Trump administration lambastes lawsuit seeking to stop White House UFC event
The arena for the upcoming UFC match on the South Lawn is seen as workers setup the Rose Garden for an evening event at the White House on June 3, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department on Tuesday urged a federal judge to reject a lawsuit seeking to stop the White House’s Ultimate Fighting Championship event scheduled for this weekend, attacking its plaintiffs as “two people who believe they have superior taste and want to spoil the event for everyone else.”
In a filing Tuesday evening, the department argued the lawsuit brought by two Virginia residents lacks any reasonable standing while describing the timing of the filing as “inexcusable” given the event was first announced nearly a year ago.
“It would be easy enough to simply avert their gazes for the weekend. Instead, they seek to enlist the power of a federal court to impose their idiosyncratic preferences on the rest of the country and ruin an event designed to celebrate the United States of America,” the department said. “No one is holding Plaintiffs in a jiu jitsu lock, forcing them to watch UFC Freedom 250 against their will. The public interest does not favor allowing them to exercise a heckler’s veto, particularly at this late date.”
In a lawsuit filed this weekend, the Public Integrity Project — representing a political activist and Vietnam veteran — claimed the event was improperly permitted, skipped an environmental review, and is an extraordinary use of public land to benefit President Donald Trump and his allies.
Calling the event “deeply corrupt,” the lawsuit alleged that the Trump administration improperly used a temporary rule for “America 250” to bypass the permitting requirements normally required to host events on National Park Service land. They argue that because the event is being organized by a private entity, not the federal government, and is not explicitly “for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence,” the fight does not qualify for that temporary rule.
In its filing, the Trump administration described the UFC fight as “one of the most highly anticipated events” in a series of others intended to celebrate the 250th birthday of the United States, at one point likening it to the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn and the Congressional Picnic.
At the same time, the filing highlights the extraordinary collaboration between the government and the UFC in preparing for the event, citing “well over $60 million and tens of thousands of hours of labor” that “have been expended” in order to carry it out.
“More than 4,000 spectators are expected to attend on the South Lawn, including more than 1,000 members of our armed services, and more than 120,000 visitors are expected to watch from the nearby Ellipse after winning free tickets in a lottery,” the filing said. “Fourteen world-class athletes, who have been training for months, have traveled from all over the world to compete (including for two world championships).”
The filing continued: “All these hopes could be dashed at the very last moment, however, by the whim of two people who believe they have superior taste and want to spoil the event for everyone else.”
The government has informed the judge overseeing the case, Amit Mehta, that counsel is available on Thursday in the event he wishes to schedule oral arguments.
Kamala Harris speaks during a fireside chat at MEET Las Vegas on May 07, 2026 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Ian Maule/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former Vice President Kamala Harris said she’s “thinking about” a 2028 presidential bid, but some previous supporters are unenthusiastic — despite her national name recognition and experience as second in command.
ABC News spoke with more than 15 former donors, fundraisers, campaign aides, Biden White House staffers and current advisers about Harris running again, some of whom asked not to be named to be able to speak freely.
A source familiar with Harris’ thinking told ABC News that she’s considering all options, but hasn’t begun explicitly deliberating on a run with her team.
Kamala Harris vs. Gavin Newsom
Like Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom got his start in San Francisco politics. He is also viewed as a top 2028 presidential contender and may gain some of her supporters, though has not formally committed.
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, one of California’s top powerbrokers, told ABC News while it’s early to speculate, he believes the most “viable” between his two mentees would be Newsom, “because he would not be the most recent loser.”
“When you embrace somebody for the job, you really want to embrace a winner, and Newsom would be what you would have to say at the moment is a winner,” Brown said.
Brown said he was “surprised” that Harris decided not to run for California governor in 2026.
“I would have advised her to be elected governor, so that she would be in the same identical position, if not better than for electability nationally than Newsom. …. If she was in the category of being on January 8, 2027, the governor of California, the dialogue would be about her candidacy, not about anybody else’s,” Brown said.
