It’s Inauguration Day for President Trump, and our newsroom is preparing for what is sure to be an eventful four years. While our mission remains the same — to cut through the noise and explain the news — our newsroom is thoughtfully taking stock of lessons learned from Trump’s first presidency and looking toward what lies ahead.
Earlier on Monday, in an exclusive chat for Vox Members, senior editor Patrick Reis and senior reporter Christian Paz discuss how they’re thinking about news coverage in this second Trump presidency and the lessons we can learn from his first term in office.
Christian Paz
Hello Patrick! So here we are. How we feeling?
Christian Paz
Just like the desk.
Patrick Reis
Haha. With Trump allegedly promising to roll out dozens (or more!) of executive orders today, I’m flashing back to the chaos of 2015-2021 — that perpetual state of confusion. But I’m also motivated by it. Our job is to explain the news, and rarely is that more necessary than in this time period.
Christian Paz
Right, and that will be a good reminder whenever it feels like the news hits keep coming, when the zone is flooded, when we’re trying to separate noise and signal. So many of these promises that Trump has promised to keep within the first days of his presidency will surely get a lot of attention, but it’s not entirely clear that he can actually implement them beyond issuing flashy (essentially) press releases.
Patrick Reis
I think that’s so key to doing better this time. Patience. Trying to understand Trump in real time is a fool’s errand. He’ll say things that go nowhere, his team will quietly do things that are super important, and the best way to separate those out is to be patient — waiting to see what actually happens, rather than treating Trump like some kind of wizard who can instantaneously speak things into existence. Obviously, that’s tough in a business that depends on “scoops” and being first to report everything that happened. But I think at Vox, we’ll do a good job of keeping perspective.
Christian Paz
I do find it is easy to assume that wizard-like power — I was just watching a late-night show on Saturday night that poked fun at the way a lot of the press, particularly cable news, covered his first term — breaking news after breaking news, with Trump essentially functioning as an assignment editor, the person determining what news would be covered. Luckily, we won’t be doing that! You have something in the works, for example?
Patrick Reis
Funny you should mention it…
Against my better judgement, I’ve signed myself up to write a daily newsletter about the Trump administration called The Logoff that launches tomorrow. The idea is that we, in extremely short form, will tell you the most important thing the administration did that day. A very quick explainer of what you need to know, so you can keep track of what’s happening without living in an endless torrent of news alerts and doomscrolling. And as a bonus, each edition ends with something else, something non-Trump, for you to think about. A reminder that he’s not the president of your brain, and that — despite his best efforts — not everything in this world is about one person.
Christian Paz
Literally, a way to touch grass and yet be informed.
Patrick Reis
That’s the goal! Anyway, that’s a lot of me talking. What are you keeping in mind as we prepare for Trump 2.0?
Christian Paz
I’m trying to keep in mind two thoughts as I cover and think about this presidency. He and Republicans do have a mandate — particularly a cultural one — when it comes to three specific things: the southern border, and reining in both legal and illegal immigration; some hyperspecific issues of gender identity (girls sports, bathrooms); and some foreign policy issues, like the fundamental idea of “America First,” and the country turning inward.
I was just looking at polling from the weekend, and some of those policy ideas have large majority support among all American adults, but it’s kind of limited to that. Tariffs, ending birthright citizenship, ending DEI initiatives, etc. aren’t that popular. So that mandate isn’t the kind of overwhelming support that Trump and his allies are acting like they have. So it seems almost inevitable that there will be some overstepping. But separating out where and what is a legitimate threat to the nation/democracy/anti-democratic vs. just an unpopular policy that a duly elected president and government are carrying out.
Patrick Reis
Those are good thoughts. I’m very curious to see how popular some of those ideas remain as they go into practice. Almost everyone likes “securing the border,” but as we saw last time, some of the concrete steps prove incredibly unpopular.
Christian Paz
Exactly — they’re all theoretical right now! We may be at peak Trump popularity. And like, Trump is popular when he speaks in vibes.
