What did jesse watters mean when he said that we should either leave the UN or bomb it
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Jesse Watters made inflammatory comments on his Fox News show suggesting that the United States should either "bomb" the United Nations headquarters or leave the organization entirely following technical difficulties during President Trump's visit to address the General Assembly [1] [2] [3]. The Fox News host characterized the malfunctions - specifically a stopped escalator and teleprompter issues - as "an insurrection" and claimed that U.N. staffers had deliberately "sabotaged" the equipment [1].
Watters' exact statement included not only the bombing suggestion but also alternative violent rhetoric, as he mentioned the possibility to "maybe gas it" as another option for dealing with the U.N. headquarters [1]. However, he did acknowledge potential complications with his bombing suggestion, noting the fallout that would occur given the U.N.'s location in New York City, and instead proposed demolishing the building after everyone has left [1].
The context for these extreme statements stems from technical problems that occurred during Trump's visit to the United Nations. According to Watters' perspective, "everything was broken at the UN" during the presidential visit, which he interpreted as deliberate sabotage rather than accidental malfunctions [4] [2].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks crucial context about the actual cause of the technical difficulties that prompted Watters' inflammatory response. The United Nations provided a significantly different explanation for the incidents that contradicts the sabotage narrative entirely.
According to U.N. officials, a U.S. videographer likely accidentally froze the escalator, and crucially, the White House team itself was responsible for operating the president's teleprompter [5]. This directly contradicts Trump's allegations of deliberate "sabotage" by U.N. staff and undermines the entire premise for Watters' extreme suggestions [5].
The U.N.'s official response stated that the escalator and teleprompter issues were caused by Trump's own team, not by any sabotage [6]. This represents a fundamental disagreement about the facts of what actually occurred, with the U.N. attributing the problems to Trump's team rather than any malicious intent by U.N. personnel [6].
This missing context is significant because it suggests that Watters' violent rhetoric was based on false premises about deliberate sabotage when the technical difficulties appear to have been accidental or caused by the visiting delegation itself.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
While the original question itself doesn't contain explicit misinformation, it lacks the critical context that would allow for proper evaluation of Watters' statements. The question presents Watters' comments in isolation without acknowledging the disputed factual basis for his inflammatory rhetoric.
The most significant bias issue lies in Watters' characterization of accidental technical difficulties as deliberate sabotage. By framing routine equipment malfunctions as "an insurrection" and calling for violent responses, Watters demonstrated extreme bias in his interpretation of events [1] [3].
Furthermore, Watters' suggestion to bomb or destroy an international diplomatic institution over technical difficulties represents a grossly disproportionate response that could be seen as inciting violence against an international organization. His rhetoric escalated from equipment problems to suggestions of violent destruction of diplomatic facilities [1].
The bias is compounded by the fact that Watters ignored the U.N.'s explanation that the problems were caused by the visiting U.S. team rather than any malicious intent by U.N. staff [5] [6]. This selective interpretation of facts to support a predetermined narrative of victimization and justify extreme responses represents significant editorial bias in his commentary.
The original question would benefit from acknowledging that Watters' statements were made without factual basis and in response to what appear to have been accidental technical difficulties rather than deliberate sabotage, making his violent suggestions particularly problematic and potentially dangerous rhetoric.