contradict their testimony."

Both face one count under a federal law prohibiting knowingly and willfully making false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. 

The Complaint: According to a DOJ press release, the charges stem from an investigation into the Foreign Influence Task Force, which was created to help protect US elections from foreign influence operations. The criminal complaint alleges Floris and Benavides falsely minimized or denied their knowledge of and involvement in FBI investigations involving Hunter Biden when questioned by congressional investigators in 2023. The DOJ alleges Floris "routinely" discussed the Hunter Biden investigations with other FBI officials over the course of more than a year. 

About The Officials: Floris and Benavides were leaders of the now-dissolved FBI Foreign Influence Task Force, or FITF, according to the DOJ press release. Floris served as a deputy assistant director from mid-2019 through mid-2022, while Benavides was the task force's section chief through the 2020 election. The case revives controversy surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop, which became a major political issue during the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election. Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement: "The weaponization of government goes against the interest of the American people, and public servants, including federal law enforcement officials, cannot lie to Congress and get away with it."

How The Media Covered It: Some media outlets on the left noted that the charges were filed less than two weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections. CNN (Lean Left bias) highlighted Republican criticism of the FBI's handling of the Hunter Biden investigation and referenced broader "deep state" narratives promoted by some conservatives. The Washington Examiner (Lean right) emphasized prosecutors' allegations that the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force was involved in Hunter Biden-related investigations and that Floris and Benavides sought to conceal that role. 

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission.

Wedgewood Polls, a supposed polling site whose findings were republished by mainstream news outlets has said its results were fabricated as part of an "experimental project."

The Statement: Wedgewood reportedly made a statement on Wednesday, after election analysis site FiftyPlusOne confronted the site with evidence that its data was fake. The firm reportedly wrote online, "How easy is it for an entirely fabricated polling firm to gain traction, be taken seriously, and expose how little scrutinization exists in media and in public commentary? The short answer: Far too easy." Wedgewood has since deleted its social media pages.

The Details: According to The New York Times (Lean Left bias), "The pollster had been releasing surveys since June, shifting from one midterm battleground to another." It's still not entirely clear who was running the site. The Washington Examiner (Lean Right) described it as "one of the biggest mysteries in Washington just weeks before the midterm elections."

FCC Statement: FCC chief Brendan Carr said, "Many journalists and broadcasters have been amplifying or airing these Polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those Polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis… The FCC takes these issues seriously… Broadcasters are advised to avoid engaging in News Distortions or running Broadcast Hoaxes by airing Polls that would violate their regulatory obligations."

In Media: Findings from the site had been aggregated or written about by mainstream outlets across the spectrum, including Nate Silver (Lean Left bias), The New York Times, Decision Desk HQ, Newsweek (Center), MS NOW (Left), The Center Square (Lean Right), and Mediaite (Lean Left). All of these outlets noted that they had previously referenced the bogus polls in their content, except for MS NOW, which, as of Thursday morning, AllSides did not find coverage from.

For Context: In August, Median Strategies, a "polling company" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass publicly referenced during her reelection campaign, shut down and admitted all of its "polls" were counterfeit. Median also said its operation was a "social experiment." After the Median story broke, an investigation from Straight Arrow News (Center) revealed "shady" circumstances around Wedgewood, including a lack of information on who ran the site. The firm told Straight Arrow it wanted to keep its dealings private.

Bias Notes: Mediaite and Newsweek, which both previously referenced the site's polls, wrote in their headlines that the site's ambition was to fool news outlets. Axios (Lean Left) and The New York Times framed it as a wider issue for political polling at large. The Washington Times (Lean Right) opened by writing that Wedgewood made the Senate race "in deep-red Mississippi" look like it was "suddenly a toss-up." Hungarian Conservative (Lean Right) wrote in its headline that Wedgewood's "polls" often boosted Democrats in "GOP states."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Conflicting reports have emerged around the restrictions placed on Starshield use in Ukraine's war against Russia.

For Context: Ukraine accused Elon Musk's SpaceX of throttling Starlink technology last week, which it said impeded both frontline operations and defense capabilities against Russian attacks. Musk refuted these claims, saying, "Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government." US officials including President Donald Trump have denied Musk's accusations.

