suit

President Trump is known for being combative. And to mark his birthday Sunday, he’s literally picking a fight — actually seven of them. But a legion of opponents are determined to squash the celebration.

Trump has been gearing up for weeks for UFC Freedom 250, a mixed martial arts extravaganza that will turn the historic White House into a one-night fight house. The event designed to simultaneously celebrate his 80th birthday and commemorate America’s 250th anniversary will take place in a massive octagon-shaped structure that has been erected on the South Lawn of the White House.

The invitation-only event is scheduled to stream live on Paramount+, which is owned by David Ellison, one of Trump’s closest allies. UFC fights began streaming on the service earlier this year, with some airing on CBS, one of the first major deals signed under Ellison.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle has called the UFC card “one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history, and President Trump hosting it at the White House is a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary.”

But the gala is facing fierce legal challenges from activists who say UFC Freedom 250 is a scam flavored by financial and political corruption, accusing Trump and his close friends UFC chief Dana White and Ellison of benefiting financially from the event. Opponents say Trump has purchased stock in UFC’s parent company, TKO Group Holdings, while pointing out that UFC Freedom 250 is happening several weeks before the Fourth of July anniversary.

White House officials have called those allegations baseless and have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

As promo spots showing the combatants in fight mode fill the airwaves, the Public Integrity Project watchdog group has filed a lawsuit trying to derail the event. While the National Park Service is named as one of the defendants in the suit, environmental groups and former park service staff have decried the event.

Dana White, left, and then-President-elect Trump attend a UFC event held at Madison Square Garden in New York City in 2024.

(Sarah Stier / Getty Images)

Though some legal experts have predicted that those efforts may fall short, UFC Freedom 250 marks the latest in a relentless stream of furors shadowing Trump as he faces sharply declining poll numbers and harsh criticism over his economic and domestic policies, as well as his handling of the war with Iran. Here’s what we know about the event and what to expect Sunday.

What is UFC Freedom 250?

The event will take place in a mammoth claw-like outdoor arena that will spotlight the White House in the background. Undisputed lightweight champion Ilia Topuria will face off against current interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethje in the main event, which is billed as a five-round title unification battle.

A six-fight undercard, including a heavyweight interim title bout between Alex Pereira and Ciryl Gane, will precede the main event.

Who is putting on the fight?

White‘s UFC is staging the event. White, who has stressed in interviews that no taxpayer dollars are involved, has said that Trump made the suggestion of a White House event when they were together at a recent UFC fight.

Wouldn’t baseball or basketball be a more appropriate sport to feature in a celebration of America instead of a cage fight?

Perhaps. But Trump is a huge fan of boxing and mixed martial arts. He was flanked by several of the fighters who will be participating in the event when he first announced the bouts at the Oval Office. He gushed as he introduced them individually, calling them warriors: “No people in sports are tougher than these people.”

But Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer for the Atlantic, put forth a different theory: “On Trump’s 80th birthday, blood sport will be the diversion of choice at the White House because he wants to associate his presidency and himself with the violent domination and humiliation of rivals,” he wrote in a newsletter. “America itself is weaker now on the world stage than it was when Trump began either of his presidencies.”

White has credited the president’s devotion to the sport with propelling it into the cultural mainstream, and he is predicting a record-breaking global audience.

Where can viewers watch the event?

UFC Freedom 250 will stream on Paramount+ as part of a $7.7-billion deal that Ellison struck with TKO Group Holdings, the owner of UFC. The broadcast starts at 5 p.m. Pacific.

Dana White, left, and President Trump attend UFC 327 in Miami in April.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

The event is another apparent maneuver for Ellison to curry favor with Trump as he seeks his support and approval for a $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. Trump has made no secret for his desire for shake up Warner Bros. Discovery-owned CNN, which he regards as a hostile platform.

Will this be a star-studded event?

Don’t expect a New York Knicks-style celebrity row. Although several stars including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Adam Sandler, Mario Lopez and former star quarterback Tom Brady have reportedly been invited by White, none have indicated that they plan to show up.

