The second article could have referred to the cages or focused more on the inhumane conditions, but it didn't.
The cages article leads with:
The Texas warehouse where migrants were housed in chain link "cages" has been closed for humane renovations.
The second article leads with:
President Biden on Friday pledged that a shelter for young migrants in Texas “won’t stay open very long” amid bipartisan criticism over his administration's decision to reopen the facility for migrants ages 13 to 17.
It could have referred to the facility as being criticized for placing migrants in cages.
It could have been an article about inhumane conditions.
It could have expended more on the "bipartisan criticism" mentioned.
But no, the article intently cites a quote downplaying the use of the facility, that it "won't be open for very long" (like Fauci's two weeks to flatten the curve program no doubt). The article about the facility under Trump was clearly more focused on the inhumane conditions.
Alternatively, the first cages article could have been primarily focused on downplaying the situation like it did so for Biden in the second article. But no again. The cages article could have been primarily focused on the Republican response to that like the second article is primarily about the Democrat response. They did not choose to do that. They painted one article negatively and the other article in a more positive light. These are clearly biased articles.