What a White House Press Conference Tells Us About Bystanders

Most of us like to believe that if we saw someone being mistreated at work, we would step in and challenge the behaviour. We want to see ourselves as fair, principled, and courageous, and therefore willing to stand up to bullying or misogyny when we see it directed at those around us. Yet when these moments arrive in real time, particularly where there is a power imbalance or it happens in a public setting, silence can become the default response, rather than intervention.

We saw this in action during a White House press conference on February 3, 2026, when CNN journalist Kaitlan Collins asked President Trump a question about the survivors of Jeffery Epstein. Trump’s response was to loudly criticise Ms. Collins’ network, her professional competence, and even her facial expression—specifically, that she wasn’t smiling. The interaction was hard to watch, not just because of the treatment of this professional reporter, but also because of the lack of intervention from the other reporters present.

The Bystander Effect

From a psychological perspective, this type of response from bystanders is all too familiar. The bystander effect, a term coined by Latane and Darley in 1968, highlights that the more people present to witness a harmful situation, the less likely any one person is to intervene. Responsibility diffuses, and each person waits for someone else to act, although all too often, no one actually does.

The effect is amplified by situations with an imbalance in hierarchy and power. When the person behaving aggressively holds authority, whether that’s a manager, a senior colleague, or even the President of the United States, the perceived risk of speaking up increases sharply. Bystanders will often do a quick, unconscious calculation about what it will potentially cost them to speak up, versus the benefit of actually doing so.

Murrell (2021) explored this phenomena and the question that often follows it, namely ‘why did no one speak up?’ They identified that speaking up is often seen as breaching social mores and rocking the boat. In professional settings, especially competitive ones, harmony is often prioritised over what feels like the right thing to do, so speaking up can feel like a violation of an unspoken rule, even when the behaviour being witnessed is clearly wrong.

So if we can understand why none felt able to speak up in the press conference due to the power imbalance in the room and the fear of potential repercussions, what can actually be done? The short answer is to overcome the barriers to bystander intervention and speak up, challenging those who choose to behave in that way regardless of their position. Verbally aggressive behaviour, and insults about a woman’s facial expression, competence, or likability are not neutral actions and must be challenged if they are to be recognised as unacceptable going forward.

What can bystanders actually do?

Standing up for someone doesn’t always mean having a confrontation or making a grand gesture in the moment. Effective interventions can include a show of support for the person on the receiving end of the problematic behaviour, or interrupting the behaviour, as well as calling it out as unacceptable. Here a five actions the Oval Office bystanders could have taken:

• Repeat the question. Repeating the question originally asked by Ms. Collins brings attention back to the substance of their question and highlights colleagues' support for her
• Naming the behaviour. For example, “I don’t think that comment was necessary”. This is hard to do in a power imbalance, but the bottom line is that many people present will likely have recognised that the initial behaviour was not okay, and someone being willing to openly challenge it will likely lead to more people being wiling to speak up.
• Show visible support. In addition to the previous suggestion of repeating the original question, bystanders could show support for Ms. Collins by asking a follow-up question, linked to hers or even affirming their support for her and her professionalism
• Check in afterwards. Offering support to the person on the receiving end of the problematic behaviour matters. Even when public intervention feels impossible, reaching out to that person later and checking in with them can be impactive.
• Speak up later. Even if they didn't feel able to speak up at the time, or weren't sure how to respond, It's still important to acknowledge later that the behaviour was not okay. Being willing to do so publicly can help to reset the social norms around what kind of behaviour is considered acceptable and what is not.

Of course, while individual courage matters, the responsibility should not rest solely on bystanders or those who are targeted by problematic behaviour. Organisations play a critical role in shaping what behaviour is considered acceptable and whether people feel safe to intervene. Setting clear norms about respectful behaviour, leadership accountability, and explicit encouragement to challenge inappropriate conduct all reduce the psychological barriers to speaking up, and this matters across all professional settings whether it's a small business or the US government.