Paco Alvarez: Trump has laid out an ambitious agenda for a second term, including restrictions on abortion pills, the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants, pardons for January 6th rioters, and the upending of environmental regulations. He has said, “I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
So let’s start with you, Adam, what should we be on the lookout for when it comes to Trump and the environment? What will his presidency mean for the climate and public lands?
Adam Federman: Well, it’s hard to know where to start, honestly, because I think they’re going to take a meat cleaver to essentially everything that the Biden administration tried to accomplish on climate and protection of public lands. In some ways, we probably know more about the Trump administration’s approach to energy and environment than we do other areas, perhaps with the exception of immigration. I mean, they’re going to pull out the same script that they used during his first term, which is to cut and slash regulations across the board, both at the EPA and the Department of the Interior, which manages public lands and regulates oil and gas drilling across the American West. So I think we’re going to see an attempt to maximize industrial development anywhere and everywhere, whether it’s mining, oil and gas development, etc. There’ll be some curtailing of renewable energy development most likely, in particular wind. But for the climate, how to put it, it’s kind of a catastrophic moment to be ignoring the impact of climate change, and that’s exactly what we’re going to see.
Alvarez: You’ve also written about Greenland’s strategic importance to US geopolitical interests. At a press conference, I guess this was last week, Trump said he would not rule out using military force or economic coercion to assert control over Greenland. What’s going on there?
Federman: Well, in some ways, it links back to the kind of omnivorous appetite to consume and develop resources in the United States and around the world. I mean, I’ve argued that U.S. policy in Greenland is largely being driven by its natural resources, its minerals, rare earth metals and critical minerals that the United States is trying to develop and create sort of its own supply chain to compete with China. I mean, I think Trump and sort of the MAGA world ambitions to create an expansionist foreign policy is something that is newly emerging. And we don’t entirely know where it’s headed, including in the case of Greenland. I think obviously his comments about potentially using military force or economic coercion to force Greenland to kind of come into the U.S. orbit is deeply disturbing and probably an attempt to sort of leverage U.S. power to get what it wants from Greenland. But, you know, as with so much of what Trump says, we really don’t know what the end game is, both in Greenland and the Western Hemisphere at large. Obviously, he’s made comments about taking back the Panama Canal and annexing Canada, which are obviously absurd on their face, but there is something deeper to these moves that they’re making.
Alvarez: Tanvi, immigration is obviously going to be a major issue in the coming months and years. What sorts of things are you looking at when it comes to the second Trump administration?
Tanvi Misra: Yeah, I mean, we have seen already immigration was sort of a central talking point in his campaign, in his first campaign, and was certainly, I would argue, one of the arenas where in his first term, Trump was really able to make a dent. I expect that to be the case this time as well. I feel like obviously there’s a lot of attention around mass deportations. But I think one of the one of the things that I’d be watching out for is the logistics of how that might actually take place. One of the things in this term, that’s not so much that I doubt in any way or capacity sort of the intent to implement that, is that I doubt that the resources and logistics will actually lend themselves to make that an easy or even feasible feat. And so I think what I’m there’s a couple of theories that, you know, people who’ve been observing sort of immigration, experts and observers have been looking at. And one of them is, so given that this is so important to his optics and his messaging, how is this going to play out? Would it be the case that there are some high profile raids especially in blue cities and blue states, and then, you know, that’s sort of used as a way and spun in a way to kind of message to his base that this is going on. I don’t doubt that this is going to lead to – there are still going to be more raids that are going to lead to more deportations. But I just think the scale of what he promises and what he might be able to implement is something I’m watching out for, like what the difference in that might be.
And I think that also translates to a number of other other aspects of what he has promised or what, you know, he’s sort of – I hate the cliche, but the devil is really in the details when it comes to immigration policy. And there’s a lot of things that he throws around that are for the purposes of messaging and sort of putting forth a certain type of persona and a certain type of like optics. And whether those things are actually possible or feasible, it really comes down to how they’re going to be implemented. They could be, in many cases, extremely detrimental. And I don’t doubt that there’ll be a huge, wide variety of things where he’s going to be able to do that. But that sort of one big caveat is, you know, I feel like Trump says a certain thing and he’ll say something really bombastic and people get really scared around it. The whole idea is to spread fear. And my goal as an immigration reporter is going to be how to really hone in and be able to translate how those policies are going to actually come about and be implemented. Every single regulation and how that’s going to be worded.
