Pakistan’s top civil-military leadership in Riya…

NEW YORK: A coalition of 25 US states has filed a lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump, seeking to block a new round of tariffs imposed on imports from dozens of countries. The legal challenge was submitted to the US Court of International Trade in New York, where the states asked the court to suspend the tariffs, declare them unlawful and order the federal government to refund businesses that have already paid the import duties. The coalition argued that the administration exceeded its legal authority by introducing sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. According to the lawsuit, the investigations cited by the administration as justification for the tariffs were used as a pretext to impose broad trade restrictions. The disputed tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were introduced last month and apply to imports from 60 trading partners, covering a significant share of goods entering the United States. The Trump administration has defended the measures, saying they are intended to address concerns related to forced labour in international supply chains and to protect American trade interests. The White House maintains that the tariffs were imposed within the government’s legal authority and remain an important tool for securing fair trade practices. A White House spokesperson said the administration is using powers granted under US trade law to respond to what it considers unfair policies and practices affecting American commerce. Officials also argued that Section 301 tariffs have previously withstood legal scrutiny and continue to be a lawful instrument of trade policy. The lawsuit follows earlier legal disputes over President Trump’s tariff policies. Previous tariffs introduced under emergency economic powers were struck down by the US Supreme Court earlier this year, prompting the administration to replace them with the current Section 301 measures after a temporary global tariff expired in July. The states involved in the case contend that the latest tariffs are arbitrary and unlawful, arguing that while they support efforts to combat forced labour worldwide, such concerns cannot be used to justify what they describe as an illegal expansion of presidential tariff powers.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his first official visit with a foreign leader since taking office, reaffirming Britain’s unwavering support for Kyiv. The two leaders visited a UK naval base to meet armed forces personnel involved in training Ukrainian service members for Black Sea maritime security and counter-mine operations. During the visit, London announced it would share the intellectual property for “Stone Cloak”, a new military-grade electronic jamming technology designed for drones to evade Russian air defence tracking. The UK confirmed its total support for Ukraine has reached £25 billion since the start of the conflict, with Zelensky scheduled to travel onward to Washington for talks with US President Donald Trump.

A group of New York City homeowners has taken legal action against Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the city’s finance authorities over the rollout of a new pied-à-terre tax, arguing that the administration wrongly identified some primary residences as potential second homes. The lawsuit was filed on Friday by homeowners Simon Hedley, Rachel O’Brien and Carmine Morano. The plaintiffs are not challenging the legality of the tax itself. Instead, their case focuses on how city officials identified properties and made information about potentially affected homeowners publicly available. The dispute follows the publication of a city property tax roll containing the names and addresses of more than 900,000 property owners. Although most of those properties are not subject to the new surcharge, nearly 17,000 homeowners received notices warning that their properties could potentially fall under the tax. The homeowners allege that the city’s process has incorrectly flagged primary residences and unnecessarily exposed private information. O’Brien said her family’s permanent home was identified as a possible second residence despite records indicating that the property was their primary residence. She described the situation as unreasonable and questioned why homeowners were publicly listed when their properties might not ultimately be subject to the tax. The plaintiffs have asked the court to declare the notices and the publicly released property information unlawful. They are also seeking restrictions on public access to the list. In addition, the homeowners want the city to suspend response requirements and halt enforcement measures while the legal proceedings are underway. A spokesperson for Mayor Mamdani said the administration was committed to ensuring that the tax process remained clear and accessible. The spokesperson added that the city’s Law Department was prepared to defend the administration against the lawsuit. The pied-à-terre tax targets qualifying non-primary residences valued at more than $5 million, along with certain cooperative apartments valued at $1 million or above. The surcharge was included in Mamdani’s fiscal 2027 budget as part of efforts to address New York City’s budget shortfall. The rollout has triggered significant criticism from affected homeowners. In response, Mamdani extended the deadline for property owners to demonstrate that their homes are their primary residences by four weeks. The new deadline is now September 18, giving homeowners additional time to challenge their classification and provide documentation to city authorities.