An influential California donor and early Harris supporter told ABC News, “I have not heard one person suggest it would be good for anything if she ran. … We are looking for someone who is fresh and not imposed on the voters. We understood we were stuck with the situation last time, but this is not the case going forward.”
Asif Mahmood, a bundler who’s backed Harris for 15-plus years, said, “If it is Kamala and Newsom, the money will be divided, and I think Newsom might have little edge on that because he’s currently governor.”
“It is not that I can say with certainty that I will be backing her the way I was backing before, depending on the field,” Mahmood added.
A source close to Harris said that if she ran, she’d be aware that donors and operatives may align with other campaigns.
Sour feelings among some donors
Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign burned through more than $1 billion in 15 weeks — which some fundraisers said has discouraged them from giving large sums to campaigns going forward.
“I think the electorate is going to be extremely hungry for a new, fresh, younger voice with a different perspective, and who can effectively articulate an agenda for the future. … I don’t believe that Kamala is the right person for this moment by any stretch of your imagination,” said a fundraiser who raised money for Harris’ 2024 run.
A longtime Democratic donor who raised money for Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign told ABC News, “I really have not heard anybody say that they want her to run. In fact, it’s the opposite.”
“I really think that anyone who became the nominee after Biden dropped out would have raised a ton of money. … I don’t know a lot of at least big donors who were like, ‘I feel really great about putting this money in for her.’ It was just, she was the top of the ticket,” the donor added.
One Harris 2020 fundraiser who was involved with her 2024 run said, “For somebody who wants to have a future political career, she has done nothing … to maintain any relationships with anybody that I’m aware of … that were her big donors. We’re now two years into it, and I don’t know anybody’s even got a thank you note.”
But a couple fundraisers ABC News spoke with felt differently.
“The average Democratic voter who gives 10 bucks, 20 bucks, right now likes Kamala Harris, so she’ll have an ability to raise a lot of grassroots money, which is the mother of local politics,” said Tom Nides, a former Biden administration official who fundraised for Harris in 2024 when she became the nominee. “The big dollar money is becoming less significant, and they will come on board if they think she’s gonna win.”
In response to a request for comment regarding the seemingly unenthusiastic sentiment among some donors, a spokesperson for Harris said in a statement, “The Vice President is grateful to the supporters who have stood with her. Right now, as Americans look for leadership in the fight against the rollback of their fundamental rights and freedoms — including the Supreme Court’s devastating gutting of the Voting Rights Act — she is focused on electing Democrats up and down the ballot in the midterms and building up state parties for the critical fights ahead.”
‘Biden fatigue’
For some, Harris’ association to former President Joe Biden — who withdrew from the race only after facing mounting pressure from Democrats — will be scrutinized.
“There is a kind of Biden fatigue,” said a former senior campaign adviser who worked on Harris’ 2024 campaign.
“She was obviously his vice president, which is a benefit. … But also, a detriment in other ways, especially when your boss was not very popular when he left office. … I think the donors, and just the electorate writ large, they have an appetite for a fighter, but they kind of want some new faces,” the former adviser said.
One 2020 Harris fundraiser said her opponents would seize on her not calling on Biden to drop out earlier in a potential 2028 debate.
However, Ashley Etienne, the vice president’s former communications director, said Harris distanced herself enough with her book “107 Days,” which details her frustrations with Biden.
“I think that in 2028, if things are continuing as they are now, and there’s the affordability issue, costs, unemployment, lack of democratic principles, I think that Biden thing is not going to be an issue anymore,” said one former senior campaign adviser who remains close to Harris.
Another source close to Harris said enough time would have passed by, and she could address her association with Biden with self-reflection about topics she couldn’t address as vice president.
Decision to not run for governor Harris’ decision not to run for California governor this year came as a disappointment for some, but was viewed as strategic to others.
“Had Harris entered the race, she would have cleared the field and saved Democrats a lot of pain and uncertainty that developed in this primary,” Mahmood said.
Etienne said if she jumped into the gubernatorial race, it would’ve been a “losing proposition.”
