- Prince Harry ordered to pay £9.54 million in legal costs to publishers
- US judge overturns Trump’s immigrant visa ban affecting 75 nations
- Whale sanctuary project secures 20-year lease in Nova Scotia amid opposition
- Pentagon seeks to dismiss publisher and editor of Stars and Stripes
- Retired Russian general linked to Defence Ministry found shot dead in Moscow
- Giorgia Meloni criticises Donald Trump over strained US-Italy relations
- Russian drone strikes kill at least 15 people in Ukrainian shopping mall
- US Supreme Court allows Trump to continue White House ballroom project for now
UK public borrowing exceeds official forecast in September
FT.com Tweet
Government borrowing overshot official projections in September, which is a sign of the difficult fiscal position that the Chancellor faces as she puts the finishing touches on her first tax and spending budget.
CITY AM Tweet
Prince Harry ordered to pay £9.54 million in legal costs to publishers
Prince Harry and six other claimants have been ordered to pay £9.54 million as an advance on legal costs following their defeat against Associated Newspapers.
Harry and the other claimants are required to pay £9.54 million as an advance on legal costs, highlighting the significant financial implications stemming from their failed lawsuit against Associated Newspapers.
“The ruling serves as a devastating rebuke to those challenging our credibility and journalistic integrity,” stated a representative for Associated Newspapers.
Harry returns to UK as hefty Daily Mail legal bill lands

By EU News
Published on •Updated
Prince Harry’s return to the United Kingdom comes at a particularly sensitive time. As the Duke of Sussex prepares to spend more time in the country with his wife Meghan Markle and their children Archie and Lilibet, a serious consequence of his legal battle against the Daily Mail’s publishing group has arrived from the High Court in London: Harry and the other six claimants must pay a total of £9.54 million, around €11 million, as an initial payment towards the publisher’s legal costs.
The sum is not linked to the Sussexes’ move to the United Kingdom, but to their defeat in the case against Associated Newspapers, the group that publishes the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline. Harry, Elton John, David Furnish, Liz Hurley and the other key figures in the proceedings had accused the publisher of having violated their privacy over many years through alleged unlawful methods used to obtain information about their private lives.
The case, however, ended in defeat for the seven claimants. Now the bill is arriving, for the moment only a partial one.
Harry and the others ordered to pay £9.5 million
Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin has ruled that the seven must pay £9.54 million as an advance on the legal costs incurred by Associated Newspapers. The amount works out at around £1.36 million per claimant, although the actual allocation of the sum will depend on subsequent agreements and decisions.
The publishing group had asked for much more: a total of £34.5 million. A demand the judge described as excessive. Within three months Associated Newspapers must submit to the Court a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred, and it will then be decided how much must actually be reimbursed.
The final bill could therefore be significantly higher than the £9.54 million already requested.
The claimants also have insurance cover of up to about £16.2 million. If the ultimate costs were to exceed that threshold, however, any excess could end up being borne by those involved.
Harry and the others have until 2 October to lodge any appeal against the decision, although permission to proceed is not automatic.
The battle against the tabloid press
For Harry, the affair marks a new chapter in his long-running war with the British media. In recent years the prince has brought several legal actions against the tabloids, winning some of them.
In this case, however, the judge dismissed the allegations levelled at the Daily Mail group. The publisher has welcomed the verdict as a powerful vindication of its position, arguing that the ruling amounts to a devastating rebuke to the attempt to challenge the newspaper and the reputation of its journalists and executives.
The decision comes just as Harry is beginning to look towards the United Kingdom with different prospects compared with the years he has spent in California.
Harry and Meghan return to the United Kingdom
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have decided to spend more time in the United Kingdom and to send their children Archie and Lilibet to a British school. The couple will nonetheless retain their base in the United States, at their home in Montecito.
Their return does not, however, mean a comeback to the Royal Family as working members. Harry and Meghan gave up their official duties in 2020 and relations with the family remain marked by the tensions of recent years.
Relations with Prince William remain particularly sensitive. The prospect of the younger brother returning to live in the United Kingdom on a more permanent basis would bring Harry much closer to the royal family again, after years of distance and public statements that have fuelled tensions.
The security issue
And then there is another question, this time directly linked to the return to the United Kingdom: security.
After stepping back from official duties, Harry lost the automatic right to state-funded protection and launched a long legal battle to secure an appropriate level of security once again.
If he does return to the country on a more settled basis, the situation could be reassessed by the authorities in light of the new circumstances and the level of risk. According to some estimates reported in the British press, a security detail could cost up to £5 million, around €5.8 million, inevitably fuelling debate about any use of public money.
It is therefore a return full of uncertainties for the Sussexes: the case against the Daily Mail is presenting the bill on the financial front, while the move to Britain is reopening the security file and, in the background, that of relations with the royal family.
Get you up to speed: US judge strikes down Trump immigrant visa ban affecting 75 countries
A United States judge in Manhattan ruled against the Trump administration’s policy that suspended immigrant visas for applicants from 75 countries, determining the policy was “patently unlawful.” The ruling, issued by Judge Jeannette Vargas in the Southern District of New York, came in a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups and affected visa applicants.
The ruling was issued following a lawsuit from immigrant rights groups, including Catholic Legal Immigration Network and African Communities Together, along with individual visa applicants. The State Department’s suspension, which began in January 2026, impacted applicants from numerous countries across Latin America, the Balkans, South Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean.
Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the suspension of immigrant visas by the State Department was “patently unlawful” and exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s authority, following a lawsuit from immigrant rights groups. The Department of State has not yet issued a response to the ruling, leaving questions about its next steps in light of the policy’s impact on applicants from 75 countries.
What remains unclear — The State Department has not yet indicated how it will respond to the judge’s ruling.
US judge overturns Trump’s immigrant visa ban affecting 75 nations
News|MigrationUS judge strikes down Trump immigrant visa ban affecting 75 countries
A federal judge in Manhattan ruled against the State Department’s suspension of immigrant visas.
Published On 22 Aug 202622 Aug 2026
A United States judge has struck down a policy introduced by the administration of President Donald Trump suspending the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from 75 countries, saying the policy exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statutory authority.
Judge Jeannette Vargas of Manhattan said in her ruling on Friday in the Southern District of New York that the policy was “patently unlawful” and conflicted with federal immigration law, which explicitly stripped the secretary of state of authority over consular officers’ adjudication of immigrant visas.
“The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme,” she wrote.
Vargas, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, issued the ruling in a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups Catholic Legal Immigration Network and African Communities Together, along with applicants for immigrant visas and US citizens sponsoring family members from the designated countries.
The suspension, which took effect in January of this year, affected applicants from Latin American countries including Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay; Balkan nations such as Bosnia and Albania; South Asian countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh; and many nations in Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean.
The Department of State said applicants from those countries were “at a high risk for becoming a public charge and recourse to local, state and federal government resources in the United States”.
President Donald Trump has pursued an aggressive immigration crackdown during his presidency that he argues is aimed at improving domestic security. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the freeze was one of several restrictions the administration has imposed in rapid succession, following a broader travel ban covering 39 countries that took effect January 1, and a pause on diversity visa issuance in late December.
Rights groups have suggested that the crackdown violates free speech and due process rights, particularly for minorities, who have raised concerns about racial profiling.
The State Department has not yet commented on the ruling.
What to Watch
Amazon prime - TV & Netflix
What to Watch
Love Sports
- Readers Digest
Subscribe to Updates
Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.


