A UFC fight card scheduled for Sunday on the White House South Lawn is facing legal challenges in federal court.
The watchdog group Public Integrity Project filed a lawsuit last weekend on behalf of two Virginia residents aiming to shut down the Mixed Martial Arts event, which has been billed as part of a celebration of the nation’s 250th anniversary. The event is scheduled to take place on President Trump‘s 80th birthday.
The lawsuit refers to the plan for UFC Freedom 250 as “illegal,” stating that proper authorization was not obtained to hold the event and to build structures on federal parklands, and “corrupt,” in that the president and others allegedly stand to benefit financially from the “private, for-profit sports event.”
“This is a profoundly corrupt scheme to enrich the President and his friends,” Public Integrity Project founder Brendan Ballou said in a statement on the group’s website. “If this fight is allowed to proceed, it will be only the beginning, and our national monuments will become little more than branding opportunities for the rich and well-connected. We plan to stop that.”
The group also filed for a temporary restraining order to stop the construction and prevent further planning for the event.
The National Park Service and Department of the Interior, as well as executives from each department, are named as defendants.
“This is an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory lawsuit brought simply to prevent President Trump from hosting what will undoubtedly go down as one of the most historic sporting events in our Nation’s history during our semiquincentennial celebration,” a Trump administration official said in a statement emailed to The Times on Tuesday.
“This iconic event is no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year.”
According to the lawsuit, UFC Freedom 250 violates National Park Service policy that prohibits sporting events on the South Lawn. In addition, it states that the plans for the event did not receive approval from Congress to construct a massive structure on the lawn and did not undergo a required environmental review before construction.
Construction started late last month on a massive octagon with an open overhead dome and about 5,000 arena seats.
Last year, the park service established a temporary rule that allows “special events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Semiquincentennial Commission for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence” on Washington’s monumental grounds.
The lawsuit states, however, that the rule does not apply to Sunday’s MMA event.
“UFC Freedom 250 is a private, for-profit sporting event being ‘planned, organized, and executed’ by the UFC, its broadcast partners, and its advertisers, not by the federal government,” the filing states.
“And it is not in any material sense a ‘celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence’ — it is, instead, a celebration of the UFC’s brand and the 80th anniversary of Donald Trump’s birth.”
UFC and parent company TKO are said to be footing the bill for the reported $60-million event. Still, it’s a massive platform for UFC, which longtime Trump friend and supporter Dana White runs. The president reportedly bought between $15,000 and $50,000 of TKO stock this year.
No tickets are being sold to the general public. Most of the 5,000 seats next to the White House will be given to military members, while thousands of others will be able to watch on big screens in nearby parks. The event also will stream live exclusively on Paramount+, which is controlled by Trump allies Larry and David Ellison.
On Wednesday, attorneys for the defendants filed a memorandum stating several reasons a temporary restraining order should not be granted to halt the event. Those include the last-minute nature of the lawsuit concerning an event that has been in the works for nearly a year and the fact that presidents have historically hosted events, including sports, on the White House lawn and have had temporary structures erected without needing congressional approval.
Access to the South Lawn for the event, according to the memorandum, “is being provided by the White House Office of Executive Residence, not permitted by NPS.”
“The White House is sponsoring and hosting this event, and the White House does not need a permit from NPS to host events on White House grounds,” the memorandum states. “Indeed, the purpose of the NPS permitting regulations is to ensure content-neutral treatment of events in designated public forums, but the South Lawn is not a public forum and is beyond the scope of those regulations.
“Put another way, the NPS regulations bind NPS in how it allocates permits for events, but obviously do not restrict the President from hosting events at the White House.”
The defendants ask that if an injunction is issued, that it “must be accompanied by a bond reflecting the enormous investment by Defendants and their partners who are organizing this event” and that a stay of injunctive relief be issued to allow for an appeal.
If an injunction is issued, the defendants ask in the memorandum for a stay to allow for an appeal to the decision as well as a bond to help financially cover “the enormous investment by Defendants and their partners who are organizing this event.”