'Mystery and Conflicting Reports': The New York Post (Right bias) highlighted "a series of reports" that "have offered conflicting explanations." According to the article, "Reuters cited sources claiming instructions came from the White House," while "a subsequent Telegraph story said Musk approached Trump with the idea and a prior WSJ report fingered Musk." Trump administration sources reportedly told the Post that "there was continued uncertainty about what happened to cause the initial slowdown, with one theory being that Ukraine may have experienced slowdowns due to using versions of Starlink, a consumer project, instead of Starshield." The Post also noted that there is "no evidence to prove that speculation." Trump also called Musk on Wednesday asking him to "fully reverse any limits to crucial internet services," and according to the coverage Starshield "has improved" but is "not yet at full functionality."

'Came As A Surprise': Some outlets on the left, like CBS News (Lean Left) and CNBC (Lean Left), highlighted a Wall Street Journal (Center) claim that it was Musk who ordered the service changes. CBS opened coverage by citing "people familiar with the matter" who said that a "decision by Elon Musk led to restrictions on Ukraine's use of SpaceX satellite communications network." According to CBS, "the temporary restrictions came as a surprise to some officials inside the administration, who said neither Mr. Trump nor the Pentagon specifically ordered any limits meant to deliberately disrupt drone operations and battlefield communications." CNBC called the service changes "Elon Musk's latest clash with Ukraine."

'I Have A Bridge In Kyiv To Sell You': Author Andrew C. McCarthy (Right) for National Review Opinion (Right) said that "Trump and 'War' Secretary Pete Hegseth figure you've forgotten, or were simply paying no attention, to their attempt to destroy Anthropic" because it risked allowing military decisions to be made by non-government employees. According to McCarthy, "The Starshield controversy presents the same situation," adding that "the implication that the administration would cede decision-making about how technology is deployed on the battlefield to Musk, an unelected tech executive, is ridiculous." McCarthy said, "If you believe Elon Musk unilaterally gave the order to impose speed restrictions in Ukraine," then "I have a bridge in Kyiv to sell you…if Putin hasn't blown it to smithereens already."

RELATED: Witkoff Meets Putin and Zelenskyy: American Prisoner Freed, Zelenskyy Open to Freezing Conflict

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Descendants of the Blackfeet chief whose likeness inspired the former Washington NFL team's logo have revived their efforts to restore the team's "Redskins" name and logo after it was retired in 2020. The story was covered primarily by outlets on the right and local news.

The Details: Descendants of Chief Two Guns White Calf are requesting a meeting with President Trump and the Washington Commanders leadership to discuss restoring the former name and logo. Estate representatives argued the imagery honored their ancestor and that the family wasn't consulted before the 2020 change. Estate lead Kenneth Conway said, "They tried to erase us, like we didn't exist anymore." The family also proposed naming Washington's planned stadium after the chief, which they say would make it the first NFL stadium named for a Native American.

For Context: Washington retired the "Redskins" name in 2020 after criticism from Native Americans, donors and other activist groups that the term was offensive to Native Americans. It adopted the Washington Commanders name in 2022. Chief Two Guns White Calf was born on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in 1872. The logo was created in 1971 by Walter "Blackie" Wetzel to honor him. The chief's family began their push to restore the name and logo in 2024, saying it represented their pride and heritage. Trump has also previously expressed support for restoring the name.

From the Right: Most of the recent coverage came from outlets on the right, including Newsmax (Right bias), Washington Examiner (Lean Right), OANN (Right), The Daily Caller (Right) and Western Journal (Right). They emphasized the family members' arguments that the logo was a source of pride and representation, and also noted they wanted to work with Trump to reinstate it. The Western Journal and OANN both attributed the name change to "left-wing activists." Sources close to the family told Washington Examiner the change happened while Commander's owner Dan Snyder "was going through a professional crisis, and that moment was used." An opinion writer in the Daily Caller argued that when "the actual Blackfeet Nation members whose family history is tied to the iconic Redskins brand stand up and say the legacy brought them pride, we should listen."

Previous Coverage: AllSides did not find recent coverage from left outlets. Their previous coverage came from 2024 and 2025 and argued Trump was the one pushing for the Commanders to change their name back despite it being offensive to Native Americans. PBS (Lean Left) had said Trump's interest "reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice." New York Times (Lean Left) said Trump "threatened to derail" a deal for the team to build a new stadium if it "didn't submit to his demand." It also wrote that Trump "claimed, without evidence, that there was 'a big clamoring'" for the reversal. The Guardian (Left) wrote Trump wanted to "force" the team to revert its name and his "quest to make the intellectual and public-service classes miserable is a cornerstone of his presidency." Reuters (Center) and The Hill (Center) had also said the idea was Trump's.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.