White has said that 70,000 fans have registered for free tickets to attend the fan event at the Ellipse near the White House.

Since it’s Trump’s birthday, is UFC Freedom 250 a political event?

“This isn’t politics,” White said recently on ESPN’s “The Pat McAfee Show. “This is about the United States, what this country is about … If you love America, you’re going to love this event. It has nothing to do with politics. We just happen to be on the White House lawn and the president of the United States will be there.”

Why is there opposition to the fights?

The lawsuit filed by the Public Integrity Project contends that UFC Freedom 250 violates federal regulations that prohibit sporting events on federal park lands. Two Virginia activists who are plaintiffs in the suit claim that they “want to uphold the rule of law and protect our nation’s most cherished monuments from corrupt exploitation.”

The suit contends that the plan includes a weigh-in at the Lincoln Memorial and a pre-fight walkout from the Oval Office.

According to the suit, “The president is giving White and his company what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to state a private, for-profit sports event with all of the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access.”

Brendan Ballou, chief executive of the Public Integrity Project, said in an interview on MS NOW that the event and advertising is “fundamentally the private profiteering of our national monuments, and that is fundamentally what is violating the law and why we are suing.”

Attorneys for musician Chuck Redd say a D.C. Superior Court judge dismissed a breach of contract lawsuit filed against the artist after he canceled a Christmas Eve performance at the Kennedy Center in protest of President Trump’s influence over the venue.

The dismissal was granted Friday under Washington’s Anti-SLAPP laws, which are designed to prevent meritless lawsuits intended to silence opposing points of view on matters of public interest.

Redd, a drummer and vibraphone player who has toured with Dizzy Gillespie, Ray Brown and others, had presided over holiday “Jazz Jams” at the Kennedy Center since 2006. He called off last year’s performance shortly after Trump’s handpicked board for the Kennedy Center voted to add the president’s name to the venue, which Congress named for President Kennedy after his assassination.

“The Center sued Mr. Redd because he publicly and rightly objected to adding Donald Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center, a living memorial to former President John F. Kennedy,” Lisa J. Banks, one of Redd’s lawyers, said in a statement. “The lawsuit against Mr. Redd was political retribution, pure and simple, by the Trump Kennedy Center, and the Court correctly saw it as such in dismissing the case with prejudice.”

Redd told the Associated Press in an email Saturday that he is “very pleased with the judge’s ruling.”

The motion to dismiss, filed in March, argued that Redd wasn’t contractually obligated to perform. It included the contract provided by the Kennedy Center, which the artist never signed.

Representatives for the Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the suit’s dismissal.

Goldin writes for the Associated Press.

Los Angeles County prosecutors are reviewing two sex assault cases against Sean “Diddy” Combs that stem from allegations made by a Florida music producer last year, law enforcement officials and the alleged victim said Wednesday.

Investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department presented the cases to prosecutors in January 2026, according to a statement from the district attorney’s office.

A spokesman for the district attorney’s office declined to say when the alleged incidents occurred or explain why it has taken nearly nine months to make a charging decision.

Combs — who rose to fame as a hip-hop mogul in the 1990s as the face of Bad Boy Records — has gone through a years-long public downfall following myriad allegations of domestic violence and sex abuse. In July, a New York jury convicted him of transporting prostitutes across state lines for drug-fueled bacchanals referred to as “freak offs.”

He was sentenced to four years in federal prison and remains incarcerated at a minimum-security prison in New Jersey.

Combs’ reputation and business began to publicly unravel in 2023 after federal authorities raided his homes, and a leaked video showed him beating his ex-girlfriend, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, at a Los Angeles hotel.

TMZ first reported on the D.A.’s office’s decision to review the L.A. allegations. A spokesman for Combs declined to comment.

In November, The Times reported that the Sheriff’s Department was investigating Combs on suspicion of a sex assault that happened in East L.A.

Jonathan Hay — a Florida-based music producer who was working with Combs on a project to remix songs written by deceased rap legend Notorious B.I.G., also known as Christopher Wallace — said Wednesday that he is the alleged victim in the cases under review by the district attorney.