“For somebody who wants to be president, somebody who was already vice president, I didn’t see that as a really good, sound move. … I just didn’t think she gained anything by doing it,” Etienne said.
A longtime supporter of Harris said he was “surprised” by Harris’ decision not to run for governor, because it would’ve been a “significant” role for her, but said at the time she was making the decision, her campaign would have been hit by questions regarding her defense of Biden and why she didn’t press him to drop out sooner.
A former senior campaign adviser who remains close to Harris said there was a sense that Harris had to make a decision on a gubernatorial run too quickly after the presidential campaign.
How Harris may be approaching her 2028 decision A source close to Harris said that if she ran in 2028, she’d have high name recognition, favorability among Democrats, freedom to articulate her vision without restraints of the vice presidency and more time.
The source added that Harris is focused on the midterms — helping raise money for candidates and state parties — and vocalizing opposition to Republican-led redistricting efforts in the South.
In August, Harris will be delivering a keynote speech to Louisiana Democrats at the party’s annual fundraiser gala, where she will outline what she thinks Democrats must do to counteract the Louisiana vs. Callais decision that gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The former vice president has also been placing calls to federal and state lawmakers impacted by the decision, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus. During the spring, she anchored fundraising events for Democratic state parties in North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia and Nevada.
Her decision could hinge on whether she thinks a presidential campaign or setting up a foundation would be a better vehicle to advance her vision for America, according to the source familiar.
Adrienne Elrod, who served as Harris’ senior adviser and spokesperson in 2024, said, “I think anyone who has valuable ideas about how to move our country forward. … they should run for president, especially if they have broad experience to bring to the table, and she certainly fits that bill.”
Etienne said she thinks Harris should run and said she can distinguish herself from the field as she’s not currently serving in office for the first time in her political career.
“Folks think she’s fantastic, but there was some obvious, baggage that she had, and so how are you in this short period of time addressing that, offloading it, and then coming out with this combination of feeling fresh and new, yet seasoned enough to bring the nation through what Trump is taking us,” Etienne said.
“It’s really hard to run for president, and I think people who haven’t done it underestimate the difficulty and the scrutiny and all the things that come with it at that level, and so in a lot of ways the best way to be prepared to run is to have run already,” said a former senior campaign adviser who remains close to Harris.
Texas State Rep. James Talarico, who won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in the Texas primary election, speaks to ABC News. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — Texas state Rep. James Talarico, the Democratic nominee in the pivotal U.S. Senate race in Texas, appeared on Wednesday to walk back some of his past comments on religion that have become a major line of attack in the race against Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton.
When asked about his comments in 2021 during floor debate in the legislature that “God is non-binary” in an interview on ABC News Live, Talarico replied that “Ken Paxton is clipping my past cringey comments to distract from his career of corruption,” as part of a “playbook” of “distraction and division.”
When pressed on his comments, Talarico replied that they were “meant to be deliberately provocative” and that he believes “you can’t use human categories to define God.” He said that Republicans are seizing on the comments “to try and distract from the corrupt system that Ken Paxton embodies.”
ABC News reached out to Paxton’s campaign for response to Talarico’s comments.
Talarico’s comments along with other statements on transgender rights and immigration were highlighted in Paxton’s first general election ad, which ends with the tagline “Radical Talarico: too low-T for Texas.” “Low-T” is a reference to levels of testosterone that is used to insult men for a lack of masculinity.
Republicans have used transgender rights as a major line of attack, including in the 2024 presidential race. The DNC’s after-action report on the election identified the Trump campaign’s attack ads labeling his opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, as “for they/them” as one of the most effective ads of the cycle.
Democrats think Talarico’s potential to reach beyond the Democratic base and appeal to independents and Republicans disaffected by Paxton’s candidacy could be enough to win the seat and possibly control of the Senate next year.
Paxton faced ethical and personal questions during the primary. He was acquitted in an Republican-driven impeachment trial in 2023. Paxton’s wife filed for divorce last year, citing “biblical grounds.”
