A lawsuit filed against the Trump administration is seeking to stop the UFC White House event from taking place. However, legal experts consulted on the matter largely agree the effort faces long odds.
Two plaintiffs have brought the case. Susan Douglas is a retired government employee and senior citizen activist residing in Alexandria, Virginia. The second plaintiff, Paul Romano, is a Vietnam War veteran, a retired Air Force sergeant, a former police officer for the Department of Defense, and a part-time ride share driver out of Arlington, Virginia.
Both communities sit just outside Washington, D.C. They are represented by the Public Integrity Project, with attorneys Brendan Ballou and Samuel T. Ward-Packard.
The lawsuit raises a general conflict of interest argument, pointing out that Dana White is a close Trump friend and ally. It also states that June 14th is Trump’s 80th birthday, that White has admitted the event was “Trump’s idea,” and that Trump reportedly purchased up to $50,000 in TKO stock this past spring.
The complaint also notes commercial interests at play, including $1.5 million sponsorship packages, Crypto.com as a lead sponsor, and TKO executive Mark Shapiro describing the event as “the greatest earned marketing tool of all time.”
On the statutory side, attorneys consulted described this as the strongest portion of the case. The plaintiffs argue the Trump administration bypassed federal rules, specifically NPS regulation 36 CFR, which bars special events including sports events on the south lawn.
The administration has leaned on what the plaintiffs call a loophole, the America 250 rule, which exempts events planned and organized by executive departments or the Semiquincentennial Commission celebrating the 250th anniversary of independence. The plaintiffs contend the event fails that test entirely.
A Freedom 250 spokesperson stated the event is “not affiliated with the organization and shares only its branding.” The plaintiffs also argue that the structure known as ‘The Claw’ lacks express congressional authorization and that no environmental review was conducted, despite an estimated $700,000 in projected south lawn damage.
Where the case falls apart, according to the attorneys consulted, is the question of irreparable harm. Douglas cites aesthetic objections, calling the claw’s placement grotesque, and says monument access will be more difficult due to closures.
Romano argues that weigh-in noise at the Lincoln Memorial will desecrate the tranquility of the nearby Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The attorneys agreed these harm claims represent the weakest part of the complaint.
The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt the event before it takes place. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday. Attorneys noted the judge may also consider the harm to athletes if the event were canceled.
While a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs is not impossible, it is improbable. The likeliest outcome is that the judge denies the request and the event proceeds.