Hay told several media outlets in 2025 that he was the “John Doe” from a civil lawsuit filed last July that accused Combs of sex assault in 2020 and 2021. Hay first reported the assaults to police in Largo, Fla., he has said.

According to the suit, Hay, Combs and others were at a Los Angeles warehouse that stored some of Wallace’s possessions in 2020 when Combs “provided drugs to everyone present” and subsequently began masturbating in front of Hay.

Combs “started watching porn on his cell phone, grabbed one of Biggie’s shirts off a rack, and began to masturbate with it in front of the plaintiff,” the suit alleges. In a separate incident in March 2021, Hay alleged Combs forced him to perform oral sex, according to the suit.

“I have an overwhelming feeling of hope as we are knocking on the door of criminal justice,” Hay wrote in an email to The Times on Wednesday. “I am beyond grateful that both the LASD and LAPD investigated this case thoroughly for many months and submitted it to the District Attorney.”

Combs’ civil attorney Jonathan Davis has previously denied Hay’s allegations.

“Let me make it absolutely clear, Mr. Combs categorically denies as false and defamatory all claims that he sexually abused anyone,” Davis said in a statement last year. “He looks forward to vindicating himself in court, where such matters are decided — and not in the media — based on admissible, material evidence, not rank speculation and unsubstantiated allegations.”

Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.

A Delaware Court of Chancery judge delivered a blow to wrestling impresario Vince McMahon and other World Wrestling Entertainment officials earlier this week.

Judge J. Travis Laster, vice chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, issued sanctions for “spoliation of evidence” in the shareholder lawsuit over the 2023 merger between Ultimate Fighting Championship and WWE.

Laster ruled on Tuesday that WWE executives destroyed evidence by using the auto-delete setting on the messaging app Signal, enabling potentially relevant communications to be deleted.

The ruling means the court will operate under the assumption that five potentially damaging statements are true while allowing the defendants to rebut them.

The statements, according to the ruling, include that McMahon’s decision on the merger was “influenced” by Endeavor Executive Chairman Ari Emanuel’s “promise” to provide him with a continued role at the company and to indemnify him and provide legal support as federal investigators were looking into claims of alleged sexual misconduct.

McMahon pursued a deal with Endeavor in 2022 before WWE initiated its strategic review process, and both McMahon and then-WWE President Nick Khan worked with The Raine Group, a strategic financial advisor, “to steer the process to Endeavor and away from other potential bidders,” the ruling states.

In September 2023, entertainment giant Endeavor, the parent company of UFC, acquired WWE and merged the two sports entities to form a new, publicly traded company, TKO Group Holdings, in a deal worth $21.4 billion.

A month later, a group of shareholders filed suit against McMahon and other company officials in Delaware Chancery Court, claiming McMahon orchestrated a “sham sale process.”

Representatives for McMahon, WWE and TKO were not immediately available for comment.

According to the suit, McMahon, WWE’s controlling shareholder, turned down higher offers and excluded other bidders who would have ousted him and instead chose a deal that favored Endeavor’s Emanuel, a “close friend and longtime ally,” enabling McMahon to continue running WWE and shielding him from federal investigations related to a raft of sexual misconduct claims.

The complaint also alleges that the $21.4-billion deal undervalued the company and was “far below the offers” WWE’s board could have received from other interested parties had they “made any effort to negotiate in good faith.”

The litigation is related to the 2022 investigation by WWE’s board that found that McMahon made at least $14.6 million in payments between 2006 and 2022 for “alleged misconduct.” McMahon has denied claims of misconduct.

The settlements were made to women, including WWE employees, who alleged that McMahon initiated unwanted sexual contact and coerced women into performing sexual acts on him. In one case, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, a woman claimed that McMahon sent her unsolicited nude photos of himself.

McMahon’s alleged misconduct became the subject of ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.

“I am confident that the government’s investigation will be resolved without any findings of wrongdoing,” McMahon said in a statement to The Times in 2023.