Republican leadership, which had encouraged President Donald Trump to back Paxton’s opponent in the primary, Sen. John Cornyn, as more electable in the general election, have begun to coalesce around Paxton as the Republican nominee.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in a radio appearance Wednesday that Republicans were going “all-in” on Paxton and attacked Talarico as a “far left liberal.”
The Senate Majority PAC, which backed Cornyn in his primary race, has taken down past press releases and ads attacking Paxton and has issued a statement opposing Talarico without mentioning Paxton by name.
Talarico has made explicit overtures to Trump voters and Cornyn voters, who are necessary to win any statewide election in Texas, saying, “There is a lot of disillusionment among the president’s supporters here in Texas, and I’m extending an open hand to those Trump voters. So that they know they have a place in our campaign.”
While Cornyn has not explicitly endorsed Paxton in the election, he has said that he will “support the Republican ticket.”
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, US, on Tuesday, July 14, 2026. (Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The House on Wednesday passed a bill that would ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks as well as mandate that voters provide photo identification “as a condition of casting a ballot” by a 232-198 vote.
Thirteen Democrats voted with all Republicans in favor of the bill.
The Stop Insider Trading Act, championed by House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses and their dependent children from buying new stocks. The bill would, however, allow lawmakers to keep the stocks they already own.
“This is the first congressional stock trading ban to receive a vote on the floor of the House,” Steil said on the floor. “If you want to day trade, there is a place for that on Wall Street.”
Administration Committee ranking Democrat Joe Morelle of New York called the bill a “sham” because it “allows members of Congress to continue owning and trading stocks.”
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez of New Mexico, the chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, told ABC News that the bill wouldn’t prevent a member from selling stock they already hold.
“It doesn’t ban stock trading because you could still acquire stocks, sell stocks, use information that you have that you garner here in Congress to make a profit. And stock trading involves purchase and sales, and it does not prohibit sales,” she said.
Some Democrats opposed the bill in part because they contend it doesn’t go far enough to rein in stock trading for the executive branch, including the president and vice president.
“The biggest glaring absence is that the president and vice president can continue to stock trade,” Leger Fernandez said.
President Donald Trump’s recent financial disclosure report shows his investment advisers made more than 21,000 trades on his behalf last year, many involving companies with business before, or regulated by, his administration.
Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas also expressed regret that GOP leadership made the vote a “partisan exercise” by attaching voter ID to the ban and agreed with Democrats who argue the scope of legislation should address all three branches of government.
“It should apply to everybody. That was my preference, and always had been,” Roy said. “We stuck on focusing on Congress because you know, get your own house in order, and then you know you can kind of start pointing fingers elsewhere, but I would like it to apply to everybody in the executive branch, judiciary branch, and here.”
Other Democrats opposed the bill because it combined the stock ban bill with the voter ID provision as Trump continues to push Republicans in both chambers to pass the SAVE America Act, which Democrats oppose because they say it would disenfranchise some voters.
According to the bill text, that provision requires voters to show a valid physical photo identification when casting a ballot for federal office. Mail-in and absentee voters can attach a photocopy of their ID to their ballot. If an eligible voter forgets to bring their ID to vote, they can cast a provisional ballot.
“They’ve added provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with stock trading and everything to do with their obsession, their obsession with the 2020 election,” Morelle said of the voter ID provision.
Leger Fernandez said the bill amounted to a “Trojan Horse” for the Save America Act.
Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York called it a “bait-and-switch” bill.
“They attached these voter suppression provisions specifically because they knew it would kill a stock trading ban. I proudly voted no because we are not going to sabotage mail-in voting in this country, and we’re not going to fall for, kind of, their bait-and-switch tactic here.”
Because of the voter ID language in the bill, the bill faces a rocky path in the Senate. Trump has pushed Republicans in the upper chamber to eliminate or modify the filibuster to pass his election legislation, though Majority Leader John Thune has repeatedly said Republicans don’t have the votes to do that.
