MMA fans were surprised when the UFC broadcast was interrupted by the president and an advertisement. That same ad was deemed illegal by a judge 24 hours earlier.
Mixed martial arts fans and UFC diehards were settling in to watch Julian Erosa face JeongYeong Lee on Paramount+ when an unusual commercial appeared on screen.
During the fight, President Donald Trump popped up on people’s screens with a startling pitch.
He brought a dramatic financial promise aimed directly at midterm voters into the homes of millions of Americans.
The ‘Trump Dividend’
Dagens.com readers are familiar with Trump’s pitch: Every adult American citizen will receive a $5,000 check if Republicans keep control of Congress on Tuesday.
Trump has dubbed the payout the “Trump Dividend,” framing the massive cash transfer as a bold reward for backing his party.
Promising money is easy enough in theory; delivering this promise is another thing. Forecasters give Democrats roughly a 95 percent chance to reclaim the House, making a Republican sweep a long shot.
Even with a surprise win, Congress would still need to approve the funding. Lawmakers would almost certainly shut down the dividend as the country continues to fight stubborn inflation.
Defying court orders
The commercial is also in violation of a legal order. A federal judge had already ordered the administration to stop airing the advertisements, ruling that officials cannot use taxpayer money to fund partisan political messages.
Administration officials insisted the broadcast was just a public service announcement. The court disagreed. Yet the “$5,000 to Americans” ad ran on Saturday night anyway, airing a full 24 hours after the judge told them to stop.
The setting was hardly an accident. UFC chief executive Dana White has long been an ally of Donald Trump, even hosting a UFC event on the White House lawn on Trump’s 80th birthday. That close relationship has turned the fight organization into friendly ground for pushing the administration’s agenda.
It remains unclear whether Paramount+ had any choice in the matter. Traditional networks face rigid free-speech rules that prevent them from turning away political advertisements. Whether those same rules bind internet streaming apps remains an open legal question.