And, you know, the second reason for that is not just the feasibility, but those are where the lawsuits are going to be. That’s where they were last time as well. A lot of what he was able to do, you know, or the things that he was not able to accomplish, let’s say those things, the impediments excuse me, the impediments actually were in the way that those policies were phrased and how some of them are really not very well drafted. They were rushed out. And so a lot of the lawsuits, for example, cited the Administrative Procedures Act. So this is like it’s basically a due process argument that these procedures were not rolled out in the right manner as opposed to like the effect of those procedures or whatever regulations or policies. So that’s what he really was held back by courts in the last term. And I’m thinking his administration is going to be better prepared for that this time. But those details are really where the lawsuits may or may not be. So that’s another reason I’m sort of looking at or going to keep a close eye on how some of these things are going to be framed.
Alvarez: Kathryn, you’ve reported extensively on conservative movements. How are you thinking about Trump’s second term and how it fits into the broader evolution of the far right? Where do you see things heading?
Kathryn Joyce: Nowhere good. I kind of echo Adam with where to start, because I think so much of what was promised/threatened throughout the campaign is really terrifying for those of us who care about lots and lots of things, whether it’s, you know, immigrants rights or women’s rights or LGBTQ people’s rights or education.
Where to start? I guess I’ll start with education because that’s what I’ve been reporting on most recently, is kind of how some of the attacks on higher education as well as K-12 education are kind of spreading from state to state, you know, with one state after another kind of trying to one up what the Republican governor or legislature did in that state. And now all of that stuff is about to get really supercharged under Trump. The things that have been laid out in Project 2025, which as soon as the election was over, Trump and all of his supporters were like, yeah, just kidding, this is our agenda after all. We said it wasn’t, we said we had nothing to do with it. But actually, this is the plan. It’s a pretty frightening plan. It’s an effort to completely undermine and really like extensively overhaul kind of the governance and the structure of of higher ed in this country, doing everything from getting rid of the Department of Education to upending the accreditation system, which is how we basically know which colleges and universities are not a Trump University, but are something that you would want to go to or send your kids to. There have been these threats to tax or sue or find colleges and universities up to like a third of their endowment, so just seizing all of these like millions and millions of dollars, often donated know by by alums that are meant to help students to do things for the school and to seize those and redirect those into an online Trump University, that’s going to be an anti-woke university.
It’s things like that. Something that I had the pleasure of getting to work with Adam on his excellent reporting for us In These Times, as well as for Type on the assault on the right to protest is something that’s also going to intersect with higher ed as well in terms of, you know, just continuing crackdowns on the right to protest on college campuses and and also, you know, elsewhere through throughout the country, not just at schools. I think notably we’re talking the day after Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearings. And, you know, this is somebody who has argued for using military force against protesters. So I don’t know. It’s not like the sky is the limit, it’s like the crater is the limit. It’s just going to keep going down.
Alvarez: Yeah, I guess I’m curious. What do you see as the current relationship between Trump and the conservative movement on the ground? Compared to something maybe his first term. Like, is he more open to doing these more extreme things or is there going to be some kind of tempering force?
Joyce: I don’t think that there’s going to be a lot of temper him anymore. Project 2025 is just kind of one of a number of like really radical, you know, sets of agendas that are out there. But it’s a big one so we can talk about that again. I mean, a part of that, besides the written plan, you know, was lining up thousands of true believers to step into all of the roles in government. I mean, to the extent that they felt that the deep state, the administrative state, hampered Trump’s agenda the first time around, they want to make sure that that doesn’t happen. So I think, you know, he’s going to be surrounded by lots more true believers and toadies than he was the first time around. And I also think there’s a lot more kind of MAGA leaders of their own accord, a lot more people who even independent of Trump are representative of lots of far right ideas that are, you know, they have amassed their own power, not just as they’re connected to Trump. They are pushing him in new and more radical ideas., I think one of the most distressing things is, is probably seeing the number of tech and social media mega leaders who are just lining up behind him. You know, I think we heard yesterday that a number of them are going to be sitting on stage with him during the inauguration. I think there’s like no brakes, it feels like.
Federman: I mean, I would agree completely. The guardrails are off. And I do think that the desire to both surround Trump with loyalists by creating a kind of new classification of employment within the civil service that would allow the administration to essentially fire long serving bureaucrats is something that they’ve wanted to achieve for a very long time, and now they’re going to have the opportunity to do it. And we really don’t know how this is going to play out. I am in touch with a number of employees at the Department of the Interior who are absolutely terrified about what’s coming. And, you know, I have a lot of questions about. How these agencies are going to function. One, and I know that part of the idea is to destroy them, of course. But what does that mean for public lands, for example? What does that mean for regulation of industries? What does it mean for our drinking water and our air? I mean, these are serious, serious questions. And, I think, unfortunately, we’re going to find out the hard way what that means for the American people. And you know what are common public resources.
