We invited readers of The New York Times to ask about our reporting on the second Trump administration, and hundreds responded. We read every question that came in, selected those that represented some of the most common themes and then distributed them to editors and reporters responsible for our daily coverage of the administration. Here are their answers.
Changes to White House Coverage
How has covering the White House changed in the past few weeks? The executive branch, and journalism surrounding it, used to be such a well-oiled machine. How do Times journalists handle the chaos? — Cameron Hughes
You’ve no doubt heard of the president’s “flood the zone” strategy: pump out so many developments on so many fronts that journalists will be overwhelmed and unable to focus properly on any of them. Certainly this White House makes news almost constantly, seven days a week, but we have enough reporters and editors to keep track of it all and present it to our audience with, we hope, the context and analysis necessary to make sense of it and separate substance from bluster, and facts from falsehoods.
Since the election we have brought on new reporters and editors who give us additional capability. They include an expanded corps of White House reporters and a new investigative team focused on how President Trump (and Elon Musk) are upending the federal government and driving policy in new directions.
Given the sheer volume of news, we also strive to step back from the fire hose at regular intervals to try to sum up for readers what they need to know about a set of developments on a particular theme or in a specific period. For example, this piece by Luke Broadwater, one of our White House correspondents, explained how a particularly eventful stretch demonstrated how Mr. Trump was acting free of so many of the constraints that had kept him from pursuing his agenda and instincts during his first term. And The Times has a range of other formats that we use to help guide readers through the maelstrom, including our newsletters, our audio programs and our video journalism.
Hostility to the Press
A free press is more important than ever under the Trump administration. What are the major challenges you face in carrying out that mission, and how do you meet them? Do you believe you can count on the full backing of your publisher? How does The NYT resist the kind of pressure to which The Washington Post and The LA Times succumbed? — Constance Nathanson, New York, N.Y.
Will The Times be censoring its work to avoid lawsuits and/or imprisonment of their journalists? What rights do journalists have? Who protects them? — Cooper Couch, Mount Vernon, Wash.
At The Times, our most important principle is our commitment to independent reporting. That means that we don’t embrace a political party or a point of view. And it means that we will cover the new administration aggressively, fairly and comprehensively.
That commitment is shared throughout the organization, from the newest reporter all the way up to the publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, whose family has stood for independent journalism for generations.
You have probably heard about recent efforts by the White House and the Pentagon to limit access and exert more control over the press corps. We believe strongly that our readers and the broader public benefit from detailed reporting on our government’s activities. We are fighting to have as much access and visibility as we can into this administration and will resist efforts to block our access or undermine our reporting.
Journalism is a constitutionally protected activity. Right now, journalists face intense pressures, threats and harassment.
We will not be intimidated in this climate and will continue to do what our readers most rely on us for — report, without fear or favor.
Lessons From Trump’s First Term
I’m curious about what lessons Times journalists and the Times newsroom more broadly have learned from the way they covered the first Trump administration. Are there things that have changed on the level of editorial guidance? Are there any hard-won lessons for reporters? — Morgan Spector, Hillsdale, N.Y.
The main lesson is to try to separate what some would call “The Trump Show” — his ability to command attention, often by making norm-breaking or outrageous statements — from the concrete policy decisions and substantive changes in the direction of the country.
The first requires some of our attention and a lot of contextualization and fact-checking, but also the discipline not to treat everything he says and does as inherently newsworthy. The second demands rigorous, open-minded journalism that explains what the changes are, what is driving them, who wins and loses, and what the ultimate impact is on the country.
Just the first month of Mr. Trump’s second term showed how determined he is this time around not just to occupy the role of president but to drive fundamental changes while also punishing perceived enemies — developments that we will cover from multiple angles.
The Editing Process
Do reporters choose their stories, or are they assigned? How many times is a story reviewed before it is printed? Do you have different levels of reviewers? For example, if you feel you will get extra pushback from the government, is the article scrutinized more carefully? — Shari Macdonald-Miller, Vancouver, British Columbia
The New York Times produces in excess of 100 stories a day. There is no single way they come into existence. In some cases, such as a significant news event, there’s no doubt we’ll be on it. We just mobilize. Many other stories are born out of suggestions by editors, whose job it is to survey the world and look for opportunities. But a good portion of the stories we publish each day come from reporters themselves. They know their beats. They talk to sources every day. And they know the words that make every editor’s day: “I’ve found a great story.”