Last January, the SEC announced it had settled charges against McMahon alleging he had violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose a pair of settlement agreements to WWE worth $10.5 million.

McMahon agreed to pay more than $1.7 million in a civil penalty and in reimbursement to WWE, without admitting or denying the agency’s findings. Federal prosecutors also have dropped their criminal investigation.

In January 2024, McMahon resigned as executive chairman of the board of TKO Group, one day after a former WWE employee, Janel Grant, sued the company, McMahon and former head of talent relations John Laurinaitis, alleging sexual assault, trafficking and emotional abuse.

Grant claimed that McMahon agreed to pay her $3 million in exchange for her silence.

The shareholder trial is set to begin on June 8. McMahon, Emanuel, Khan, TKO President Mark Shapiro, and WWE Chief Content Officer Paul “Triple H” Levesque are expected to testify.

President Trump’s administration is suing four states over their refusal to issue undercover license plates to federal agents, the latest front in the wider struggle between the White House and Democratic-led states over the Republican president’s immigration crackdown.

The Department of Justice alleges in separate lawsuits announced Thursday that Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington state are imposing unconstitutional restrictions that it says impede law enforcement and threaten agents’ safety.

“By denying undercover license plates to DHS components, including ICE, while issuing them to their own state agencies, these governors are pursuing discriminatory and obstructionist policies against federal law enforcement,” said acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche in a statement.

“These actions undermine federal immigration enforcement, allow dangerous criminals to escape justice, and terrorize American communities,” Blanche added.

The Justice Department filed the suits on Wednesday in U.S. district courts in the respective states. The four state governments are accused of trying “to obstruct the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts, even though control over immigration and the nation’s borders is an exclusive federal power.”

Additionally, the Justice Department argues in the suits that the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who oversees her state’s plate program and is also a Democratic candidate for governor, said she’s confident her decisions will hold up in court.

“What ICE did in Maine and continues to do was terrorize our friends and neighbors,” Bellows said in an interview Thursday. “There are no secret police in a democracy and we will always stand up for our Mainers safety and freedom.”

A spokesperson for Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Joy Campbell said the state’s lawyers are “reviewing the complaint and will defend the RMV policy to the greatest extent possible.”

Officials in Washington and Oregon did not respond to a request for comment on the federal action.

Feds say agents are endangered when easily identified

The administration asserts that federal agents “frequently investigate and apprehend violent criminals, including cartel members, gang members, sex offenders, human traffickers, and other violent offenders” and says making those authorities easily identifiable subjects them to increased harassment and potential physical harm.

The lawsuit comes after a back-and-forth between the DOJ and some state officials. The administration previously sent state officials letters demanding they justify their policies.

Maine Atty. Gen. Aaron Frey answered the Justice Department last week, defending his state’s policy and disputing the DOJ’s contention that it has hampered federal enforcement actions.

“Rather, the program reflects a legitimate and constitutional policy choice by the SOS not to allow its resources to be commandeered by the federal government for use in civil immigration enforcement activities that have, in Maine and elsewhere, resulted in multiple incidents of abusive and unconstitutional conduct by DHS officials,” Frey wrote.

Bellows, in her role as secretary of state, announced a pause on confidential license plates in January, after federal authorities ramped up their immigration enforcement activities in the state. Bellows said at the time that the state wanted to be “assured that Maine plates will not be used for lawless purposes.”

The federal suit against Maine argues that the state “has issued confidential license plates to law enforcement agencies for many years” and that “such plates are explicitly authorized under Maine law.” The state’s review this year, the suit argues, resulted in unlawful state regulation of the federal government by requiring federal applicants for state license plates to attest that federal vehicles that obtained confidential plates would not be used for civil immigration enforcement. The suit also states that Maine did not impose commensurate requirements on state or local agencies applying for the plates, making the program discriminatory against the federal government.

Bellows has previously defended her decision.

“When ICE asked for confidential license plates, I said no” because “covert civil immigration enforcement is not something Maine will facilitate,” she said last week.

