Photo via Politico
***
Over the past week, New York and the country as a whole have been shocked by the news of the United States Department of Justice dropping their corruption case against New York City’s Mayor Eric Adams on Monday, February 10, 2025. Many have called into question the justification for dropping the case, wondering if an agreement was reached between Mayor Adams and the current administration. The implications of a quid pro quo style deal or exchanging political favors, could be vast and devastating for the power of Democratic values.
The Justice Department’s case against Mayor Adams accuses the official of accepting over $100,000 worth of flights, hotel stays, and other luxury travel accommodations from Turkish citizens and at least one Turkish government official. These bribes were allegedly accepted beginning in 2016 when Adams was the president of the Brooklyn borough. The monetary contributions continued into 2021 when funds were allegedly solicited for Adams’ mayoral campaign, all without being declared according to election contribution laws through “straw donors,” which are campaign donations made through another person or entity in order to disguise who the funds are coming from to avoid legal repercussions. The indictment further alleges that Mayor Adams “defraud[ed] New York City and [stole] public funds” through a program where campaign donations from small donors, between $1 and $200, are matched by up to eight times the value of public funds.
In exchange for these contributions from foreign nationals, Mayor Adams allegedly complied with multiple requests from the Turkish government, including pressuring an official from the New York Fire Department to wave a fire inspection of the new Turkish consulate in 2021.
While the details of the investigation began back in November of 2023 and the official indictment coming around in September of 2024 have been part of public discourse for a while, the potential of Mayor Adams, a Democrat, turning to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, a Republican, was unexpected. However, Mayor Adams met with President Trump prior to his inauguration this year at the Mar-a-Lago estate, which was President Trump’s primary residence while he was out of office. Then, post-inauguration, Mayor Adams and his legal team, led by a top Trump appointee, continued to meet and negotiate with President Trump and his Department of Justice on January 31, 2025. While the details of these meetings are unknown, they culminated in a memo from the acting Deputy Attorney General to their office in the southern district of New York, directing the office to cease legal proceedings against Mayor Adams. This order triggered three high-ranking officials in both the Southern District of New York and Washington D.C. offices to resign out of protest. Lawyers Hagan Scotten and Danielle Sassoon had similarly biting comments in response to the order and expressed many of them in their resignation letters. Scotten even spoke directly to the President, saying, “I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.” Republican employees, like Sassoon, resigning over this decision demonstrates how truly unexpected and unpopular this directive is within the legal profession.
Beyond the resignations, this decision could have more disastrous consequences and set dangerous precedent that will take ages to correct. The case of Eric Adams tells those that originally stood on the opposite side of the aisle from President Trump that they will be well rewarded for abandoning their values and the promises made to their constituents. Eric Adams is not the only case of Democrats turning against their party in favor of President Trump and getting rewarded for it. Two prominent examples are ex-Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii and ex-presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who originally ran on the ticket for a Democratic primary. Both have been rewarded for their change of political leanings with positions in President Trump’s cabinet, with Gabbard becoming the director of national intelligence and Kennedy becoming the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
For Mayor Adams, the motivation for his change in alliance is not the promise of a new position but the retention of the one he currently holds. Though Adams and his representation claim that the idea of a political quid pro quo is a “total lie,” it is difficult to see it as anything else. This is only confirmed by the Justice Department’s justification for dropping the charges, which claims that Mayor Adams’ position is necessary to assist with President Trump’s hard line on immigration. With President Trump’s administration having difficulties enforcing his new immigration policies in deep blue states and large cities, gaining the cooperation of the mayor of arguably the largest Democratic city in the United States makes his goals all the more attainable.
Though Eric Adams is the mayor of New York City, a Democratic stronghold, his views on immigration have been drifting farther and farther right in recent years, especially with the current migrant crisis. His views have drifted so far from the Democratic party line that he expressed a wish to forgo due process, like rights to fair trials, lawyers, and to face one’s accusers, for “dangerous” immigrants, claiming they are not entitled to the aforementioned constitutional protection.
Adams also expressed the desire to roll back New York City’s “sanctuary city” laws. While New York City is not technically on the list of immigration sanctuary cities, it does have some important legal protections for immigrants. A 1989 executive order from the Office of the Mayor of New York City prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities and places the sole responsibility for enforcing immigration standards on the federal government.
Eric Adams’ shift to the right does not come about with the new Trump presidency by mere coincidence, according to George Arzt, a political consultant. Mr. Arzt claimed that with the new Trump presidency, Mayor Adams was “sharpening his rhetoric.” Of course, Mayor Adams claims that he has been reconsidering his political stance on immigration prior to the election and that the new administration has nothing to do with it.
Along with his changing views, Eric Adams also did not deny the potential of running as a Republican in the upcoming 2025 NYC mayoral election. While upon the writing of this article on Friday, February 14, the deadline for a change in party for the mayoral election is up and Mayor Adams has not “switched sides.” There has been rumor and speculation as Adams commented to conservative commentator Tucker Carlson that the Democratic Party “abandoned him and regular, working-class people,” adding fuel to the fire.
Overall, Eric Adams’ shift in political allegiances has benefited him thus far, and he is only the latest in former Democrats twisting into proverbial knots to satisfy President Trump. While President Trump certainly rewards his turncoats well, the question still arises: is it worth it? While it certainly seems valuable in the moment for these individuals, Eric Adams seems not to have weighed the long-term consequences of being labeled a Republican in a deep blue city like New York. With the weight of his recent scandals, Trump’s favor may not be enough to shoulder the burden of a polarized political system, one in which the possibility of a Republican mayor of New York City looks deeply improbable. Will the people of New York City reelect an incumbent who has shifted so far from the values on which he was originally elected? Only time will tell, especially with multiple challengers who appeal to New York City’s more traditional Democratic sensibilities.
***
This article was edited by Hayley Dunn and Marielle Bianchi.
Lauren Gracia 
Cooper Toland 
Anita Boniface