Criticism of UFC Fight at the White House
Officials from the Trump administration are responding to backlash over an upcoming UFC fight scheduled at the White House. They suggest that instead of filing a last-minute lawsuit to prevent crowds from gathering on the South Lawn, critics could simply choose not to attend.
“It’s quite simple to look away for the weekend,” Justice Department lawyers stated in a recent court filing. They further argued that critics are using federal court authority to impose their personal preferences on others, undermining an event meant to celebrate the United States.
Preparations for the fight have been ongoing for several weeks, including the construction of a 90-foot steel arch referred to as the Claw. A lawsuit was filed by the Public Integrity Project on behalf of two Virginia residents who seek to block the event. This prompted the government to request that U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta dismiss their case.
The lawsuit is aimed at preventing the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior from hosting the event, which could attract around 4,000 attendees to the White House.
Justice Department officials noted in their brief that over $60 million has already been invested in the event, with participants making travel arrangements and fighters preparing for their bouts.
They emphasized that the UFC fight has been in the works for months, with President Trump originally announcing it back in July 2025.
A White House official commented, “This is a baseless, obstructionist lawsuit designed simply to hinder President Trump from hosting what’s anticipated to be a significant part of our nation’s 500th anniversary celebrations—a truly historic sporting event.” They likened this occasion to other permitted events held on the South Lawn and nearby areas throughout the year.
The plaintiffs, however, claim the event would have substantial negative impacts on the White House and the National Mall, labeling the whole situation as “egregious.” They also allege that regulations regarding federal permitting and environmental reviews were overlooked and raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
In response, officials asserted that those who oppose the event are not compelled to participate, and their views do not outweigh those in favor of it. “Yet, these last-minute objections can jeopardize the hopes and plans of many who simply wish to enjoy the event,” Justice Department lawyers pointed out.
Final briefs from the plaintiffs are due by Wednesday evening.
