President Trump is exploring whether the federal government can legally block New York's new pied-à-terre tax on luxury second homes, a levy he called a "dangerous political experiment", after a Staten Island judge halted Mayor Zohran Mamdani's rollout of the program.
Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday that he was weighing federal intervention against the tax, which targets properties not used as a primary residence. The surcharge applies to one-to-three family homes valued at $5 million or more and condos and co-ops worth at least $1 million. State lawmakers and Governor Kathy Hochul approved the measure as part of the state budget in May.
The president did not specify which federal legal authority his administration might invoke. But his public statement came one day after Staten Island Judge Wayne Ozzi issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the Mamdani administration from moving forward with the tax, a ruling that exposed deep problems with how the city tried to implement the program.
The restraining order followed a lawsuit by New York City homeowners who argued the administration botched the rollout from the start. Fox News reported that Judge Ozzi found the city had published a supplemental property roll exposing the names, addresses, and property values of more than 900,000 homeowners, without first making the individualized determinations required by law. The court concluded the city had improperly placed the burden on homeowners to prove they deserved an exemption, rather than conducting its own due diligence before sending notices.
Randy Mastro, an attorney representing the homeowners, said outside the courthouse that the administration had no one to blame but itself.
"The city screwed this up... got it wrong... stop the train and make them do it over."
Mastro also told Breitbart the ruling vindicated hundreds of thousands of property owners who never should have been swept into the process.
"We are very gratified by the judge's decision, which has vindicated the rights of hundreds of thousands of New York City homeowners who were subjected to a process they never should have been a part of in the first place."
The court's order requires the city to take down the publicly available list covering roughly 960,000 properties. It also bars the administration from acting on notices already sent to about 17,000 property owners. A full hearing is scheduled for August 31.
The Mamdani administration's decision to publish that massive list drew its own wave of backlash. The roll exposed names and addresses of nearly a million New Yorkers, including some of the mayor's own supporters, a fact that undercut the administration's claim that the tax was carefully targeted at the ultra-wealthy.
Matt Rauschenbach, a spokesman for Mamdani, pushed back on the ruling and signaled the city would not back down.
"We disagree with today's ruling, but we are confident in both the pied-à-terre surcharge and the City's ability to implement it fairly and effectively."
The Mamdani administration filed an appeal that, the New York Post reported, keeps the tax in effect pending a higher court hearing. So while the restraining order halted the initial rollout, the legal fight is far from settled.
The pied-à-terre tax is Mamdani's signature wealth-tax initiative, and it has become a defining test of his tenure. The mayor, a former state legislator who ran on a progressive economic platform, has faced a string of legal and political challenges since taking office. An immigrant business coalition voted to sue the city over another of his programs, and the Florida Chamber of Commerce mocked him as its "Economic Developer of the Year" with a Times Square billboard, a jab at the flight of wealth and business from New York under his leadership.
Trump's Truth Social post went further than simply questioning the tax's legality. He called the measure "pure Amateur Hour" and warned it would damage the city and state.
"This dangerous political experiment in New York will destroy what was once a great City and State. It is pure Amateur Hour."
He also wrote that he was looking into whether the federal government had standing to intervene.
"I am looking to see if the Federal Government has any legal right to avert this disaster."
No federal agency has been formally directed to investigate legal options, and Trump did not name a specific statute or constitutional provision his administration might rely on. Whether a federal challenge to a state-authorized local tax has viable legal footing remains an open question, one that would likely raise significant federalism issues.
Governor Hochul fired back at Trump, defending the tax as a matter of fairness and accusing the president of deflecting from his own record.
"New Yorkers are feeling the squeeze of all of his policies... It's about paying your fair share. Donald Trump ought to focus on all the pain he's causing New Yorkers and knock it off."
Hochul's framing, that the tax simply asks wealthy second-home owners to "pay their fair share", sidesteps the procedural failures Judge Ozzi identified. The court did not strike down the tax itself. It found the city's implementation was reckless: nearly a million homeowners had their personal information published without the legally required individualized review, and thousands received notices demanding they prove their own innocence.
The scale of the administration's error is hard to overstate. A tax sold as targeting luxury second homes worth $5 million or more swept roughly 960,000 properties onto a public list. That is not a precision instrument. It is a dragnet, and the people caught in it were ordinary homeowners who had done nothing wrong.
Judge Ozzi found that publishing their names, addresses, and property values caused irreparable harm. The city's response, file an appeal and keep pushing, suggests the Mamdani administration views the legal setback as a speed bump, not a reason to reconsider.
The mayor's track record suggests a pattern. Mamdani has repeatedly drawn criticism for prioritizing ideological ambition over competent execution. He skipped the 1993 World Trade Center bombing memorial for a trip to Washington, drawing condemnation from victims' families. His taxpayer-funded grocery store program prompted a lawsuit from the very immigrant business owners it was supposed to help.
Whether Trump's federal challenge materializes or fizzles, the state court fight alone poses a serious threat to the tax. The August 31 hearing will determine whether the restraining order becomes a preliminary injunction, and whether the city must rebuild its implementation from scratch.
For the 960,000 homeowners whose personal information was dumped onto a public list, the damage is already done. No appeal filing undoes that. And for a mayor who pitched this tax as a model of progressive governance, the courtroom record so far tells a different story: one of sloppy execution, shifted burdens, and a city government that treated nearly a million of its own residents as guilty until proven innocent.