Alvarez: Yeah, I guess, looking back at his first term, I’m curious what it was like reporting on these issues during that first administration. And if you anticipate things changing now during the second term.
Federman: I do think things will be very different. I mean, the first couple of years were defined by chaos and incompetence, which I think opened a lot of doors for both for journalists to investigate the corruption and the tomfoolery, for lack of a better word. I mean, you had folks like Ryan Zinke here at DOI who got into all kinds of ethical quagmires that distracted the administration from actually doing what it wanted to do. So I think in a weird way, it prevented them from doing some of the worst possible damage that they could have done. And contrast that with who he is nominated this time. Doug Burgum, a North Dakota governor, very sort of mild mannered. I think he’s going to be much more effective and efficient and it’s going to be easier for them to dust off all of the policies and proposals and environmental impact statements that they rammed through the first time around. Now, I know that doesn’t capture the full spectrum of people he’s put in positions of power. There are a lot of folks who are going to, you know, cause sideshows and there’s going to be chaos and corruption and all the rest. But I do think when it comes to energy and the environment, that they’re not going to waste any time and it will be a different story in that regard.
Joyce: So I’ll add to that a little bit. I mean, I think we’ll see the same trends in other sectors as well. In terms of education, both K-12 and higher ed — I think what Adam said, we’re going to see some of the things that Trump started to move towards or put in place towards the end of his first administration.
I don’t know if you remember this totally clownish 1776 Commission that he threw together, I believe, in [November] 2020. And it came out with, you know, a report in January 2021, a couple of weeks after the riot at the U.S. Capitol. And this was this idea that we are going to respond to things like The New York Times 1619 project and other aspects of, I hate the word but so-called “woke education” by putting together this commission of, you know, pretty much all right wing activists who are going to say this is what patriotic education should look like. And, you know, they threw that together. It came out right around Joe Biden’s inauguration. And one of the first things that Biden did was say like, okay, this commission is closed. But all of those people have gone on to do other things in the last four years, continuing to move those ideas forward. I mean, for one, the report from the 1776 Commission ended up being turned into a K to 12 curriculum from the very far right Hillsdale College, which they then offered freely across the country to their network of charter schools and anybody else who would like to use it. I think we’re going to see moves towards privileging things like that in some way or another, whether at the federal level or certainly at the state level, because we’ve already been seeing that in the last four years. I think we’re going to see some of the people who are involved in things like that show up in various ways. Maybe they’re going to get appointed to new committees. Maybe they’re going to get tasked with how do we purge any remaining diversity programs from either colleges and universities or the rest of the education system? Certainly, I imagine we will see folks like Chris Rufo or other Manhattan Institute and the American Enterprise Institute and the whole other kind of right wing think tank industry come and testify on behalf of programs to do everything from requiring that you no vouchers be allowed to go to religious schools as a matter of kind of equality and civil rights to shutting down anything that is meant to enforce any other kinds of civil rights that that students are entitled to.
So, yeah, I think we’re going to continue to see that and we’re going to just see, I think, a lot more kind of enforced religiosity in education as well as so many other spheres. I mean, the fact that Pete Hegseth has kind of been already pitched on this idea that you can use the Department of Defense to open up federal funding for religious education, at least within the sphere of K-12 education that is, you know, coming under military budgets, that being represented as a model that other states will be able to follow. I think there’s going to be a lot of stuff like that.
Misra: I do think the challenge is really going to be the volume as it was the last time. And this time, I think what is really significant is that, you know, there’s a supermajority [in the Supreme Court]. And so the volume of things coming down the pipeline is going to be, I think, challenging for all immigration reporters and anyone who’s really interested in immigration to keep track, to be able to translate the impact and the meaning of these policies. You know, as we’ve seen, one of my sources said this one time, but there’s a lot of administrative violence when it comes to immigration policy. And what he meant by that was that there is a lot of injustice that is shrouded in the jargon and the legalese, sort of the density of these policies and how difficult they can be to pass. And I think that’s with the volume of everything coming now. And that’s going to be really difficult for every one of us to go through all of those policies to be able to, you know, make sure we’re getting it right and also being able to translate them. So that’s another thing that I’m thinking of in terms of specific themes.