Arguments are similar to debate over agents’ masks

The Trump administration’s arguments on the license plates are similar to its defense of federal agents wearing masks on their deployments to American cities. That became a flashpoint in an extended government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding, as Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded key changes to how Trump’s mass deportation plans were carried out after masked federal agents killed two U.S. citizen protesters in Minnesota.

The White House and DHS have maintained the agency’s mask policy, and the administration already has won a federal court order blocking a California law that barred law enforcement officials from covering their faces in the state.

Additionally, the administration has been at odds with so-called sanctuary cities where local law enforcement does not assist federal authorities with immigration enforcement. And Blanche has instructed the Justice Department’s Civil Division to identify all state and local laws, policies, and practices that could impede what the administration describes as “lawful federal operations.”

Barrow and Whittle write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. Whittle reported from Scarborough, Maine.

Pop crooner and “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star Erika Girardi quietly put an end to a long and splashy legal battle over her ex-husband’s now-defunct law firm on Thursday, settling a $25-million bankruptcy lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court.

The suit alleged the singer should have known she was profiting off embezzled funds linked to the sprawling case against her ex-husband, former L.A. legal heavyweight Tom Girardi, and his firm Girardi Keese. The couple was accused of funneling millions from the law firm to prop up Erika’s music career.

Performing as Erika Jayne, she topped the charts in the 2010s with a series of raunchy dance club hits. But court records show she spent millions more than she made as a musician.

Larry W. Gabriel, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, wrote in a pretrial filing Monday that Erika and a company associated with her “received the benefit of [Tom] Girardi’s massive fraudulent scheme.”

Tom Girardi is currently serving a seven-year sentence in federal prison after he was convicted of wire fraud for bilking his personal-injury clients in 2024. The disgraced former attorney was found to have stolen tens of millions from his firm.

His wife’s pop hits mixed boasts about luxury brands and explicit sex acts with pulsing dance beats and a bratty falsetto, a tone actress Lake Bell famously dubbed “sexy baby voice.”

In depositions taken as part of the suit, Erika said she had no knowledge of her husband’s crimes. She claimed to be ignorant about where the millions she spent on recording, merchandise, tours and “fun, playful, and sparkly outfits” were drawn from.

“I did not know how much I spent per month or per year,” she said in one exchange. “Girardi Keese paid my Amex credit card bill every month.”

Monday’s filings show Girardi Keese paid at least $14 million in charges to her American Express account between 2008 and 2020.

The payouts began in the late 2000s when Erika, then a stay-at-home mom, sought to relaunch herself as a performer. In 2016, near the height of her pop fame, her husband began to complain she was charging too much on the credit card account. After repeated entreaties to tamp down her spending, Girardi tried for the first time to look at her balance.

Soon after, Girardi grew suspicious of charges being made to her card by a Hollywood costumer — worries she reported to one of Girardi Keese’s clients, an agent in the Secret Service, records show.

On the advice of the agent’s Secret Service colleagues, she said she disputed the AMEX charges and was ultimately refunded more than half a million dollars to her personal account, despite the original payments having come from the law firm.

Erika Girardi’s attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Thursday broadly upheld lawsuits by U.S. companies whose property was seized in Cuba prior to 1960, including claims against cruise ship lines that docked there in the past decade.

These suits do not seek compensation from Cubans but from those who “traffic in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government.”

In a 8-1 decision, the justices revived a $400-million judgment against four cruise lines whose ships stopped in Havana between 2016 and 2019.

All of them used docks that were built early in the 20th century by the Havana Docks Corporation, an American company.

Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to a rarely enforced 1996 law that authorized suits against those who “use property tainted by a past confiscation.”

Past presidents had suspended enforcement of the law, but President Trump allowed such claims to go forward.

That change in policy exposed “traffickers in confiscated property of United States nationals” to brings claims in federal courts, Thomas said.

The four cruise line companies — Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises — transported nearly a million paid passengers to Cuba, he wrote.

They paid the Cuban government tens of millions of dollars to do business in Cuba. They collectively earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from voyages that included a stop in Havana, he said.