Now what happens when that story is filed? We give it at least two thorough edits before it is published. Particularly complex or sensitive stories will get additional eyes on them, often by senior editors who have developed expertise in various coverage areas. If a story relies on anonymous sources, it receives even more scrutiny. It is not without precedent for a single piece of journalism to be read by half a dozen editors or more. Our publishing system allows all of them to be in a story at once, offering queries off to the side. Only once all those questions are addressed, and we believe the story captures the complexities of what we are writing about, does one of us push the “publish” button.
Calling Out ‘Lies’
Why does The Times not use words such as “propaganda” or “lies” more frequently when Trump/his staff are stating known untruths? It is clear that we are in a new era of propaganda. I would ask how can The NYT take more control of the language we use to discuss this disaster instead of letting Trump set that agenda by deferring to his terminology. — Amy Burroughs, Rock Hill, S.C.
The newsroom of The Times has been reporting for years on Donald Trump’s tenuous relationship with facts. We routinely point out falsehoods, exaggerations and misstatements, making sure that we also then let readers know what’s accurate. We do that in news articles, and also in more formal fact-checks of speeches and other public events. That kind of accountability coverage, by the way, is not confined to Mr. Trump and the people in his orbit. Our obligation to the truth and to our readers means that we don’t let false information go unchecked, regardless of the topic or source.
So it’s hard to argue that The Times is not letting readers know the full reality behind what Mr. Trump says. But we are cautious about describing a statement as an intentional lie, or using our news report to effectively accuse someone of being a liar. We have robust discussions in individual cases when we think something is egregious enough or frequent enough to warrant the use of “lie,” and we have indeed used the word. But “falsehood” and “false statement” are not weak ways of assessing what Mr. Trump says.
Trust in Government Data
Now that “pauses” have been invoked across many agencies and work the government does, how will we know if government-reported data is vetted and accurate or twisted and compromised? How can The Times illuminate this? Especially as we enter possible health crises or as we attempt to verify programs’ success or failures? Obfuscation and muddy data counts can undo us. — Jane McDonough, Hillsdale, N.Y.
A core principle of data journalism is not to mindlessly trust data, no matter the source. When assessing data, we seek to understand how the data we use are collected, how they’re processed, and what parts of the real world they represent well — or not so well. We speak to experts, read what others have written about a given data set, compare data sets to one another, and use “shoe leather” reporting techniques to probe their accuracy.
The Times is keeping an eye on the quality of federal data under the new administration, given its plans to cut many government programs and overhaul others. As Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency seeks to gain access to more data systems, our reporters are asking sources about what effects this may have.
Sometimes, government data sets are so unreliable that those failings are news. As a case in point, Times journalists have reported extensively about the repeated and substantial errors in DOGE’s “wall of receipts.”
The Times has also been archiving many federal reports and data sets, so that we can compare prior versions to new ones. In addition, several external organizations, including Harvard’s Library Innovation Lab, are at work archiving federal government data sets.
Keeping Track of Trump’s Moves
Are you keeping a complete scorecard of Trump’s orders and actions, the responses to them and eventual outcomes from them? — Ron Randall, Edgewater, N.J.
In February we began a large effort to track every major move the administration is making. A team of journalists updates the page daily by reviewing the previous day’s Washington coverage, presidential actions on whitehouse.gov and Mr. Trump’s social media feeds. There have been an average of about 11 actions every day. You can filter the list to show actions in a number of different categories.
We are also keeping an eye on legal challenges to the administration’s actions. We are tracking all the lawsuits against Mr. Trump’s agenda here. We have also published a piece showing examples of Mr. Trump’s actions that defy legal limits, as well as a legal guide to the president’s moves so far.
I’d love The Times’s genius visual presentation folks to keep some sort of diagram or infographic of all the parts of our government that are being stifled, gutted, defunded or redirected. Good government is often invisible. Make the harm more visible. — Edie E., New York City
Every day, we are working to break down the changes being made to the federal government in a digestible and meaningful way.
We will be publishing more visual stories to explain the scale and impact of cuts. We started to keep a running tally of firings of federal workers. We are using a spreadsheet to track updates agency by agency and will republish the page periodically as we confirm the numbers.
We are looking at tangible impacts of the administration’s cuts. For example, one story showed how the administration’s proposal to reduce grants for universities and hospitals could discourage medical research, including in areas like cancer and infectious diseases.
Access to the Administration
Do reporters have a plan if Trump changes press briefings to limit sharing info on what he’s doing? Are the Times folks picked to ask questions as much as other big papers that are Trump fans? — Dorothy Wilson, Texas
It’s a common misconception that reporters rely heavily on White House press briefings as a source of news. While the briefings are useful in requiring the administration to face questions on the record and on camera, and sometimes do yield new information or insight, they are often an exercise in talking points.
