TWO MISS UNIVERSE 2025 JUDGES RESIGN, CLAIM PAGEANT WAS PRE-RIGGED AND COMMITTEE MEMBER HAD AFFAIR WITH CONTESTANT true or false

1. What happened — two resignations amid accusations

Multiple outlets report that Omar Harfouch publicly resigned from the eight‑member Miss Universe 2025 judging panel and accused organizers of a clandestine vote that pre‑selected 30 finalists without the official judges’ involvement ^{[1] [2] [3]}. A second judge, Claude Makélélé, also announced he would not participate; his public statement cited “unforeseen personal reasons” rather than alleging rigging ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The central allegation: a “secret” or “impromptu” jury

Harfouch’s core claim is that an “impromptu jury” — people not on the official finals panel, including individuals with personal ties to contestants — selected the semifinalists, which he says would amount to a conflict of interest and undermine transparency ^{[1] [5]}. He later linked the alleged advance selection to business ties between Miss Universe leadership and the winner’s family in social posts reported by several outlets ^{[6] [7]}.

3. Organization’s rebuttal and alternative explanation

The Miss Universe Organization pushed back, saying Harfouch “mischaracterised” the process and denying that any external group was authorized to choose finalists; it also highlighted the Beyond the Crown program, a social‑impact initiative with its own separate selection committee that may explain the confusion Harfouch described ^{[2] [5]}.

4. How major newsrooms are covering the dispute

International outlets from the BBC and The New York Times to CNN and NPR report the resignations and Harfouch’s claims while noting the organization’s denial and the existence of the separate Beyond the Crown selection process ^{[2] [1] [8] [3]}. Coverage consistently states Harfouch’s allegation without definitive independent evidence of rigging in the reporting provided ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Evidence vs. allegation: what the reporting shows and what it does not

Current reporting documents Harfouch’s public posts, his resignation, and the MUO’s denial; it does not present independent proof that an unauthorised jury altered finalists or the final result ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Available sources do not mention concrete documentation (e.g., internal ballots, emails, or corroborating testimony from other officials) that proves a pre‑selection changed the finalists beyond Harfouch’s statements ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Broader context: a chaotic build‑up to the final

The 2025 Miss Universe contest ran amid multiple controversies — public confrontations involving contestants and organizers, contestant walkouts, stage accidents, and management changes — which have heightened scrutiny and made procedural claims more resonant in coverage ^{[9] [10]}. That environment helps explain why Harfouch’s accusation drew swift attention and why the organization sought to clarify that separate programs might be the source of his confusion ^{[9] [2]}.

7. Competing narratives and possible motives to watch

Harfouch frames his resignation as a stand for contestants’ fairness and has threatened legal action while promising further revelations; MUO frames his claims as inaccurate and points to legitimate, separate selection processes ^{[6] [1]}. Reporters note no consensus among insiders in the available coverage, and some commentators emphasize that personality conflicts and commercial interests around the pageant could shape or amplify allegations ^{[11] [10]}.

8. What remains unresolved and what to look for next

Key unanswered items: independent corroboration of Harfouch’s “impromptu jury” claim, any internal documents or testimony from other judges or staff, and whether Harfouch will follow through with formal legal complaints ^{[6] [1]}. Future reporting that publishes emails, voting records, or statements from additional insiders would be necessary to move this from allegation to proven misconduct ^{[6] [2]}.

Summary judgement: two judges did resign and one publicly accused the contest of being rigged; the Miss Universe Organization denies that characterization and points to a separate program that may explain the confusion — but current reporting offers allegations without independent documentary proof ^{[1] [2] [3]}.