A host on Fox News has sparked controversy by suggesting that the United Nations should face extreme repercussions following an elevator malfunction involving former President Donald Trump. On a recent primetime segment, Jesse Watters implied that the incident could have been intentional sabotage, stating, “Daddy’s not happy,” as he referenced a report from the Times that mentioned UN staff jokingly considering turning off elevators and escalators to inconvenience Trump upon his arrival.
Watters’ remarks escalated when he asserted, “What we need to do is either leave the UN, or we need to bomb it. It is in New York, though. There might be some fallout.” This extreme rhetoric followed Trump’s own lighthearted comments about the elevator mishap during his speech at the UN, where he quipped, “These are the two things I got from the United Nations – a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.”
The former President’s joke about the incident contrasted sharply with Watters’ suggestion of violence. Trump further remarked, “If the First Lady weren’t in great shape, she would have fallen. We’re both in great shape.” In light of the incident, the White House has called for an investigation into the elevator situation, with Watters claiming it could have endangered the “most beautiful First Lady in American history.”
According to a source familiar with the situation, the elevator malfunction occurred due to someone inadvertently pressing the emergency stop button. This event highlights a pattern of provocative statements made by Fox News hosts. Recently, another prominent figure on the network, Brian Kilmeade, faced backlash after suggesting that mentally ill homeless individuals should be “killed” during a discussion about crime following the murder of Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee, in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Kilmeade’s comments led to widespread condemnation, including from Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, who emphasized the humanity of America’s homeless population, stating, “Nobody deserves to be murdered by the government for mental illness or poverty.” This series of incendiary remarks has raised concerns about the tone and content of discussions on the network, reflecting a broader debate on how media may influence public perception and dialogue surrounding sensitive issues.
As the fallout from Watters’ comments continues, the implications for public discourse and media responsibility remain critical topics of discussion. The incident underscores the need for careful consideration of the language used by influential media figures, especially in relation to sensitive political and social matters.