A federal judge in Florida ordered each of the cruise lines to pay $100 million in damages, but the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta blocked the decision by a 2-1 vote. It said Havana Docks Corporation had a contract to run the docks had expired in 2004.

Justice Elena Kagan made the same argument in dissent.

She said “the docks belonged to the Cuban Government — not Havana Docks — all along. What Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time. And that time-limited interest expired in 2004 — more than a decade before the cruise lines ever used the docks.”

Still pending before the court is a similar claim from Exxon Mobil Corp., which was argued on the day in late February.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday moved to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns after reports that his administration was poised to create a fund to compensate some of his allies.

The disclosure was made in a filing in federal court in Florida, where the lawsuit was filed last year.

ABC News first reported last week that Trump was prepared to drop his lawsuit as part of a deal that would create a $1.7 billion fund to pay allies of the president who believe they were wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

The court filing did not mention terms of any potential deal.

News that the Trump administration was contemplating a fund to pay Trump allies drew an immediate backlash from Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, who called the idea “unconstitutional.”

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and proving things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence, go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he added.

It was not immediately clear who precisely will stand to benefit from the fund but its creation reflects Trump’s long-running claims that the Biden administration Justice Department was weaponized against him.

He has cited as proof the since-dismissed criminal charges he faced between his first and second terms of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost and of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Several aides of his were also prosecuted, as were hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law. His Justice Department also investigated Biden for his handling of classified information and brought separate tax and gun prosecutions against Biden’s son Hunter.

Nonetheless, Trump’s current Justice Department has actively pursued the president’s retribution campaign and grievances, bringing criminal charges against some of his perceived adversaries and initiating a wide-ranging investigation that aims to establish a years-long conspiracy between law enforcement and intelligence officials to destroy Trump’s political prospects and keep him power.

No charges have been brought in that investigation and it is not clear that any ever will be.

Trump filed a lawsuit earlier this year in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also named plaintiffs in the suit.

Hussein, Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Kylie Jenner is being sued by a second housekeeper who alleges she suffered cruel and unusual treatment while working for the beauty mogul.

Just a week after one woman on Jenner’s cleaning staff sued her, claiming her co-workers harassed and discriminated against her, another housekeeper has come out with allegations. The woman says the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star didn’t intervene while she suffered abuse from fellow staff, despite the housekeeper slipping the reality star a letter pleading for help.

Juana Delgado Soto filed a lawsuit against Kylie Jenner, Kylie Jenner Inc., staff supervisor Itzel Sibrian, Tri Star Services and La Maison Family Services on Wednesday alleging racial discrimination, harassment, failure to pay wages, failure to prevent or remedy harassment and discrimination, and more.

A representative for Jenner declined to comment Thursday, noting that the reality star had not yet seen the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, obtained by The Times, Soto began working for Jenner in May 2019. She alleges that meal and rest breaks were withheld from her for the first few years of her employment, but that the severity of the abuse and harassment ramped up in late 2023, when Sibrian became her direct supervisor. Soto says that, in 2024, she filed a complaint with Human Resources after Sibrian allegedly mocked and humiliated her for her accent, immigration status and race and called her stupid. Sibrian was temporarily removed because of the complaint and then reinstated, and according to the suit, she set out to retaliate against Soto for filing a complaint by reducing her hourly wage, assigning unreasonable workloads and changing her schedule.

In her lawsuit, Soto says that, as she prepared to leave work on her birthday, Sibrian threatened that she would be fired if she didn’t stay late and told her “no one cares about your birthday, Kylie is having a dinner.” Soto says she missed her own surprise party.

In late 2024, housekeeping supervisors Patsy and Elsy, who are referred to in the first lawsuit against Jenner as well, by their first names only, stepped into their leadership roles. Soto alleges that under Patsy and Elsy, she was denied adequate time off to grieve after the sudden death of her brother, and was told to “report to work immediately.” While she was working, she alleges, staff members “whispered that [Soto] was lying about her brother’s death and kept forcing her to pick up trash they purposely threw on the ground.” She further claims she was harassed when she requested time off to attend her brother’s funeral Mass.

