There was a moment on live television—right in the middle of a high-stakes international setting—when Jesse Watters crossed a line many thought was untouchable. On September 23, 2025, during coverage related to President Trump’s U.N. appearance, Watters suggested the United Nations headquarters in New York should be “bombed” or “gassed” over technical malfunctions. The backlash was swift. Yet instead of issuing a public retraction, Watters made one of the most controversial decisions in modern punditry: he apologized privately.

This episode—and the way it’s being handled—raises bigger questions than just about one remark. It shines a spotlight on the power and danger of rhetoric, the divide between public and private accountability, and how media figures navigate the fallout of their own words.

The Teleprompter, the Escalator—and the Explosive Response

To understand the reaction, we have to go back to the moment that sparked it all.

President Trump was at the U.N. General Assembly, and things did not go smoothly. An escalator at the U.N. building reportedly froze just as he and the First Lady stepped onto it, and his teleprompter malfunctioned mid-speech. Some commentators linked these glitches to sabotage. Watters leaned in hard: he accused U.N. staffers of orchestrating both failures, and then, during a segment on The Five, said:

“What we need to do is either leave the U.N. or we need to bomb it … maybe gas it … we need to destroy it.”

The remark—delivered casually, with the banter of a panel show—sent shock waves. Even his co-hosts appeared to shift uncomfortably. After the segment, U.N. officials condemned it, calling it unacceptable and reminding everyone of the real dangers experienced at U.N. sites in war zones like Baghdad, Algiers, Abuja, and more.

The Private Apology: What We Know

Here’s where things get unusual—and telling.

Watters never apologized on air. Instead, when the U.N. lodged a formal complaint with Fox News, he extended a private apology to Melissa Fleming, the U.N.’s global communications chief. That apology came off-camera, off-script, away from the public eye.

A U.N. spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, confirmed the apology, saying the organization had received it directly. He reiterated that calling for a bombing—or gassing—of a building housing diplomats, humanitarian staff, world leaders, and security personnel is not just provocative—it’s dangerous.

Dujarric also referenced U.N. personnel killed or injured in past attacks, making clear the stakes: rhetoric like Watters’ isn’t abstract. It echoes real violence.

Why Go Private? The Signal in the Silence

There’s a crucial distinction between apologizing publicly and doing so behind closed doors. Watters’ choice to make a private apology sends multiple messages:

Control the narrative: A private apology lets him limit damage, avoid follow-up questions, and retain the appearance of strength.
Save face with his base: Some watchers saw the public apology as a surrender. By keeping it private, he may appease critics while holding onto support from those who see him as a bold voice.
Manage consequences: An on-air apology could be parsed line by line, challenged by rivals, or used as leverage. Private statements don’t lend themselves to that kind of public dissection.

In short, the move strikes a balance between acknowledgment and distance.

Fallout, Reactions & Red Lines

Even before the apology, condemnation was heavy. U.N. officials publicly denounced the remarks. Many observers, analysts, and media watchers saw them as crossing from provocative commentary into dangerous territory.

Critics raised alarms about normalized violence in discourse—how joking about bombing a globally recognized institution is not a matter of ideology but of threatening symbolism. Meanwhile, some defended Watters, claiming his remarks were hyperbole or rhetorical excess, not literal intent.

Another dimension: the U.N. clarified that the escalator malfunction was triggered by a U.S. videographer in the presidential delegation, not by deliberate sabotage. And reports said the teleprompter was managed by the White House team—not U.N. staff. That undermined the narrative Watters pushed in real time.

At the moment, Fox News has not issued an official on-air statement. The decision to leave Watters on the air—and not demand a public apology—speaks loudly about media calculations in times of crisis.

What This Moment Tells Us About Speech & Power

Watters’ case is more than a media kerfuffle. It’s a mirror held up to how ideas and words shape public life:

Rhetoric matters
In times of polarization, statements that flirt with violence can shift from metaphor to threat. Public voices carry weight—and can embolden others to act.
Public figures face double standards
A private apology preserves the façade. But when mainstream media figures use extreme language, how far do reactions go?
Accountability vs. image
Controversial statements demand consequences—but what kind? Suspension? Resignation? Public correction? Private acknowledgment? Each sends a different signal.
The role of platform
Television and broadcast media reach millions. Words spoken there carry different weight than tweets or blogs. The responsibility to correct, clarify, or retract grows heavier.

What Comes Next

Will Watters ever apologize publicly? Many expect pressure to mount, especially as international and diplomatic observers weigh in.
Will Fox News or executives intervene? There’s speculation about internal consequences, though none are confirmed yet.
Will the U.N. or government continue to press for accountability or public comment? The organization has already made clear this kind of language carries real-world implications.
Will this episode change how pundits on major networks think about boundaries in their commentary?

Final Takeaway: Words That Break Walls

It’s tempting to treat comments like Watters’ as entertainment or political theater. But when those remarks flirt with destruction—even in a rhetorical sense—they tip over into danger. The private apology feels like a safety valve. But the question lingers: can apology suffice when public rhetoric has crossed into threat territory?

In the end, it’s not just about what one host said. It’s about what we allow public figures to say, how we respond, and what we expect from those who hold the mic in a world where words can change lives—or break them.