Jeanna Smialek on Explaining the Economy, Covering Europe, and Building a Career in Journalism

Jeanna Smialek is the Brussels bureau chief for The New York Times and the author of Limitless: The Federal Reserve Takes on a New Age of Crisis. She previously spent more than a decade covering the Federal Reserve and macroeconomics, helping readers make sense of interest rates, balance sheets, and crisis-era policymaking. In this conversation, Smialek talks about how to write clearly for non-experts without dumbing things down, what she’s learning on the EU and tech-regulation beat, and how U.S.–Europe tensions over speech, green policy, and digital markets are reshaping politics. She also reflects on reporting difficult stories about the repo market and BlackRock, the realities of perfectionism and long-form work, the traits that matter most in journalism, and one big book to read if you really want to understand how modern macroeconomics works.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Writing for a General Audience
BW: You do such a great job making complicated topics—like interest rates or balance sheets—feel approachable. When you're writing, who are you imagining as your reader? And how do you keep the coverage grounded without oversimplifying?
JS: I typically imagine my sisters, who are both nurses in Pittsburgh, as my readers. I think it’s useful to picture someone who’s curious and basically well informed, but not necessarily familiar with the specific topic you’re writing about.
I actually don’t love the advice to “write at a middle school level” or for a 12-year-old—I don’t think that’s helpful for complicated subjects. What is useful is keeping yourself honest: ditch jargon, avoid gratuitously fancy words, and don’t signal that you’re writing only for insiders. That’s pretty much how I approach it.
BW: Since you're dealing with such complex topics—ones that can also be incredibly powerful in their implications—how do you keep that in mind as you’re writing?
JS: I think it’s really important to be careful and make sure you’re not misleading anyone. You want to portray your subject as accurately and fairly as possible.
But it’s also important not to become too enamored with the topic or too awed by what’s happening. At the end of the day, what we’re covering is a group of people making decisions. Important decisions, yes—but they’re still just people, not wizards or gods. Keeping that in mind helps keep the work grounded.

Covering the Fed
BW: When you were covering the Fed, how did you decide who you were going to reach out to and what you were going to ask?
JS: When I was on the Fed beat, I was in regular contact with almost every member of the Federal Open Market Committee—the twelve regional bank presidents and the seven governors in Washington. I went to a lot of conferences. I was always around Fed meetings and international economic gatherings.
The more complicated decision was how much time to invest in the broader Fed ecosystem—how often to visit regional banks, how deeply to engage with the people working inside them. Those are really valuable sources, but it’s a lot of work to keep in touch with that many institutions, and it’s a constant balancing act. That part came down mostly to trial and error.

Europe, Regulation, and Spillover Effects
BW: As you’ve spent more time in Europe, have you noticed any major differences in how policymakers talk about things like fiscal restraint, industrial policy, or the green transition—especially compared to Washington? And do those differences matter in a globally connected economy?
JS: Yes, the differences absolutely matter in an interconnected world.
One of the clearest areas is the green transition. Europe has generally been more proactive in trying to push companies along—passing regulations and policies meant to really accelerate the shift. But now they’re starting to walk some of that back and are under a lot of scrutiny and pressure, because in a globalized market those regulations trigger backlash from other economies, including the U.S.
The same is true for digital regulation. Europe has been much more forthright in trying to ensure platforms like Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok police content that’s potentially harmful. The U.S. is more cautious about that approach, especially when it comes to regulating speech on the internet. But because the market for digital platforms is global, Europe’s rules end up having broader effects, and that turns into a geopolitical conversation.
BW: So Europe’s push for stricter content moderation spills over into U.S. tech policy?
JS: Absolutely. Take the Digital Services Act. It requires companies like Meta to make sure their content-moderation rules comply with local laws—so if they’re operating in Germany, they have to enforce German law. That’s much stricter than what we see in the U.S.
Because Meta and others have to build the infrastructure to comply in Europe, they end up developing the capability to enforce those rules more generally. That’s led to pushback not only from companies like Meta but also from the U.S. government. The Trump administration has been especially vocal in opposing the DSA and the broader Digital Markets Act. We’ve even seen people like J.D. Vance talk about these issues directly at the Munich Security Conference. So this has clearly spilled over into geopolitics in a way that feels new.
BW: And that sort of direct criticism—especially at events like the Munich Security Conference—is that new? Or is it just more visible now because of social media?
JS: We’ve always seen differences between the U.S. and Europe on free speech, the green transition, and regulation more broadly. That part isn’t new.
What is new is how forthright the Trump administration has been in criticizing Europe—and how it has folded those disagreements into the broader trade disputes with many countries. So the “volume level” is new. It’s louder, more public, more performative. And that’s made it a really interesting time to report on U.S.–EU relations.