I think a big theme that became, you know, sort of a big theme in the last administration, I think is going to be big in this one as well under this second term is the sanctuary cities issue. Already, Tom Homan has suggested that they’re going to try to, you know, get those cities in line for not affirmatively helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement, find and deport people or help notify ICE when someone’s, for example, released from jail. And that gets into this really murky territory, like a federalism argument, where the last time whenever they tried to do this by withholding certain federal grants and it was immediately held up in court and it just went through this like back and forth and got, you know, basically to the end of that term. So I think that gets into a really, really interesting for me, but also an issue of federalism, the states versus how much federal government can do and how that sort of tussle between them and then also between states and cities. You know, we’re going to be seeing blues blue cities or more liberal cities try to push back against certain state policies. And that’s going to be really interesting. So I think that, you know, that tension between those different levels of government has always been really, really prominent when it comes to immigration policy and immigration law. And I think we’re going to see that really become acute again.
I guess the one other thing I would say, and it’s sort of related to my point about sort of administrative violence is a lot of the ways in which when it came to refugee processing, for example, that under the last in the first term, in the first Trump term, the damage was really done by dismantling the infrastructure for refugee processing. We saw the Muslim ban. We saw all of these other sort of more abrupt and kind of, you know, sensational declarations and change of policies. We saw Title 42 when the pandemic hit. But while those things were true and there are going to be those like sensational, like, you know, bans and stops this time around as well, I think some of the longer lasting damage was also done was invisible and was done by, you know, sort of pulling back funding, like halting and like just clogging up processing pipelines. But even when it comes to legal immigration. And so those were the ways in which the consulate systems were completely like they came to a standstill. So there was no visa processing abroad for a while. Part of that was pandemic. But, you know, there’s all of these ways that were invisible to the public that were not so well publicized in which the infrastructure of actually processing legal immigrants was completely debilitated. And I think that’s another thing that I’m going to be watching out for, because, again, that’s really where, you know, that kind of goes under the radar and that’s some of the most long lasting damage that’s done to the system.
Alvarez: One thing that’s been noticeable is that Trump has already taken a much more aggressive stance when it comes to the media. How concerning is that to you all, and are there ways in which you think reporters and news organizations will need to prepare or adapt?
Misra: Yeah, the short answer is yes. I think we saw in the last Trump term, I forget who broke the story, but border reporters, reporters who went back and forth across the US-Mexico border were put on this list that was being surveilled. It was a DHS program and they were looking and there were lawsuits after that because obviously that is egregious. But that kind of, I think, surveillance of reporters and who are going to be covering immigration specifically, although, of course, I’m not just talking about immigration. I think I’m talking about a host of different topics where there’s accountability, focused coverage. But I think what we saw specifically for immigration reporters who were either border reporters or, you know, who are basically crossing the border a bunch of times in order to do their work, were being surveilled and were being, you know, sort of singled out and targeted by DHS in the last under the last Trump administration. So I remember that very acutely and I think it was also you know the more if you have an institutional backing that’s helpful that’s something that’s protective. But a lot of the people, if I’m remembering correctly on that list, were freelance reporters. So I think there’s certainly I mean, I’m always kind of come to expect the worst scenario person. So I do think that there are ways in which we can all prepare. One of the things that I’m working on with The National Writers Union is, we just announced a webinar for freelance journalist specifically to look at like digital safety, legal retribution, you know, like defamation cases and things like that. Any kind of indemnity that may come from being retaliated against by the government for just doing your job and, you know, sort of physical safety. I think with protest, we’ve already seen so much targeting of journalists who are covering protests. It doesn’t matter if you’re a freelance journalist or you know what you’re covering. I just think that’s good practice to look at those things and shore up your defenses. But I do think that for people covering immigration and particularly, especially anyone who’s going to be traveling to or across the border or lives near the border, I mean, that’s already that’s something that, you know, I think they would be more at risk.
Joyce: I would certainly be doing something very, very different from what The Washington Post has been doing or ABC News. And just this abject capitulation that they have been involved in or kind of the L.A. Times leadership. And that’s, you know, of course, not to besmirch the good reporters at any of those institutions. But the leadership has just completely collapsed in the face of threats to go after the media that right now don’t even have any teeth. I think that preemptive compliance is one of the most discouraging things that we’ve been seeing in my view, when it comes to media, education, social media, so many other things.