In April 2025, the suit alleges that, after repeated failures by management to address Soto’s concerns, she wrote a long letter to Jenner detailing the harassment, discrimination and retaliation and placed it on Jenner’s massage bed immediately before her massage.

According to the suit, Soto wrote, “I need to express just how terribly I am mentally abused” and “I really apologize for letting you know about all these situations, I know you wouldn’t allow this to happen, if you were aware of it.”

Soto alleges that the following day she was threatened with termination and instructed never to contact Jenner again. “Defendants told her she was no longer allowed to look at Kylie, smile at Kylie and if she saw Kylie she would have to ‘disappear.’”

Soto further alleges that, after she left the letter for Jenner, her supervisors required her to leave the premises when Jenner was present, restricted her restroom access, forced her to clean the doghouse and prohibited her from drinking water at the residence, calling it “Kylie’s water.”

In August 2025, Soto sent a text message to her supervisors, writing, “I am sorry, I cannot do this anymore, every day you guys mistreat me, and I have bitten all my nails off, I cannot sleep at nights, and I always have anxiety because of the way you guys treat me. No matter what I did no one helped me.”

Soto is seeking an unspecified amount of punitive and compensatory damages.

“My client alleges multiple employment & labor law violations by Kylie Jenner and her affiliated companies, and I commend her for the courage to come forward and seek accountability, recognizing that taking the first step is often the most difficult,” Soto’s attorney Della Shaker told The Times. Shaker also represents Angelica Hernandez Vasquez, who filed a suit against Jenner on April 17.

Vasquez’s lawsuit says she was subjected to “severe and pervasive harassment” while employed by the makeup magnate from September 2024 to August 2025.

Vasquez, who states that she is a Salvadoran woman and practicing Catholic, alleges she was humiliated by fellow staff members and belittled because of her race, country of origin, religion and immigration status. Jenner was not personally accused of bullying behavior in the filing brought by Vasquez.

April 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation on Sunday to end its legal challenge to President Donald Trump‘s ballroom following Saturday’s arrest at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, saying its lawsuit “puts the lives of the president, his family and staff at grave risk.”

“Enough is enough. Your client should voluntarily dismiss this frivolous lawsuit today in light of last night’s assassination attempt on President Trump,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said in a letter to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s lawyers.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, Calif., was arrested Saturday night at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner hosted at the Washington Hilton Hotel with Trump, his family, members of his Cabinet and many others in attendance.

U.S. Secret Service agents apprehended the suspect — armed with a shotgun, a handgun and knives — who allegedly rushed a Secret Service checkpoint in the hotel’s lobby, authorities said.

Law enforcement and the suspect exchanged gunfire, resulting in an agent sustaining an injury when shot in the bullet-resistant vest. The injured agent and the suspect, who was not struck by gunfire, were transported to a local hospital for treatment.

Trump has been locked in a monthslong legal battle with the preservation organization over his plans to construct a $400 million donor-paid ballroom where the East Wing of the White House once stood.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that the Trump administration needs congressional approval for the project and its financing mechanism, while the Justice Department argues the project is legally authorized and that, now that construction has begun, completing it is necessary for the security and the safety of the president.

A federal judge has sided with the preservation organization, ruling that Trump needs congressional approval for the plan to proceed. After the judge earlier this month permitted only below-ground construction for security purposes, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay allowing the project to continue while the government’s appeal proceeds, with oral arguments scheduled for June 5.

Calls of support from the White House and Republicans have increased following Saturday’s incident, with Trump stating in a press conference that night, “We need the ballroom.”

In his letter on Sunday, Shumate said the ballroom would mean the president would no longer need to leave the White House to attend large gatherings.

He said the National Trust for Historic Preservation has until 9 a.m. Monday to dismiss the lawsuit or the Justice Department will move to dismiss the case “in light of last night’s extraordinary events” and state that the preservation organization opposes the motion.

UPI has asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation for comment.