Is the White House UFC fight legal?

**SPEAKER_1** (0:00)
Support for Here and Now Anytime comes from MathWorks, creator of MATLAB and Simulink software, to design and develop engineered systems, accelerating the pace of discovery in engineering and science. Learn more at mathworks.com.
WBUR podcasts, Boston.

**Richard Painter** (0:21)
He was not elected to serve the interests of other billionaires. He was elected supposedly to represent the American people.

**Chris Bentley** (0:31)
The fight over the fight on the White House lawn.
It's Monday, June 8th, and this is Here and Now Anytime from NPR and WBUR. I'm Chris Bentley. In a few minutes, we'll hear why Apple's latest updates are the talk of tech. Today...

**Ina Fried** (1:00)
I've covered Silicon Valley for almost three decades now, and I've never seen a pace of development like this. And Apple has not so far been moving at AI speed.

**Chris Bentley** (1:11)
But first, President Trump is remaking Washington in his image in a very literal way. His name and face are on buildings from the Kennedy Center to the Justice Department, and much of downtown DC has become a giant construction site, thanks to his White House renovations. That includes a huge cage called the Claw, built on the White House south lawn for a UFC mixed martial arts fight scheduled for Sunday, June 14th, which is Trump's 80th birthday. Now, the non-profit Public Integrity Project is suing to stop that fight, calling the event deeply corrupt because the president's friend, Dana White, the head of UFC, is getting, quote, unfettered access to the White House, end quote, to stage a for-profit sports event.
Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer and University of Minnesota law professor, tells Indira Lakshmanan, the case does have merit.

**Richard Painter** (2:11)
Well, yes, the legal contentions in the lawsuit are absolutely correct that the White House here has been used to promote a private enterprise. And park service regulations are being violated. This is use of public lands, government property, for the promotion of not only the UFC, but also Skydance Paramount, which is going to be broadcasting this and apparently charging $9 for every American who wants to see it.

**Indira Lakshmanan** (2:44)
This lawsuit says that Paramount Skydance, which as we know is run by Trump allies, the Ellisons, will charge people a streaming subscription fee of, as you said, $9 to watch the event. Is this legal?

**Richard Painter** (2:58)
Well, it's legal for them to charge $9 for people to watch a fight that they stage and that they pay for, but not on public property, much less on the White House grounds. There are clear Park Service regulations and statutes that pertain to this. This is also use of public office for private gain, which violates fundamental principles of conduct for federal employees that apply to everyone in the executive branch. And we've seen this repeatedly in the Trump administration, the use of the presidency to promote the president's businesses, other businesses as well, the selling of Teslas on the White House lawn and so forth.
It rejected also to when President Biden was allowing his name to be used for the Penn-Biden Center by the University of Pennsylvania. But I have to say, this is far, far worse. We have the White House lawn being ripped up to stage a fight for the benefit not only of the UFC, but for the sky dance paramount. And that's of course the Ellison's. They were strong supporters of President Trump. But that's not what the presidency is all about. He was not elected to serve the interests of other billionaires.
He was elected supposedly to represent the American people.

**Indira Lakshmanan** (4:16)
The weigh-ins for the contestants in this event will be held by the Lincoln Memorial. Now, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is a Vietnam War veteran, who says that this will disturb the tranquility of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial nearby. How strong is that legal argument? And do the plaintiffs in this case have standing?

**Richard Painter** (4:38)
Well, I have to say the legal argument on the merits is very strong. When I was in the Bush White House as the ethics lawyer, I wouldn't let someone auction off for their preschool charitable auction and lunch at the White House mess or a White House tour.
So this is really quite shocking. The problem is that the plaintiffs may well not have standing to sue. I ran into this with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington when we sued President Trump under the Emoluments Clause for taking money from foreign governments in violation of the US. Constitution. It turned out that a lot of the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue. Unfortunately, the courts usually will not hear these lawsuits unless someone suffers a unique injury from the illegal conduct of the government. A competitor of UFC or of Paramount's Guidance might be able to sue if they were denied access, but it's very, very difficult to get standing to sue at a federal court.