Federman: I think it’s also worth pointing out that, at least in my opinion, the media is in a much weaker position today than it was when Trump first took office. And we’ve seen, you know, massive layoffs at a lot of publications that were doing important investigative work, important investigative reporting, and they’re no longer there. It’s harder for a freelance journalist to find outlets that are going to invest in the kind of reporting that needs to be done. And I think that we will see a much more deliberate effort by the Trump administration to use the full powers of the state to squeeze or, in sort of the worst case scenario, potentially go after or shut down media organizations that are nonprofits and that they may try to sort of insinuate have some ties to state sponsored terrorism. You know, the House has already passed a bill that effectively adopts that sort of language regarding nonprofits. So, yeah, I think, you know, echoing what Kat already said, that the landscape is certainly no stronger than it was. And quite frankly, the media and certainly the larger media organizations have not figured out how to effectively report on or cover Trump and his allies.
Joyce: Also, the social media landscape feels so much worse than it did, you know, this time eight years ago. I mean, obviously, Twitter/X – Elon Musk is pumping falsehoods 24/7. It seems Facebook/Meta has just made this recent announcement that they’re doing away with their fact checking programs and also even some kind of automated, you know, algorithmic things, very technical here that would stop, you know, some form of kind of extreme disinformation from going viral. Like they’re just kind of very willingly taking the breaks off a lot of these different things. So I feel like we’re going to be in even more of an environment where it’s going to be tough for real, legitimate reporting to break through. And it’s going to be swamped with so much bullshit in so many different regards. And I don’t know in the face of that, it’s hard to say just like that’s even more reason that we need to kind of double down and do the best work we can. I mean, that feels sort of hollow, even though, you know. I know that’s true. You know. There. There does need to be a. A factual record of, you know, this time period that we’re going into that can contend with and hopefully outlast just the vast amounts of utter lies that are going to be spread about what’s going on. I don’t know if I have more hopeful words than that.
Alvarez: What advice would you give to other journalists who are reporting on Trump or on beats that stand to be in the spotlight over the next four years?
Misra: I think my one main advice or one sort of glaring advice, something that I have critiqued many times with immigration coverage in particular, but I’m sure can be extrapolated to other beats as well, especially politicized and contentious beats – I’m thinking like reproductive justice, environment, all of these other beats, I think we need to do a better job of not taking our cues from either the Republicans or the Democrats. I think we need to go beyond asking questions from – asking tough questions doesn’t mean asking questions from the perspective of whoever is the opposing party. Right. Like that is not that’s not what we should be doing. I think we should be asking tough questions that really dig into the premise of what is being discussed.
And I think I’ll give a very specific example. I think with immigration, you know, a lot of the questions that like, let’s say Kamala Harris was getting during her campaigning pre-election were about like, why didn’t you stop immigration? Why did it take so long? You know, and I know what those reporters were thinking. I think the idea was, how can we look, you know, sort of put ourselves in the opposition’s shoes and ask the questions that they would want to ask. But I think we should challenge ourselves further instead of giving into – because then we understand we sort of end up being really restricted by a set premise and we don’t actually ever go beyond it and get to what is the truth. And instead we’re just kind of playing volleyball between two parties – they have their own agendas and their agendas and, you know, the realities that they are the talking points that they are putting out may not actually align with the truths that we are supposed to be getting out as journalists. So I think with that, I would I would have really loved, for example, again, going back to that example is why don’t we ask why the Democratic Party is, let’s say, accepting those same premises? For the longest time, the Democrats have also, you know, taken for granted that deterrence is a valid and good policy. Deterrence, as in making things so bad for immigrants that they’ll choose not to come here. That policy has not worked. That paradigm has not worked. And we have evidence to prove that. So why aren’t we asking those questions that dig into, you know, so that we can actually come to solutions, political solutions, and we can educate the voting public, the the public to understand that there are you know, there are more choices than the ones that these two parties are putting out, for example.
So just to kind of summarize, I think my advice would be for journalists on any of these beats would be do not take our cues from either party and dig into the premise or the framework of the discourse or the debate. So actually go and raise questions about things that everyone is taking for granted, like why migration happens and you know, whether or not it can be stopped for one, and whether it is always a bad thing. Like all of these things that both parties at this point are assuming as truth. Why don’t we dig into those talking points?