Learning Brussels
BW: Shifting gears—when you first got to Brussels, was it a pretty unsettling environment, especially after covering the Fed for so long?
JS: Oh, totally. I was a complete newbie. I got here at the end of February and I’ve been on a steep learning curve ever since.
I’m covering the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council—and I’m also pitching in on national-security coverage. NATO is right down the street, so we’ve got a constant stream of people coming through to talk defense, trade, and security.
It’s been an exciting time to arrive in Brussels. With the new Trump administration coming in, the story has been very active. In a way, it’s been a good time to learn the beat because there’s so much going on.

Hard Stories and Proud Moments
BW: What’s been one of the most challenging stories you’ve written—either because of the complexity or the politics? And is there one you’re especially proud of?
JS: The hardest stories were probably about the repo market. There were a few episodes of turmoil while I was covering the Fed. The repo market sounds simple, but it’s not, and breaking it down in a way readers could understand without oversimplifying was tough.
Another very challenging story was a piece I did on BlackRock’s conversations with the Fed during the 2020 crisis response. That was hard both because the information wasn’t public and because I wanted to be careful not to get spun. I had to decide how much to give the Fed and BlackRock the benefit of the doubt versus how much to frame it as something people should be concerned about. I’m happy with where I landed, but it was difficult.
As for stories I’m proud of: we did one on a young man named Monroe Campbell, who was the first Black research assistant at the San Francisco Fed. He pushed for a more diverse cohort of hires, and the story looked at how economics as a field can lock out people without a certain pedigree—which often correlates with privilege. It was about Monroe, but more broadly about access to opportunity in the field. I heard from a lot of people that it sparked meaningful conversations, and I was really proud of that.
BW: Going back to that BlackRock article—was that a particularly long piece to write?
JS: That one probably took about two months from start to finish. It wasn’t the only thing I was working on—this was 2020, when we were all writing daily—but it required FOIA requests, follow-ups, and a lot of reporting. It wasn’t a quick turnaround, but it was really interesting.

Perfectionism and Process
BW: Is there a standard amount of time you aim to spend on an article? And if so, how do you stay on track?
JS: It depends.
For breaking news, you know you need to get it done as quickly as possible. I actually find that easier. I started at Bloomberg, so I’m what the industry calls a wire reporter—I’m very used to writing fast and on deadline.
The harder stories are the longer-term ones, the ones that might take weeks or a month. There’s no hard deadline, so deciding when they’re “done” becomes more of an artistic judgment. I’m a perfectionist—I either want to tinker forever or finish right away. That’s why everyone needs an editor. They’re the ones who say, “Okay, you need to file this now.”
BW: I don’t write nearly as often as you do, but I definitely relate to the perfectionism. Do you have any advice on how to manage that?
JS: I’ve been doing this for thirteen years and I haven’t totally figured it out. But I do think it helps to recognize early when something is going to be a big project.
If it’s going to take two months, then commit to that: file the records requests, go after the hard-to-get interviews, really report the heck out of it. Sometimes I set artificial deadlines and then forget to step back and ask whether I should make the piece more ambitious.
With time, you learn that sometimes it’s better to decide up front that a story is going to be a bigger undertaking, and then fully embrace that.

Getting into Journalism
BW: How did you first get involved in journalism? Was there a defining moment, or did it evolve over time?
JS: Honestly, I decided I wanted to be a journalist when I was eight years old. My second-grade class made a newspaper, and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. I said I wanted to be a journalist and I stuck with it.
I went to UNC, then straight to journalism school. From there, I went to Bloomberg, and I’ve basically been a journalist ever since.

Advice for Aspiring Journalists and Policy People
BW: A lot of our readers are students thinking about how they want to engage with public policy or journalism. Are there any skills or traits you think are especially important for people going into these fields?
JS: I think the most important trait in journalism is curiosity. If you’re not genuinely interested in the thing you’re covering—or in the world in general—it’s probably not the right field for you.
Good gossips often make good journalists, honestly. That instinct of “I have to know what’s going on” makes for a strong reporter.
The other key trait is resilience. Journalism is not always a pretty field. There’s constant upheaval. Your career will go through phases. You won’t always do the kind of journalism you want to do—you might end up writing deadline headlines, or doing TikTok videos, or podcasting. So flexibility matters.
If you stay focused on getting good information to readers, rather than locking yourself into a specific format, you’ll usually end up both happier and more successful.

Recommended Reading
BW: Last question. If you could recommend one piece of literature—a book, essay, article—to someone who wants to better understand either how the economy works or what’s going on in the EU beyond the headlines, what would it be?
JS: This probably won’t be the world’s most popular recommendation, but if you’re really into macroeconomics, Alan Blinder—who was vice chair of the Fed—wrote a book called A Monetary and Fiscal History of the United States, 1961–2021. It’s incredibly useful as an overview.
You have to approach it as what it is—an insider’s account—but I found it really valuable. He’s also relatively funny and takes a critical eye to his own role in some of the events he describes. If you want to understand macroeconomics and the Fed, I’d start there.
BW: Jeanna, thank you so much for taking the time. I really appreciate it—and I know our readers will too.
JS: Thanks, Ben!