New Yorkers are reeling from the news that Mayor Eric Adams has been charged with wire fraud, bribery and campaign finance offenses.
The charges center around whether the New York City leader received illegal foreign donations for his mayoral campaign from the Turkish government, as well as personal perks like luxury travel and lodging.
Adams is vowing to remain in office and fight the charges, even as calls grow for his resignation.
Daniel Coates, director of public affairs for the advocacy group Make the Road New York, feels the investigation corroborates mismanagement claims during Adams’ time in office, citing what he sees as the mayor’s scapegoating of migrants in budget talks.
“The mayor has used, multiple times, the costs the city has incurred supporting and receiving new migrants into the city as a reason to make cuts,” Coates pointed out. “And then, throughout the budget process, ended up reversing those cuts.”
Several city agency commissioners have already resigned, either as part of the corruption investigation or because they said it prevented them from doing their jobs.
Adams can choose to stay in office but the city’s charter gives Gov. Kathy Hochul the power to remove him. If Adams is out, Jumaane Williams, the city’s Public Advocate, would become the acting mayor. Williams would then have three days to set up a special election for his replacement.
Gov. Hochul has not given any indication she will remove Adams if he doesn’t resign. But some community groups and public officials worry Adams remaining in power could be a setback for city progress on a variety of fronts.
John Kaehny, executive director of the group Reinvent Albany, noted the effects it may already be having on city workers.
“It will be incredibly demoralizing to the city’s workforce and result in a big loss in productivity,” Kaehny asserted. “And a decline in delivery of services that could most hurt the poor and most vulnerable.”
While some doubt the strength of the federal government’s case against Adams, Kaehny thinks it’s solid. He observed the case falls outside the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 McDonnell v. United States ruling, which narrowed the legal definition of public corruption, making it harder to prove an elected official engaged in bribery.


