Chelsea Handler, Spencer Pratt Feud: The Hills Star Exposes Comedian's Epstein Past After She Slams His LA Mayoral Campaign

Chelsea Handler is urging voters in Los Angeles to reject Spencer Pratt's bid for City Hall, telling followers in a new video that the former reality television star is unfit to be mayor. Pratt has hit back by resurfacing her past connection to Jeffrey Epstein. The clash between Handler and Pratt has unfolded largely on social media since Friday, when the comedian posted her broadside as the mayoral race began to sharpen.

Pratt, 42, best known for starring in The Hills, announced in January that he would run for mayor against incumbent Karen Bass, councilwoman Nithya Raman and progressive minister Rae Huang. His campaign followed a turbulent period in his personal life. His Pacific Palisades home was destroyed in the Los Angeles wildfires roughly a year before his announcement.

His team has already had to deny suggestions that the run is being filmed as an unscripted series, calling reports of a TV tie‑in 'inaccurate' and insisting that 'no contract exists' for such a project.

Handler, 51, used her Instagram account to take direct aim at the idea of a political turn for Spencer. In the video, she tells viewers that 'a straight, white male former reality star that has no previous experience in government should not be a legitimate political candidate,' before pausing to pour herself a canned cocktail.

She then adds, with exasperation, 'Have we learned anything yet? The bar is on the f---ing floor, people, and I need you to jump over it.'

The post is framed as a warning to Los Angeles voters rather than a formal endorsement of any rival candidate, but the implication is unmistakable. Handler, who has made political commentary part of her act in recent years, is effectively arguing that the city should not repeat what she sees as a national mistake in elevating celebrity outsiders without public‑service experience.

Her intervention landed in the middle of a media cycle that had already been following her personal life, including complaints about what she has described as her 'toxic' $6 million home, which she bought from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. That detail, while tangential to the mayoral race, has fed into a broader narrative in some corners of social media about wealthy entertainers critiquing politics from behind their own gates.

Pratt Uses Epstein Clip to Hit Back at Handler

Spencer was quick to answer. Rather than engage with her argument about qualifications, he chose to challenge her credibility by highlighting her brief connection to Jeffrey Epstein.

On X, Pratt shared a clip of comedian Shane Gillis from Netflix's recent roast of Kevin Hart, where Gillis brings up Handler's attendance at a dinner at Epstein's New York home. 'Most of you have probably never heard of Chelsea Handler, so here's an introduction!' Pratt wrote in the caption, pairing his jab with the Gillis clip.

In the roast segment, Gillis tells the Los Angeles audience, 'Speaking of tossing tiny shrimp into a child's mouth, Chelsea Handler went to dinner at Jeffrey Epstein's house in 2010.' The line draws groans from the crowd, and has since been recycled online as a shorthand reference to the comedian's past brush with the disgraced financier.

Handler has not hidden that episode. She has previously told actor Rob Lowe on his podcast that she attended a small dinner party at Epstein's Manhattan residence and that it was her only meeting with him.

'I've never been on the private island and I've never been on his plane. I've met him one time and that was the time,' she said. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex‑trafficking charges.

There is no suggestion from the available record that Handler was accused of any wrongdoing in connection with him, and Pratt has not produced evidence of anything beyond the acknowledged dinner. Nevertheless, by pushing the Gillis clip to his followers, Spencer has tried to turn Handler's attack back on her, casting her as part of the same elite culture she often mocks and questioning whether she is in any position to lecture voters about moral or political standards.

Old Hollywood Feud Colours a New Political Fight

The argument between Handler and Spencer is not appearing in a vacuum. Their friction dates to the late 2000s, when Handler regularly skewered Spencer and his wife, Heidi Montag, on her late‑night show Chelsea Lately. He was, for a time, one of her favourite punchlines, a symbol of the excess and contrivance of reality television fame. That history gives their latest exchange a personal undertone that goes beyond ordinary campaign sniping.

Handler's new video drew predictable reactions across the celebrity ecosystem. Actress Busy Philipps commented, 'I love you, thank you good Lord,' while Marisa Tomei added applause emojis and Henry Winkler posted fire emojis in apparent support.

The chorus of blue‑tick approval underlined Handler's standing in parts of Hollywood, and by extension, the extent to which her warning about Spencer will be amplified in those circles.

Not everyone was impressed. In the comments, self‑described ordinary residents pushed back at what they saw as a familiar script: a wealthy entertainer instructing regular people how to vote.

'Nothing more tone‑deaf than a celebrity living behind gates and armed security telling ordinary people how to vote while families dodge naked addicts on the way to school,' one user wrote, accusing her of being disconnected from street‑level concerns in Los Angeles.

Pratt's own campaign has so far kept its public messaging mostly focused on his candidacy rather than the feud, beyond the Epstein‑related post. The decision to respond through a comedy clip rather than a policy argument reflects something about his approach, he is still operating in the register of pop‑culture spats even as he seeks formal office.

With incumbent Karen Bass, Nithya Raman and Rae Huang also in the race, the question for voters is whether the Handler and Spencer back‑and‑forth matters beyond the timelines. For now, it has ensured that a candidacy many had dismissed as a stunt is getting national attention, even as the core claims on both sides about fitness for office and moral authority remain more about perception than provable fact.