State and local government news coverage in Trump 2.0
The shrinking media landscape for state and local governments increases the risk that policymakers will get surprised by Washington.
Welcome back, readers. In recent weeks, I’ve been prepping for president-elect Donald Trump’s administration by scrolling through the Governing archives and other sources to look at how we covered his first term with a state and local angle. In doing so I realized that many of the reporters who covered Trump for their state or local governments eight years ago have left journalism or have a different beat. Or, like yours truly, they’re writing in alternative journalism formats which require people to seek them out.
Since Trump’s first term (2017-2021), local newsroom layoffs continue to eat away at institutional knowledge and capacity. Meanwhile, national outlets that focus on state and local policy, like Governing Magazine and Route Fifty, have also been hollowed out or shuttered.
This has direct implications for states and localities. From tax deductions to tariffs to Social Security, actions at the federal level are filtered through states and localities differently. We just went through that with federal pandemic-era funding—the direct aid to individuals, businesses, and states and localities led to an unprecedented era of soaring revenue and tax cuts.
How a Pandemic-Era Surge in Tax Collections Drove a Revenue Wave—and What It Means for Future State Budgets (Pew Charitable Trusts)
Reviewing Three Years of State Tax Cuts (Urban Institute/Tax Policy Center)
We already know that local newsroom layoffs can increase risks (perceived or real) and costs for governments because residents and elected officials rely on local media news to inform their decision-making. Fewer locally-tailored stories increase the risk that important information gets missed. When it comes to state and local coverage under Trump, that risk increases dramatically.
Keeping up with Trump
Keeping up with news about the incoming administration already has had that familiar “drinking through a fire hose” feeling I had from his first administration.
That’s largely because many of Trump’s statements and approaches are unique or highly unusual at the presidential level. So, writing about policy under Trump requires more legwork. And knowing where to start is critical. Journalists have to do additional reporting deciphering what is rhetoric and what’s real, then understand and explain the different scenarios ranging from “here’s why that would never happen/is extremely unlikely” to “here are the very real implications.”
At the national level, reporters are doing this well. That’s not easy—but it’s less complicated to understand one budget and government (albeit massive) than it is to understand the potential impact on even just a handful of the more than 90,000 local governments, 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Doing the legwork for states and localities—getting to the direct impact on policymakers and taxpayers—requires a solid understanding of the state-local-federal relationship, tax policy, regional economic drivers, and federal funding flows. These are the kinds of things that take years to understand at an intuitive level and are not headline grabbers (moneymakers) in the way that politics, sports, or anything with Taylor Swift in the headline tends to be.
With Trump’s penchant for upending the status quo, misrepresentation of tax policy implications (like who ultimately pays the cost of tariffs), and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act up for renewal next year, it’s a really bad time not to have easy access to quality journalism.
I’m not necessarily worried about large cities with more than one newspaper, and even the reporting from state capitals (at least when the legislature is in session). But as the local media landscape continues to shrink, it’s places like Des Moines, Iowa; Berkeley Springs, West Virginia; and Stockton, California that could get blindsided by any federal policy changes.
We’re already seeing hints of this coverage gap. It’s easy to find stories about Trump’s cabinet nominations and his wish to eliminate the Department of Education. The AP’s thorough story on the “what ifs” was picked up by local papers all over the country. The Washington Post’s piece starts with a large dose of “here’s how unlikely this is” before launching into scenarios. “The bigger impact would come if Congress also cut funding for education programs…or eliminated any of the department’s central functions,” the Post said.
But to understand how these scenarios could affect states and localities, we turn to the specialized publications. EdWeek has an excellent piece on how Trump’s policies would shift control and funding of education back to state and local governments, likely leading to: increased inequality, reduced support for low-income and special needs students, and expanded school choice funding (allowing parents to use public funds for private schooling).
I’d add that Title I schools are already struggling with the loss of pandemic-era funding. Following that up with a drastic funding overhaul and loss of even more federal dollars would be devastating for kids who depend on their local schools for meals, counseling, and so much more than education. And, more generally, a lot of school districts are struggling with budget deficits. Maybe that means an education funding rethink could be beneficial—but gutting the Department of Education is not the way to start that conversation.
What’s the solution?
Traditional media outlets are losing institutional knowledge but that doesn’t mean it’s evaporating. Two developments over the last half-decade are positives for quality journalism.
More alternatives for good writers. Reporters and subject experts are still finding outlets for their ideas and knowledge and Substack newsletters now collectively have more than 35 million subscribers. I follow a handful of state/local policy writers on Substack who give me insights and ideas I wouldn’t have otherwise.
Land policy & Transportation
Pensions & debt
Education
More nonprofit news outlets. This Columbia Journalism Review piece notes: “New models are emerging for funding and delivering local news and information. This includes nonprofits, community foundations, and new philanthropic players, as well as fresh formats and delivery mechanisms.”
These developments can help taxpayers and policymakers understand how a move in Washington, D.C. could play out thousands of miles away. The downside is, you have to know where to look.