Federman: I mean, the first thing I would say is to cultivate sources within the agencies that you report on and care about. I mean, there are people in these agencies who are going to withstand, you know, the Trump administration who are going to be around. And I do think that I mean, it sounds almost prosaic, kind of obvious, but if we are going to report on and document what’s happening, we’re going to have to cultivate and protect those sources and make sure that we’re getting the sort of inside scoop. I mean, we were able to do that during Trump’s first term. And I think that that I think. You know, on some of the stuff that I reported on related to opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development and other shenanigans that were taking place at the Department of the Interior, getting that information out in real time and having those documents in hand, it mattered and it impacted policy. And it opened up the eyes of lawmakers and people who could hold the administration accountable in some fashion. And I do think we have to remind ourselves that, yes, he has a majority in the Senate and the House, but it’s a very narrow one. So we still have a functioning government with a separation of powers. And I think that journalists have to work hard to get that information to the people who need it. Four years may seem like a long time, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s really not so. I mean, that’s my aim is to and that would be my advice to other journalists is just do the hard work now and hopefully it makes a difference.
Joyce: I really like that. It also I’d say that coming from a perspective of having reported on the movement right for a long time, there’s a lot that you can learn from internal divisions within the right. And those divisions are real and they’re deep. They tell us things about where different factions of this movement are coming from, you know, where kind of the points of disagreement are. I mean, we’ve already seen some of these kind of periodically explode into prominence and then kind of get squashed back down a little bit in the popular kind of discourse. But it’s worth paying attention to. Like the right is not a monolith. It is messy. It seems often most kind of cohesive when it’s, you know, banded together to to fight in an election. But, you know, now that they have won so much power, you know, you can already see them kind of turning on themselves. And I don’t think you know, I think we can observe that without taking kind of false comfort in the idea that they are just going to magically self-destruct. But it helps highlight internal inconsistencies that are useful things to bring up and kind of plumb and investigate and to think through and expose. So I think that that is one thing in terms of story generation, in terms of adding depth to, you know, reporting that you’re already doing on one faction of the right or another, you know, where does this fit in the broader kind of constellation of things.
And then I think, this is separate, but personal stories remain really important and really compelling to a lot of people because we are entering as it really seems like we are into a period where there’s going to be a lot of inhumanity on display, a lot of cruelty to lots of different groups of people. I think. You know, continuing to tell the stories of people who are affected is one of the ways that we can kind of keep trying to have an impact. Probably not with, you know, this administration or kind of their allies, but with the broader public, including people who might have voted for them or people who sat the election out, to make them kind of understand the human face behind a lot of the “mass deportations now” campaign signs or, as we’re taking a turn as a society towards like really extreme misogyny and racism, you know, the people who are going to be affected by things like that or, you know, anti-LGBT sentiment. I think telling personal stories well and deeply and getting across humanity to readers is something that can break through. Some of the polarization sometimes.
Federman: And I would just add to that on the flip side is the individuals and corporations who will benefit and profit from this administration. I mean, it’s easy to forget the kinds of promises that Trump has made. You know, for example, in the area that I cover with the oil and gas industry asking for $1 billion in exchange for essentially whatever they want. And they’ve made it quite clear what they want. And I do think that for the American public and for people who are interested in what’s happening to our institutions and the role of government in everyday life, you know, continuing to document and track the people who are making a lot of money off of Trump is something that we’re going to have to keep doing. And certainly with the oil and gas industry that’s going to be one of the things that I’m focusing on.
Misra: A lot of journalism in America has been very siloed, very geographically siloed, and very, I think, in terms of time. You know, everything is so immediate and we’re always looking at like we’re trying to catch up to how fast things are going and how, you know. And that’s going to be obviously, like I said, a huge issue under Trump is just the volume of stuff we’re going to be writing after a lot of things. But I think taking a step back and helping our readers and, you know, the public connect what’s happening here to what’s happening in other parts of the world and what’s happening here as it relates to history. It’s going to be hugely important, I think, under Trump, especially under Trump, but I think under any administration, under Trump in particular, we know that Trump is particularly adept at misleading the public when it comes to – he’s just lies all the time. And so instead of like trying to fact check everything, I think taking a broader view and trying to situate these, you know, sort of the policies and things in connecting them to what’s happening in the rest of the part of the world. I mean, you know, we can’t really talk about environmental policy or many other sort of arenas of policy in the US without really understanding how the US connects to the rest of the world, you know, with respect to those policies. Same with immigration. So I just feel like that’s something that’s always been missing from a lot of coverage that I see. And I think we need to be better about understanding that we’re not like these things don’t happen in a vacuum, and it’s a part of a larger trend that’s global. And then also historical echoes and, you know, how those sort of inform the developments that are happening right now.