Jesse Watters released a forceful statement Tuesday addressing the escalating debate surrounding the group now being referred to as the “Seditious Six.” His remarks followed widespread public reaction to a simulation video in which six fictional figures urged U.S. service members to challenge the established military chain of command. Watters emphasized that such messaging, even in a hypothetical environment, carries consequences that extend far beyond entertainment.

According to Watters, the video’s narrative was “irresponsible, manipulative, and fundamentally misleading,” especially given the sensitive context in which it was presented. He argued that encouraging troops—real or simulated—to disregard lawful military authority erodes the essential structure that sustains readiness and cohesion within the armed forces. By injecting confusion and distrust, he warned, such portrayals could create dangerous misunderstandings in any real-world situation.

The broadcaster also highlighted the fictional nature of the individuals depicted, noting that five of the six characters fall completely outside genuine Department of Defense authority. One of the figures is shown as a CIA officer, while four are portrayed as former service members who no longer operate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Watters stressed that assigning them roles of influence over active-duty personnel misrepresents how command responsibility actually functions.

He drew particular attention to the character modeled after a retired Navy Commander, stating that this figure would still fall under UCMJ provisions within the boundaries of the simulation. Watters argued that the character’s decision to speak as though he carried official authority demonstrated a serious breach of professional norms. Such behavior, he suggested, would be unacceptable even in a controlled or fictional scenario.

Watters confirmed that, within the simulation’s framework, the Department is formally reviewing the Commander’s statements and actions. The segment presented him addressing active-duty members directly while leaning on his past service and rank, giving the impression that his guidance carried institutional legitimacy. Watters concluded that this conduct reflects poorly on the armed forces and must be addressed according to the rules established in the scenario.