Our reporters attend because it’s important to pose those questions, and they are called on regularly. But the vast majority of the work our journalists do takes place outside the briefing room and away from the cameras, and involves regular contact with administration officials, presidential advisers, members of Congress and other people involved in government and policy.
One way in which this administration is different from its predecessor is that President Trump himself is far more accessible to reporters than was President Joe Biden, who rarely took questions or did sit-down interviews. Mr. Trump, of course, presents a different set of challenges, starting with the need to fact-check nearly everything he says.
The Role of the Opinion Section
I realize you have fairness and impartiality foremost in mind as The New York Times. That said, what about a spinoff doing advocacy journalism? We need, we WANT to DO something. But what? And how? Simply documenting the slow-motion train wreck of democracy seems inadequate. — Henry V. Dedrick, San Antonio
The New York Times takes our commitment to independence seriously. Our newsroom pursues original, investigative and fact-based reporting without fear or favor, seeking the truth wherever it may lead, and our Opinion department elevates ideas, explores arguments and challenges assumptions to enrich and enliven public discussion. Advocacy-based groups have their own valuable missions, but our mission as an independent news organization is incompatible with full-throated activism. Open-minded inquiry is at the heart of our mission, and being activists for a cause — however worthy or urgent — would undercut our role as a trusted source of independent journalism that serves a broad cross-section of readers, listeners and viewers.
Yet Times Opinion is also unflinching in its effort to call out any institution, including the government, when our journalism surfaces illegal actions, lies, corruption and immorality. This commitment is felt regardless of who is in power. We are unflinching in Times Opinion’s mission to offer a breadth of perspectives that help people understand the forces shaping our world and to develop and challenge their own views. The columnists, editorial board, guest essays and letters to the editor, as well as Opinion’s newsletters, audio, video, graphics and design, bring trusted signature voices and strongly edited, fact-based commentary to the major questions of the day — on democracy, war, technology, climate, the way we live now. We do this while not explicitly advocating on behalf of any specific group or people on an institutional level. We let the work speak for itself.
Immigration Raids
I’m wondering if you are closely following what’s happening locally with raids on immigrants. — Heather Ash, Decatur, Ga.
We spend a lot of time searching for clues in places such as police reports and social media platforms, and we frequently call people who are in a position to know whether raids are happening, such as immigrants themselves and their neighbors. These sources can also include members of law enforcement, immigration lawyers or advocates for immigrant communities. Our newsroom also pays for services that help us detect emergencies such as mass arrests or spikes in law enforcement activity.
As you can imagine, we encounter a lot of false alarms and misinformation. Many of the posts we see online about raids lack context and crucial information such as the size of groups that are detained and deported. And what some observers have described as raids have turned out to be routine, small-scale arrests.
Once we have a solid lead about a potential raid, we go to people with direct knowledge to confirm whether the information is accurate or not.
In New York City, which has the largest immigrant population in the country, there has been no credible proof of any large-scale immigrant detentions other than a highly publicized crackdown in late January that yielded 39 arrests. Even so, many immigrants tell us that they are terrified about being caught in a dragnet, especially in heavily Latino communities. And legal aid groups are ramping up efforts to inform immigrants of their rights.
Environmental Coverage
What connections/relationships do you have with trusted/respected scientists and others who can speak to the impact of Trump’s environmental policy changes? — Valerie Beeman, San Francisco Bay Area
For decades scientists have driven the global conversation about climate change and what to do about it, which is why their expertise has long informed The Times’s climate and environmental coverage. Researchers do not lock themselves away in ivory towers, as people sometimes imagine. Many of them actively follow policy changes and try to inform the public, in a timely way, about what they mean for our planet. My fellow climate reporters and I constantly talk to researchers and infuse their findings into our coverage.
How do we decide which experts to speak with? Science, unlike many human endeavors, is largely conducted out in the open: Researchers publish their results for everyone to see and scrutinize. As a climate science reporter, I spend a lot of time keeping up with scholarly journals. I read new studies, each of which has a bibliography that leads me to more studies. By perusing the academic literature, you can get a pretty good sense of which scientists are influential in their field, who has made interesting discoveries and who’s well respected by their peers.