Patrick Reis
In what was a few months and 50 million news cycles ago, you wrote a piece about mass deportations and their popularity. Namely, how the more people learn about what mass deportations might actually entail, the less supportive they become.
Christian Paz
Basically, voters are idiosyncratic, and especially on immigration, they have a lot of conflicting or contradictory opinions. There’s some theory there. And that seems to be true still. More specific immigration proposals in some recent polling on immigration and deportation show that the overall idea of “deport all illegal immigrants” is popular, but with more detail, there’s less support.
Patrick Reis
I think this story will hold up really well. And that’s a big part of what we’re aiming to do. We want to be writing stories that keep their relevance long term. But back to mandates, a personal obsession* of mine.
Christian Paz
Mandate of heaven.
Patrick Reis
I remember when Obama won massive, massive majorities in 2008, and there was some expectation around Washington that Republicans would attempt to meet him halfway — recognizing the will of the people. What happened instead was an unprecedented level of obstruction. Do Democrats have any democratic obligation to meet Trump halfway? Or, if not, a strategic imperative to? Or, for that matter, a moral imperative in either direction?
Christian Paz
Such a good q, and I think my thinking falls on the side of meeting him halfway for both democratic and strategic reasons. Dems locked themselves into an anti-Trump identity/mission immediately after 2016, and counted on that energy buoying them through the next decade. They took on the label of resistance, but without offering a competitive alternative vision in that time, I think they did just come to be viewed as obstructionists too. This time around, Dems have a chance to rebuild and offer an alternative vision, but for that to work, don’t they need some more public goodwill? To be viewed as more than just resistance. And also, if there are serious, anti-democratic threats from Trump — if he takes alarming moves that go beyond “normal” Trump politics — they’d then have more legitimacy, more credibility to speak. That was one struggle of the last four years, that there was talk of Trump as an existential threat, yet plenty of people didn’t believe them. I feel like Dems have been stuck with the “boy who cried Trump” label, and if they want to be taken seriously in the next one to four years, they’ll need to pick their battles.
Patrick Reis
I think that’s going to be a really important part of our coverage. Not everything Trump does is anti-democratic, and if you label all of it as such, you lose credibility to call him out when he really does cross the line. That said, it’s ultra-important to be clear when he does degrade democracy. Trump’s election — combined with GOP victories in Congress — have empowered them to make policy in Congress. That’s not an opinion; those are just facts. But that doesn’t give them the right to rig the system, setting up a situation in which the opposition can’t win — even if it has popular support.
As I write that, I hear a loud chorus shouting: “But it’s already rigged!!!” And I don’t want to ignore those concerns. But it’s important to be clear about what’s an attempt to seize power from the people and what’s an attempt to use the power the people have given you — for better or for worse.
Christian Paz
Totally. I think we’ve seen some signs for optimism… maybe… the Senate Republicans seem committed to the filibuster, and Senate Democrats say they want to cooperate and work with the administration. They released a slick video a few weeks ago about bipartisanship, but with the premise that there are democratic red lines that they won’t back down from.
Patrick Reis
This word you’ve used here — “optimism.” I’m not familiar.
Christian Paz
Lol optimism is defined as… this Lana Del Rey song.
Patrick Reis
I did not think we were getting through this chat without a patented Christian Paz song drop.
One thing I’m really banking on: I want to hear a lot from readers. Yell at us! Question us! Tell us what you want to know and what you want explained.
Christian Paz
Yes literally!!! Some of the best ideas or inspirations for stories I’ve had come from reader questions and emails. Also, if there are interesting reports/books/podcasts that you’ve listened to or read, and want us in conversation with, send them my way.
Patrick Reis
And if you have complaints about my newsletter, let me know, and I’ll give you Christian’s cell.
But genuinely, I think too much media depends on a classic model where journalists are a one-way mode of communication. And I think that’s how we’ve missed a lot of big trends.
Christian Paz
So true. Not me though.
Patrick Reis
Obviously. It went without saying that your record is unimpeachable.
