Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did a judge or committee member have a sexual encounter with one of the Miss universe contestants
Executive summary
Available reporting shows an allegation by resigned judge Omar Harfouch that a member of a separate selection/“Beyond the Crown” committee was having a romantic/sexual relationship with a contestant; Harfouch made the claim in interviews and social posts and told People he meant an “affair” when warning of “significant potential conflict of interest” [1] [2]. The Miss Universe Organization (MUO) has pushed back, saying Harfouch’s comments mistakenly conflated the separate Beyond the Crown initiative with the official judging process and denied formation of an “impromptu jury” that excluded official judges [3] [4].
1. What was actually alleged — judge resigns, then names a relationship
Composer and judge Omar Harfouch publicly resigned and then alleged that an “impromptu jury” or selection committee pre‑selected finalists and that the group included people with “significant potential conflict of interest,” which he later told People referred to an alleged affair between a selection committee member and a contestant [1] [2]. Multiple outlets report Harfouch’s claim that official judges were sidelined in the selection of the Top 30 and that personal relationships — including the alleged affair — were part of his concern [1] [5] [2].
2. How the Miss Universe Organization responded
The MUO issued a detailed rebuttal saying Harfouch’s comments “incorrectly suggested” an unauthorized or impromptu jury had been formed and that official judges were excluded; MUO framed Harfouch’s likely confusion as relating to its Beyond the Crown social‑impact program, which it says is separate and has an independent selection committee [3] [4] [6]. Reports also note MUO has taken disciplinary steps against Harfouch, including bans on associating with the brand and using trademarks, per some outlets [7].
3. Media coverage: consensus and differences
Major outlets (CNN, BBC, NPR, The Guardian, People, Entertainment Weekly) uniformly report Harfouch’s resignation and his allegation of irregular selection practices; People and some entertainment outlets specifically record Harfouch expanding the allegation into an affair between a committee member and a contestant [8] [4] [6] [9] [2] [1]. Other outlets emphasise MUO’s denial and the possibility Harfouch confused the Beyond the Crown program with the main judging process [3] [4]. Tabloid/aggregator pieces amplify claims that multiple judges quit as the affair allegation circulated; some such outlets are less rigorous about sourcing [10] [11] [12].
4. What the reporting does not establish
Available sources do not provide independently corroborated evidence of an actual sexual encounter between a specific judge/committee member and a named contestant; the claim rests on Harfouch’s public statements and his interview with People [2]. There are no published documents, on‑the‑record confirmations from the alleged parties, or investigative findings in the provided reporting that confirm the affair occurred beyond Harfouch’s allegation [2] [1].
5. Who has been implicated and who has denied wrongdoing
Harfouch identifies conflicts of interest within an alleged unofficial group and told People that one of those conflicts involved an affair [1] [2]. MUO denies that the official finalists were chosen by an unauthorized panel and characterises Harfouch’s claims as a misunderstanding related to Beyond the Crown, explicitly pushing back on the “impromptu jury” assertion [3] [4].
6. Stakes and motivations to consider
Harfouch frames his comments as a defense of transparency and impartiality; MUO has a commercial and reputational incentive to rebut claims that would delegitimise the contest or its winner [1] [6]. Some outlets note that backstage power struggles and recent leadership changes at the organisation provide context for heightened tensions and competing agendas during the 2025 pageant [13] [14].
7. How to interpret the situation now
The claim that a judge/committee member had a sexual encounter with a contestant is currently an allegation made publicly by a resigned judge and reported by multiple outlets; it has not been proven in the reporting provided, and MUO disputes the framing that produced the allegation [2] [3]. Readers should treat Harfouch’s account as an allegation requiring independent corroboration and note MUO’s explanation that a separate Beyond the Crown committee exists and operates independently from official judging [1] [4].
8. What to watch next
Further confirmation would require on‑the‑record statements from the parties named (not present in current reporting), internal documents showing committee membership and timelines, or an independent investigation — none of which appear in the sources provided (not found in current reporting). If such evidence emerges, reputable outlets and MUO statements are likely to update their accounts; for now the story remains an unresolved allegation reported chiefly through Harfouch and follow‑up interviews [2] [3].