Something else that helps us make sure we’re talking to credible researchers: The top science journals generally require the authors of every study to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
Effects of Tariffs
Will you please run articles which plainly explain how tariffs affect prices and pocketbooks of consumers? It would be nice if these articles could be read by people who aren’t economists or tax professionals. — Mary Moore, Maryland
President Trump’s tariffs are a complex subject, and our journalists strive to explain their ramifications in ways that readers can understand. A good place to start is our graphical explainer on how tariffs work. We also broke down the automotive supply chain to illustrate how multiple countries contribute to the production of a single vehicle.
Rebecca F. Elliott, a reporter who covers energy, visited the largest oil refinery in the Midwest, which depends on heavy crude from Canada. It could be forced by tariffs to cut back its production of gasoline and airplane fuel, which could lead to an increase in prices. Another one of our reporters talked to small-business owners who warned that tariffs on Chinese-made goods would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
We have reported that the economy is already starting to show signs of strain, as the fear of trade wars combines with federal funding freezes and mass firings to sour consumer sentiment and stall business investment. Some readers told us they were already stockpiling goods for fear of rising prices. Overall, polling suggests a mixed view of tariffs among Americans.
Ronda Kaysen, one of our real estate reporters, talked to developers who said the tariff threat had created instability in the price of materials, which could drive up housing costs. Even the price of happy hour could be affected: A reporter in Brussels, Jeanna Smialek, described a long-running game of tit-for-tat tariffs on spirits between the European Union and the United States.
The president has argued that this turmoil will pay off in the long run. On “The Daily” podcast, our economics reporter Ana Swanson interviewed Mr. Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, who believes tariffs will usher in a new age of American prosperity. Ms. Swanson also wrote about Mr. Trump’s ambition to strike a wide-ranging trade deal with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, that would result in more American exports to China.
To better understand the big picture on Mr. Trump’s tariffs, you should also read this analysis by our global economics reporter, Peter S. Goodman.
Trump on the Home Page
Please find a way to isolate Trump news to its own category or page so us subscribers don’t have to be exposed as much as he would like. Trump plays the press like a fiddle. I, like many, have to limit my intake to keep sane and have terminated subscriptions to do so. I’m still keeping NYT’s for now but would like to see more effort from The Times not to play into his hands so much. — C.M. Houska, Bend, Ore.
The top of our home screen reflects the stories The Times believes are the most important. Our newsroom leadership team — referred to as the masthead — discusses each day’s priorities with other editors from across the newsroom, and these days President Trump typically dominates those conversations. The Times is committed to covering all aspects of Mr. Trump and his administration, and we aim not just to recount the news but also to provide analysis and context to help readers understand what it all means.
We think about packaging Trump stories thematically on our home screen — you might see a group of stories about his economic moves, a collection about his foreign policy and another about deconstructing the federal government. We try to keep those packages tight. If you want to read every word, you can dive in; if you’d rather read about something else, you can scroll past.
We program our home screen with a wide selection of stories and visuals to appeal to all types of readers. We always offer news from around the world and around the country; stories that engage readers on a variety of topics, like The Great Read; journalism that helps you live a better life, like our Well coverage; or pieces that offer specific guidance, like recipes or shopping advice. And in the app, we have even more room to showcase the breadth of our journalism. A ribbon across the top lets you scroll to find lifestyle coverage, sports, opinion pieces and more.
We are always looking for the best balance and mix for the home screen and thinking about the best ways to get our journalism in front of readers.
Public Reaction to Trump
How are you reporting on the consequences of Trump’s decisions? For example, freezing federal grants could harm communities that rely on them. Hearing directly from those affected would provide valuable insight. In particular, interviews with Trump supporters who are directly impacted by his policies could be especially compelling. It would shed light on their perspectives and whether their views on his administration shift as a result. — Eran Basis, Rochelle Park, N.J.
I would like to hear from people who agree with Trump’s decisions also, and why. We all crave media that tells the objective truth about the issues instead of telling only negative reports about the decisions they personally disagree with, or positive reports about the decisions they agree with. We crave the truth! — Christine McCurdy, Mount Rainier, Wash.
The Times has made it a priority to put reporters on the ground, talking to Americans about President Trump’s actions and how their local communities are being affected.
Kellen Browning, one of our political reporters, found guarded optimism among Trump supporters in one Arizona swing district. We sought out the opinions of Black voters and asked people what they think of Elon Musk. Another reporter attended a town-hall meeting in rural Texas where a Republican member of Congress was confronted by angry constituents.
We met government workers and federal contractors struggling to pay their bills after being abruptly laid off, and interviewed dozens of American farmers about how funding freezes have affected their businesses.
