This week, we asked readers their opinions on a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) memo dated Monday, Feb. 10, directing the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York to drop, for now, the bribery and corruption charges formally brought against New York City Mayor Eric Adams last year, which resulted from a 2023 investigation into his 2021 mayoral election campaign and related campaign financing.

 

Dismissal Charges Background

As background, and as reported, the mayor had his iphones and other devices seized by federal agents in November 2023 as part of the investigation into allegations he accepted both travel and other benefits from Turkish politicians in exchange for pressuring the FDNY to sign off on fire safety measures implemented during the construction of the Turkish consulate in New York, as well as allegations he accepted campaign donations from illegal straw donors.

 

As reported, the dismissal of the bribery charges was contingent upon certain conditions, including a review of the case by the DOJ after the November 2025 New York general elections, including the mayoral race. The DOJ also directed local, New York federal prosecutors to restore Adams’ security clearances, since it was learned they had been revoked as part of the investigation.

 

As reported, once in office, U.S. President Donald Trump replaced the prior federal prosecutor who was overseeing the bribery investigation into the mayor’s campaign finances with his own pick, and the charges were later directed to be dropped “without prejudice,” meaning they could be brought against Adams again at a later point.

 

Opponents of the mayor, a former police officer who ran as a moderate Democrat, complained that justification for the temporary reprieve had not been adequately substantiated by the DOJ, other than broadly decrying the timing of the bribery charges, that they were hindering the mayor’s ability to address undocumented immigration in New York, and hindering his re-election campaign.

 

As reported, DOJ officials also wrote in part, “It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior [Biden] Administration’s immigration policies before the charges were filed,” implying the charges were brought against the mayor in retaliation for this prior criticism. They did not specifically address the merits or otherwise of the charges themselves.

 

As reported, on Feb. 12, federal authorities hit New York politicians including Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James, among others, but not the mayor, with a lawsuit over allegations New York was tipping off undocumented immigrants of planned raids and deportation plans by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials as part of the Trump administration’s immigration reform agenda.

 

As reported, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon was one of a number of senior Justice department officials to subsequently resign rather than comply with the DOJ order to dismiss the corruption charges against the mayor, according to reporting by Reuters. Opponents of the mayor later argued that because Adams now knows the bribery charges could still potentially be brought against him in the future, he is beholden to the DOJ and to the president, and that this is not good for New Yorkers.

 

In the meantime, four of the mayor’s deputy mayors, Maria Torres-Springer, first deputy mayor; Anne Williams-Isom, deputy mayor for health and human services; Meera Joshi, deputy mayor for operations; and Chauncey Parker, deputy mayor for public safety, tendered their resignations from the Adams administration on Feb. 17 “due to the extraordinary events of the last few weeks and to stay faithful to the oaths we swore to New Yorkers and our families,” according to reporting by CNN.

 

The latest resignations followed prior resignations last year by other top Adams administration officials, including two police commissioners, amid ongoing City Hall chaos. As reported, calls from various City leaders, organizations, and others in recent weeks have grown for the governor to remove Adams from office over concerns he is compromised in his role as mayor because of an alleged “quid pro quo” arrangement between him and the president, which followed the mayor’s attendance at the president’s inauguration and a separate, private Mar-a-Lago meeting held last month.

 

On Feb. 19, both Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III of the DOJ, a former criminal defense lawyer for President Donald Trump, and the mayor denied any alleged quid pro quo during a Manhattan court hearing before a federal judge. Currently, the motion to dismiss the bribery charges has not formally been acted on in New York, while the judge continues to review the case.

 

Outside, in the court of public opinion, to address the concerns of New Yorkers over the mayor’s ability to continue to govern amid the chaos, on Thursday, Feb. 20, Hochul stopped short of removing Adams from office, with just four months remaining ahead of the Democratic mayoral and other primaries, and instead, announced new actions “to restore public trust in New York City government, with a sweeping expansion of state oversight and new guardrails to ensure accountability and protect New Yorkers.”

 

Among other actions, the governor announced a new Special Inspector General for New York City Affairs and Protection of the City Commissioner of Investigation; empowered citywide elected leaders to utilize federal litigation against the federal government using outside counsel if New York City’s Law Department declined to do so promptly upon request, and strengthened State oversight of New York City’s finances.

 

Among his detractors, the mayor also has many supporters across the City. He continues to deny any wrongdoing and is presumed innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law.

 

On Friday, Feb. 21, the Bronx Democratic Party released its endorsements for the upcoming Democratic primaries, and despite the daily, nationwide news coverage regarding the mayor, which the governor lamented on Thursday, Feb. 20, the Party stopped short of any endorsement for the position of mayor. We therefore asked the Party directly if they plan to endorse Adams and will share any updates we receive.

 

Opinions of Some Residents

“They’ve got to fix the system. This is no good, no good. He’s got to pay for what he did and what [U.S. President Donald] Trump did. Both of them have done the same s—t. Trump’s not going to admit it; they’re both in the same boat.”

Maria Delgado,
West Farms

“I don’t know if he did it. I don’t know if it’s fair that they dropped the charges against him. I think it’s kind of arbitrary. I didn’t vote. The politics today is hard to understand.”

Everet (last name withheld) 
Tremont

“I think dropping the charges was a mistake. I think they should have continued looking into his ethics, because when you take the oath of office you must possess a higher standard of ethics. So, in my opinion, I feel that the charges should not have been dropped. It’s just sad that, at the end of the day, a politician should have higher standards of ethics. If he did do it, and they’re dropping the charges, it’s sad that they’re dropping the charges.”

C.J. Rivera,
Kingsbridge

“I hadn’t heard that. That’s actually pretty crazy. In my opinion, the entire justice system is corrupt. Everybody in the highest positions need to be changed. There needs to be new people. I really don’t know if [U.S. President Donald] Trump is making more of a swamp. You don’t know who to trust really. You have to have discernment. You’ve got to look at everything through a certain lens. You have to look people in the eyes and see they are real and try and gauge their intentions. I don’t know about Trump to be honest. He’s been rich for a long time, so he knows how to maneuver and lie and cover his tracks. But right now, I feel he’s the only thing that we could hold on to, to get America great again.”

Alberto Cedano,
Kingsbridge 

“I do not think there was any kind of deal. I basically think that Adams was already protesting the immigration issue for he saw it was killing the City, and I suspect they were trying to discipline him, which is not to say there might not have been a few problems, and maybe some things got flushed out.”

Rogier Fentener Van Vlissingen,
Parkchester