NEW YORK – Gov. Kathy Hochul will not immediately remove New York City Mayor Eric Adams from office, but will advocate for greater oversight of City Hall as he faces intense scrutiny over his bribery case and relationship with the Trump administration.
Hochul announced Thursday that she has decided not to use her authority to remove Adams for the time being, citing concerns that such a move would cause “disruption and chaos” and be undemocratic in the long run.
“New York is facing a grave threat from Washington,” she stated at a news conference in Manhattan. “The Trump administration is already trying to use the legal jeopardy facing our mayor as leverage to squeeze and punish our city.”
The decision came after she sought advice this week from a number of New York political figures on whether Adams could govern independently following the Justice Department’s decision to drop his federal corruption case so he could assist Republican President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
Rather than removing Adams, Hochul stated that she would propose legislation to install new guardrails around City Hall to begin “re-establishing trust” with the public.
Her proposal would create a new deputy inspector general for New York City and increase funding for the state comptroller to investigate city finances. Hochul also wants to establish a clear process for the city’s comptroller, public advocate, and council speaker to file lawsuits against the federal government.
If approved by state lawmakers, the measures will expire at the end of Adams’ first term in 2025 and can be renewed in the future, she said.
Adams said in a statement following the governor’s announcement, “While there is no legal basis for limiting New Yorkers’ power by limiting the authority of my office, I have told the governor, as we have done in the past, that I am willing to work with her to ensure that faith in our government is strong.”
Hochul, a centrist Democrat like Adams, has faced questions about the mayor’s future since his indictment in September on bribery and other charges. He is pleaded not guilty.
Hochul has been hesitant to remove him, claiming that doing so would be undemocratic and would force the city into a complex, court-like removal process that had never been used against a sitting mayor in the city.
However, after four of Adams’ top deputies resigned on Monday, the governor stated that she had “serious questions about the long-term future of this mayoral administration.”
When asked Thursday if the mayor had done anything to restore her trust, Hochul said she was confident that her “system of checks” would provide adequate oversight of the city’s budgetary, investigative, and legal affairs. She also repeatedly hinted at the possibility of using her removal powers in the future.
The deputies resigned following a remarkable series of developments in Adams’ federal criminal case.
First, Justice Department officials ordered prosecutors to drop the case, claiming it was impeding the mayor’s ability to assist with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.
Then, some prosecutors and supervisors resigned rather than comply with what they saw as an improper order, and the acting top prosecutor in Manhattan stated that Adams’ lawyers had offered to exchange his cooperation on immigration for the dismissal of his case. The mayor and his lead lawyer denied doing anything like that.
Then, after some Justice Department officials finally filed paperwork to have the case dismissed, a judge summoned Adams and everyone else involved to court Wednesday to discuss the situation. The judge has not yet ruled on the government’s request to close the case.
Adams is scheduled to stand trial in April on charges of accepting illegal campaign contributions and receiving travel benefits in exchange for doing favours for the Turkish government.
Since the 1975 fiscal crisis, New York mayors have worked with and fought against state oversight, with the city required to submit its financial plans to a state-created board for review.
While the city has received a lot of state input over the years, New York Law School professor Stephen Louis says it is difficult to predict the impact of Hochul’s proposals.
“It is hard to say, ‘Oh, if any of these had been in place, then whatever problem is perceived would not be happening,'” said Louis, a former long-time New York City government attorney who now teaches about the legal relations between state and local governments.
“There are many people who can investigate what is going on in the mayor’s office. There are individuals who can sue the federal government. So it is not clear how this solves anything,” he explained.