Eduardo Medina and Emily Cochrane, two of our reporters who cover the South, found both anxiety and optimism in Huntsville, Ala., about the future of the city’s aerospace industry, which depends heavily on federal funding and workers.
We ran the numbers on how proposed reductions in funding for medical research would hit colleges and hospitals in every state and reported on concerns that the country will be more exposed to catastrophic wildfires and other natural disasters after layoffs at the U.S. Forest Service and the virtual elimination of an office that coordinates disaster recovery efforts.
Our reporters continue to seek out views from a diverse array of Americans and explore the effects of a dizzying series of policy changes emerging from the administration.
Threats to Reporters
How do journalists feel about their job security and fear of retaliation when reporting on the Trump administration? As we have seen the president retaliate against people that he’s identified as those who have crossed him. How do journalists handle death threats, and how often have they received them for specifically writing about Trump? — E. Sykes, Seattle
The profession of journalism always comes with risk. Reporting is done best when journalists move within the cultures they’re covering and talk directly to people with lived experiences and firsthand knowledge of events, wherever that might be in the world. Perfect security would mean not being able to do any of these things.
But clearly, risks increase as reporters and their news outlets are more prominent, more out in the world and engaging with people who have hostility or resistance to independent media.
Unfortunately, Times reporters covering politics and government do face threats from time to time. This includes online harassment, threatening and hateful letters and emails, physical intimidation while in the field reporting and, in rare cases, more serious threats.
Our security and legal teams are among the best in the industry — skilled groups of professionals who ensure that our journalists can be at the forward edge of coverage and that our journalism is published with confidence and surety. Threats against journalists are concerning, and our company strives to show the value of independent journalism for the good of society. Despite escalating anti-press rhetoric in the country, our reporters tell us they have confidence and zero hesitation in the work that they do.
Paying for News
Does The Times have some kind of strategy for making Trump-related news available to people who do not subscribe? Many people probably can’t afford The New York Times and aren’t able to access the valuable information here as a result. They only access free “news” outlets and social media sites that are full of misinformation and propaganda.
Subscribers make our journalism possible. Our newsroom sends journalists to report on the ground from 160 countries. Independent and original reporting is expensive to produce. For example, we provide protection for reporters in war zones and other physical and digital security measures for our journalists, as my colleague Jason Reich shared in the previous answer. We currently have the largest team we’ve ever had covering the new administration. We couldn’t do this without subscriptions, which make up a majority of The Times’s revenue.
That said, our news reporting is viewed tens of millions of times each week, and we make a significant amount of our journalism available to anyone not ready or able to subscribe. Our home page, The Morning email newsletter and “The Daily” podcast deliver headlines and daily summaries to anyone at no cost.
Editing Trump’s Quotes
Are quotes by the president printed as presented or are they edited, as some have claimed The Times does? Please quote exactly as stated and then offer analysis/paraphrasing if the quote requires further explanation. — Connie Guglielmo, San Francisco Bay Area
The Times has clear rules about quotations. We believe that readers have a right to assume that every word between quotation marks is what the speaker said. We don’t “clean up” quotations. If a statement is hard to follow, we recommend paraphrasing it for the sake of clarity.
When the president — or anyone else — says something confusing, it’s our job to press for an explanation. When we can’t get clarity on deadline, we should share what we know and don’t know in the coverage.
There are cases where the very confusing wording is part of the story. Perhaps it is a social post by the president. Our stylebook instructs reporters and editors to render such material faithfully. We want readers to see that language just as they would find it on social platforms like X or Truth Social.
There are times when we impose our style rules on spoken quotes and statements. For example, we abbreviate state names after cities and use the dollar sign ($) for references to money instead of the word “dollars.” The idea is to provide consistency for readers.
If we learn that we quoted someone or something inaccurately, we will fix the passage and append a correction to the article.
President Trump or Mr. Trump?
Why do you keep referring to the president as “Mr. Trump” instead of President Trump? The Times has not done this with previous sitting presidents.
We get this accusation every time the White House changes hands, but it is simply not true. The Times has referred to the president in the same way dating back at least to Abraham Lincoln. He is always President Trump the first time he is mentioned in an article. On subsequent references, to avoid repetition, reporters may also use “the president” or “Mr. Trump.” This was the case for Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton …
The “courtesy title,” as we call it — Mr., Ms., Mrs., Dr. — is used throughout The Times, with some exceptions, including coverage of culture and sports and publications like The New York Times Magazine.
The post You Asked, We Answered: How The Times Is Reporting on the Trump Administration appeared first on New York Times.
