How the Media Let Trump Off the Hook for His Arlington National Cemetery Stunt

Mainstream outlets downplayed a blatant violation of sacred norms, turning a clear scandal into a partisan dispute.

Last week, I wrote about former President Donald Trump’s tacky, potentially illegal publicity stunt at Arlington National Cemetery.

In case you missed it, here’s a quick recap: The Trump campaign went to Arlington, ostensibly to commemorate 21 American servicemembers who died in a 2021 suicide bombing in Afghanistan. When a cemetery employee tried to stop the campaign from filming in Arlington’s Section 60 — as political activities are not allowed there — she was physically shoved by someone with Trump’s campaign. In response to criticism, the campaign accused the cemetery employee of having a “mental health episode.”

It was a gross spectacle that disrespected families of fallen servicemembers buried in Section 60 and broke federal law. Trump campaign advisor Chris LaCivita even reposted a video taken at the cemetery to his X (formerly Twitter) account, writing, “Reposting this hoping to trigger the hacks at SecArmy.”

---

---

This is a pretty cut-and-dry scandal that only makes Trump look bad. Surely, mainstream media outlets’ reporting would reflect that, yes? You’d think so, and yet…

The Washington Post and New York Times decided to “both sides” the issue.

On September 1, the Post published a piece headlined, “With boost from grieving families, Trump sharpens attacks on Harris.”

The piece centered on “the debate over the incident,” and used the article to rehash the U.S.’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Trump-supporting family members of some of the dead servicemembers along with other Trump allies were quoted in the piece:

As Trump blamed Harris for the tragic exit, his allies amplified the message and defended his Arlington National Cemetery visit. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) released a statement saying the “real scandal” was the slaying of American troops in Afghanistan, alleging that both Harris and Biden had “condemned” them to death. Trump campaign senior adviser Jason Miller said Harris “has blood on her hands.”

Things didn’t go much better over at the Times, which opened its story, “Trump Campaign Uses Statements From Gold Star Families to Attack Harris,” by calling this a “partisan dispute over Arlington National Cemetery.”

In her first public comments on the situation, Ms. Harris said in a statement on Saturday that Mr. Trump had desecrated the cemetery — considered to be among the most sacred of American institutions. Ms. Harris said that the Arlington cemetery was a solemn place that should be free of politics, describing the campaign’s filming in Section 60 — largely reserved for service members killed in recent wars overseas — as “a political stunt.”

The Trump campaign then released the statement signed by family members of 7 of the 13 U.S. troops killed by a suicide bombing at Abbey Gate at the Kabul airport during the withdrawal from Afghanistan three years ago.

The statement spoke of the heroism of those killed at Abbey Gate, and the grief that the family members have felt in the three years since they lost their loved ones. But it also sought to blame Ms. Harris for the politicization of the cemetery, asserting that it was the vice president who had “disgracefully twisted” Mr. Trump’s visit “into a political ploy,” and it effusively praised Mr. Trump’s leadership, with the family members of the troops asserting that “if he were still commander in chief, our children would be alive today.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The Trump-aligned families argued that Trump’s decision to film campaign content in the cemetery was a “political ploy” by… Kamala Harris?

While this may very well represent what those family members said and believe, this write-up treats a clear scandal for the Trump campaign as something that reasonable people can view as a scandal by the Harris campaign. It doesn’t matter how many of the family members were okay with there being cameras; they still weren’t allowed. They don’t just get to give permission to break federal law. That’s not how it works.

The original coverage of the incident has been flawed, as well.

Writing at the Columbia Journalism Review, Ben Kesling argued that “the coverage of former president Donald Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery, on August 26, showed the difficulties newsrooms have in covering unprecedented events, especially when it involves the nation’s military, veterans, and Donald Trump.”

[T]he reporting this week left readers and listeners, especially those with no knowledge of the military, at a loss to understand what actually happened—and, crucially, why it mattered so much. The Trump campaign team had successfully muddied the waters by alleging that the photographer had been invited to the event by family members of soldiers buried there.

But as any veteran knows in their bones, the solemnity of the ceremony is exactly why the unauthorized photographer had no business being there—regardless of who invited them. Section 60, the part of the cemetery where the incident occurred, is one of the most sacred places for this generation of troops. It is where those who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried. Those graves are visited not by tourists looking for historical figures, but by mothers and fathers visiting their fallen son or daughter. In Section 60, wounds are still raw. Political activity there is never appropriate, and under the law, only cemetery staffers and approved photographers are permitted to film or take pictures there.

Readers needed to know that, when you visit Arlington, you might not know exactly what you’re supposed to do when confronted by those rows of headstones, but you damn sure know what you’re not supposed to do. But the coverage this week left many readers with the impression that the whole thing might have been a bureaucratic mix-up, or some tedious violation of protocol. It focused on bland horse-race coverage so common during election season, rather than clearly stating what really took place: an egregious and willful violation of long-standing norms. What was missing from the coverage was a willingness to quickly and decisively state what a grievous insult the whole debacle was to the dignity of Arlington. The sacred had been profaned.

Had the original reporting been clear about what happened and why it mattered, the Post and the Times would have a much more difficult time trying to justify framing this as a “partisan dispute.”