In the spring of 2017, during the first 100 days of Donald Trump 1.0, I taught a class called Media and Policy Processes. We focused on the media’s role not only in covering policymaking, but also actively participating: helping government actors signal their positions and preferences to other policymakers, shifting and reflecting public opinion that influenced debates, and generally “co-producing the news.” I thought the first 100 days would be a useful framework for students to see how policy was shaped.

Instead, we spent most class periods marveling at the ever-increasing number of anonymous sources powering behind-the-scenes process stories. By May, it wasn’t uncommon to see a reference to 30 anonymous sources in a story about the tumult of Trumpworld in the West Wing. This was the heyday of the “Trump Bump” for national media, a heady time when Democrats’ trust in media jumped twice as much as Republicans’ fell.

For Trump 2.0, the media faces an important choice: more coverage of the person, or better coverage of the policy? I predict that in 2025, media will finally, against the odds, realize that these are not the same thing.

Rather than take Trump’s rhetoric at face value, we can learn from political science that he’ll face many limitations. As with any incoming president, reporters and commentators can provide a valuable service by defining “the art of the possible” and helping voters understand the challenges that presidents face when trying to achieve their policy goals.

The year will likely begin with a flurry of executive orders, signaling Trump’s priorities and carrying some immediate effects. Should these orders be covered as far-reaching, all-powerful edicts that allow Trump to project strength, or as regulatory guidance by an immediate lame duck? Scholarship on presidential power does not argue that strong presidents rely upon executive orders: presidential power is defined as the power to persuade, form a coalition, and pass policies with the power of Congress behind them. A president relying upon executive orders is a president who was unable to persuade lawmakers to codify his preferred positions — and will wield less influence as a result.

Unified government will be both a hazard and a help for Trump 2.0. Message discipline is much easier for the party out of power, and the incentives to criticize the president go up for their fellow partisans. As such, while policymaking may be easier with a “trifecta,” within-party criticisms become both more likely and more damaging to the president. Unlike divided government, where both parties can avoid responsibility for policy failures, unified government means Trump and the Republicans will own them in the lead-up to the midterms.

Every president claims a mandate and a decisive victory, but saying so doesn’t make it so. Media coverage is crucial for determining the scope of that power. Instead of being reactive and credulous, I predict that the news audience is ready for a shift. The media will focus instead on informing the public about the limits of power, the policies the public can reasonably expect to pass, and how those policies will impact their lives. More of the same won’t cut it this time around.