The Miss Universe 2025 pageant, scheduled to be held in Bangkok, has been engulfed in controversy just days before the final event, after judge Omar Harfouch resigned alleging that an unofficial “impromptu jury” had pre-selected the Top 30 finalists even before the preliminary rounds. His allegations, paired with claims of conflicts of interest, secret committees and personal relationships influencing results, have triggered a wave of criticism from contestants, fans and industry observers, prompting the Miss Universe Organisation (MUO) to issue a strong public denial. As the global pageant community tries to make sense of the escalating drama, the incident has reignited long-standing concerns over transparency, fairness and internal functioning within the world’s most widely followed beauty pageant.
The developments have added an unexpected layer of tension to an event already under intense global attention, especially as 136 contestants prepare for the preliminary stage—a crucial round that traditionally determines who advances to the finals. For the first time in years, the integrity of the selection process has been questioned at a scale large enough to trigger public statements, media scrutiny and internal discussions within the organisation. With less than three days to the coronation ceremony, the pageant now finds itself confronting credibility concerns that could shape public perception for years to come.
Judge’s Resignation Sparks Allegations of Pre-Selection and Conflicts of Interest
The controversy erupted when Omar Harfouch, a Lebanese composer and officially appointed Miss Universe 2025 judge, took to Instagram to announce that he was stepping down from the judging panel. His revelation—accompanied by a series of posts and stories—alleged that a clandestine committee had already selected the Top 30 contestants before the official panel could evaluate any participant.
According to Harfouch, the list was prepared before contestants walked the stage for preliminary interviews or performances. He claimed that this “secret committee” acted independently of MUO’s formal judging body and that its members had “significant potential conflicts of interest,” including personal relationships with contestants competing for the crown. One of the most serious allegations was that a member of this unofficial committee was engaged in an affair with a contestant—an accusation that, if true, would violate every standard of impartiality expected from an international competition.
Harfouch further said in interviews that he was shocked to learn that the official judges would be allowed to choose finalists only from a pre-determined list of 30 contestants, rather than from the full group of 136 women competing. This, he stressed, represented a breach of the contract he signed when agreeing to judge the event, as he had been assured he would evaluate every contestant equally. In his words, the idea of eliminating more than a hundred contestants before judges had even seen them amounted to “playing with the destiny of young girls,” a responsibility he refused to endorse.
He also told People magazine that he resigned following what he described as a “disrespectful conversation” with MUO owner Raul Rocha, who allegedly dismissed his concerns about transparency in the vote-counting process. Harfouch insisted that the situation was not a minor procedural disagreement but a fundamental challenge to fairness.
His statements added fuel to an already growing frustration within the pageant community, where whispers of internal influences, pre-favouritism and unofficial power structures have long circulated but rarely been verified so publicly.
Adding further momentum to his claims, an unnamed contestant corroborated the allegations in a separate interview with People. She stated that shortly after leaving rehearsals, multiple contestants discovered through social media—not the organisation—that the Top 30 had allegedly been selected without official judges’ involvement. She said contestants were devastated to learn that some of the names on the alleged list had personal or professional ties to individuals within MUO, appearing to violate conflict-of-interest norms.
The contestant described the situation as “heartbreaking” and praised Harfouch for standing up for integrity when, in her words, “the organisation would not.” Her comments highlighted an atmosphere of disillusionment among participants who had prepared for months or even years for a fair chance at the Miss Universe crown.
This was not the first instance of controversy in the 2025 edition. Just days earlier, Thai national director Sansiri “Anne” Manomaiphibul issued an apology after referring to Miss Mexico as a “dummy,” sparking outrage and a brief walk-off among contestants during rehearsals. Combined with the allegations of pre-selected finalists, the sequence of controversies has cast an unflattering spotlight on the pageant’s internal operations.
Miss Universe Organisation Denies Allegations and Issues Permanent Ban on Judge Omar Harfouch
In response to Harfouch’s allegations, the Miss Universe Organisation released a strongly worded public statement on Instagram on November 18. The organisation categorically denied the existence of any secret jury or unauthorised committee responsible for selecting finalists, stating that all evaluation protocols remained transparent, supervised and consistent with established MUO procedures.
The statement declared that no external group had been authorised to assess contestants or influence the selection of the Top 30 and asserted that competition scoring is conducted solely through MUO’s official processes. In essence, the organisation sought to reaffirm its commitment to fairness and transparency.
What surprised many pageant followers, however, was the MUO’s decision to impose a permanent ban on Harfouch. The statement explicitly prohibited him from associating with the Miss Universe brand in any capacity in the future. This included restrictions on using Miss Universe trademarks, logos or titles in digital, print or personal communication formats.
The tone of the statement suggested that the organisation believed Harfouch had publicly misrepresented the internal workings of the competition. It further claimed that he demonstrated “confusion” regarding established procedures and expressed reluctance to participate, making his withdrawal inevitable. MUO portrayed the situation as an unfortunate misunderstanding rather than evidence of wrongdoing.
The decision to publicly ban a judge is rare in the history of Miss Universe, with many observers noting that it marked an unusually strong reaction. Critics argued that MUO’s response may have been intended to control narrative damage, while supporters insisted that the organisation was justified in combating misinformation.
However, the broader pageant community remains divided. For supporters of Harfouch, his resignation represents a courageous stance in defence of fairness. For others, MUO’s detailed public clarification offers reassurance that the judging process will proceed without bias.
This split reflects a larger debate about transparency in global beauty pageants. Miss Universe has often faced allegations of favouritism, backstage influences and organisational discrepancies, though rarel y have such claims emerged so publicly or so close to the final event.
Adding to the pressure is the fact that Miss Universe 2025 features one of the largest groups of contestants ever—136 women—making transparency even more crucial to maintaining legitimacy among fans and participants.
Amid the ongoing controversy, preparations continue for the event’s grand finale, scheduled for November 21 at the Impact Challenger Hall in Pak Kret, Thailand. India’s representative, 22-year-old Manika Vishwakarma from Rajasthan, remains among the hopeful contestants, and millions of viewers across the globe are expected to tune in through the official Miss Universe YouTube livestream.
But with allegations still trending across platforms, industry experts say the 2025 edition has become one of the most polarising in recent memory, raising questions about internal accountability, contestant treatment and the level of transparency expected from the world’s most influential beauty pageant.
