The Janel Grant situation just led to another explosive reaction and this time its coming from former WWE talent Shelly Martinez. After Grant delivered an emotional speech at a Capitol news briefing about her lawsuit against WWE and Vince McMahon, Martinez took to the Too Much Information podcast on February 23, 2026 and she did not hold back. While Grant focused on the mental health toll of being publicly identified in 2022 and criticized the role of NDAs in workplace misconduct cases, Martinez challenged the core premise of Grants narrative. And instead of sympathy, she brought heat. Martinez opened by acknowledging Grant may have gone through painful experiences but quickly made it clear she doesnt see the situation as one-sided. From there, Martinez framed the situation as a matter of personal choice arguing that in the entertainment world, people often know what certain assignments require. She said everyone has limits, but those limits come with consequences. Martinez compared the situation to moments in her own life when she considered morally complicated paths for career advancement including referencing environments where she knew what would be expected. Thats when she turned directly back to Grant. Martinez repeatedly described the relationship as transactional not coercive. She even suggested the dynamic evolved over time. And then she painted the picture in blunt terms. But what really set Martinez off was Grants framing of herself as a victim. She contrasted that with real abuse victims, who never had a choice at all. As the rant continued, she suggested Grants lawsuit may stem from losing leverage not exploitation. And she doubled down. Martinez did say her view could change if Grant publicly acknowledged participation in what she described as a mutual arrangement before explaining where things crossed the line. But as it stands? Grants lawsuit against McMahon and WWE is still moving forward. But with former WWE talent now publicly tearing into her narrative, this controversy just got louder and a lot more personal. So now the question is simple: is this a case of accountability being debated in real time, or has this crossed into something uglier? Sound off in the comments. Please credit Ringside News if you use the above transcript in your publication. G Add as a preferred source on Google
