NEW YORK — Governor Kathy Hochul has decided not to remove New York City Mayor Eric Adams from his position, instead advocating for enhanced oversight of City Hall amid growing scrutiny related to his bribery trial and connections to the Trump administration.
During a press conference in Manhattan on Thursday, Hochul expressed that she refrained from executing her authority to dismiss Adams over fears that such an action could lead to “disruption and chaos” and could be viewed as undemocratic.
“New York is facing a grave threat from Washington,” she remarked. “The Trump administration is already attempting to use the legal challenges confronting our mayor as leverage to intimidate and penalize our city.”
This decision followed consultations that Hochul had with various political figures in New York regarding concerns over whether Adams could maintain independent governance since the Justice Department dropped a federal corruption investigation against him, enabling him to assist with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Instead of pursuing Adams’ removal, Hochul announced her intention to propose new legislation aimed at imposing additional safeguards around City Hall, with the aim of “reestablishing trust” between the public and the administration.
This legislation aims to appoint a new deputy inspector general for New York City and to allocate more funding for state oversight on city finances. Furthermore, Hochul hopes to create a clear procedure for the city’s comptroller, public advocate, and council speaker to initiate lawsuits against the federal government.
If these measures pass through the state legislature, they would be set to expire at the conclusion of Adams’ first term in 2025 and would require renewal in the future, according to Hochul.
Following the governor’s announcement, Adams responded in a statement, asserting that although there is no legal justification for restricting New Yorkers’ rights by limiting the powers of his office, he is open to collaborating with Hochul to reinforce public confidence in their government.
Hochul, a centrist Democrat like Adams, has been facing inquiries about the mayor’s viability since his indictment in September on charges of bribery and other offenses, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
The governor has indicated a reluctance to remove Adams, suggesting that doing so would be undemocratic and would embroil the city in a convoluted judicial removal process that has never been utilized against a sitting mayor.
However, following the resignations of four of Adams’ top aides on Monday, Hochul voiced her “serious concerns about the long-term viability of this mayoral administration.”
When questioned on Thursday if Adams had taken any steps to regain her trust, Hochul mentioned that she believes her proposed “system of checks” will provide sufficient oversight over the city’s budgetary and legal operations, while leaving the possibility of future actions regarding her removal powers open.
The departure of the deputies came after a sequence of remarkable occurrences in Adams’ federal criminal trial. Initially, the Justice Department directed prosecutors to withdraw Adams’ case, indicating it was hindering his capacity to assist the Trump administration’s immigration strategy.
A number of prosecutors and supervisors chose to resign instead of complying with what they perceived as an unethical directive. The acting top prosecutor in Manhattan also revealed that Adams’ attorneys purportedly had suggested that his cooperation in immigration matters could lead to dismissing his charges, a claim Adams and his primary legal counsel have denied.
After some individuals from the Justice Department filed motions to dismiss the case, a judge summoned Adams and other parties involved to court to discuss the requests. The judge has not yet made a ruling concerning the dismissal of the case.
Additionally, Adams is scheduled to face trial in April facing charges related to illegal campaign contributions and accepting travel benefits in exchange for facilitating favors for the Turkish government.
Historically, New York mayors have had both collaborative and contentious relations with state oversight, especially following a fiscal crisis in 1975 that mandated the city to submit its financial plans for review by a state-created board.
While the city has successfully navigated state oversight over the years, experts like Stephen Louis, a professor at New York Law School, caution that assessing the potential effects of Hochul’s proposals is complicated.
“It’s challenging to determine how implementing any of these measures might have prevented the current issues,” noted Louis, who has previous experience as a government attorney for the city. “Numerous individuals are already capable of scrutinizing the mayor’s office, and there are avenues for suing the federal government. So, it’s not entirely clear how these proposals address the underlying problems.”
