Uproar over Mayor Adams deepens concern about Justice Dept. politicization under Trump
When President Donald Trump entered office last month, promising to clean up what he described as a politically “weaponized” American justice system, few would have guessed that the Democratic mayor of New York City would be an early benefactor.
But efforts over the past two weeks by Mr. Trump’s U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss an indictment against Mayor Eric Adams have, for critics, only fueled allegations that the justice system is weaponized. There are signs that the crisis in the department has spread beyond the Adams case.
Mayor Adams faces five counts of violating federal anti-corruption laws, though he has maintained his innocence. But in a surprise move last week, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove instructed DOJ prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to drop the case.
Why We Wrote This
Efforts by the Trump administration’s Justice Department to dismiss an indictment against New York Mayor Eric Adams have fueled charges that the courts are weaponized. The department’s troubles may have spread beyond the Adams case.
The order has triggered a political, legal, and ethical firestorm that experts say surpasses “the Saturday Night Massacre” of Watergate. So far, seven career DOJ prosecutors have resigned instead of following Mr. Bove’s order. They have alleged a quid pro quo between Mr. Adams and the Trump administration, in which the government’s case was dropped in exchange for the mayor cooperating with Mr. Trump’s deportation efforts.
Both Mr. Adams and Mr. Bove have denied a quid pro quo, though the move to dismiss without prejudice would give the Justice Department the option of bringing charges again, thereby keeping Mayor Adams beholden to the Trump administration, critics say.
The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.
More broadly, recent weeks have seen a wave of DOJ resignations larger than any since Watergate, when White House pressure led to the agency’s leadership quitting in protest. The actions of Trump appointees in the agency, who say they’re working to end what they call the political weaponization of the justice system, appear to be having the opposite effect.
“Regardless of political leanings, most people want the justice system to be fair and treat everyone charged with crimes similarly, regardless of who they are,” says Cara Pierce, a former federal prosecutor, in an email.
“We lose faith in the justice system when the party in power investigates and charges their political opponents without sufficient evidence, and the same is true when powerful people avoid liability for their crimes because of their position,” she adds.
Wave of resignations in protest
On his first day in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order instructing agencies to end “the weaponization of the federal government.” Mr. Bove, who defended Mr. Trump when the Justice Department prosecuted him during the Biden administration, determined last week that the order meant the Adams case should be dropped.
But to do that, he needed a department prosecutor to sign the motion to dismiss.
Danielle Sassoon, the acting head of the Southern District of New York and a Trump appointee, wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Feb. 12 that she wouldn’t drop the case. If DOJ leadership didn’t reconsider, she added, she was prepared to resign.
Mr. Bove accepted her resignation the next day.
Two of Ms. Sassoon’s deputies in New York immediately stepped down, including one – Hagan Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney leading the Adams prosecution – who emailed a fiery resignation letter to the acting deputy attorney general. A “fool” or “coward” may eventually file the motion to dismiss, he wrote. “But it was never going to be me.”
Next, Mr. Bove turned to the DOJ’s Washington headquarters. After meetings with senior prosecutors in the public integrity section, three quit rather than sign the motion. So did the acting chief of the department’s criminal division. Eventually, a senior career prosecutor in the public integrity section agreed to sign the dismissal motion, reportedly to protect the jobs of younger lawyers.
The agency indicted Mr. Adams, a retired New York police captain who was elected mayor in 2021, five months ago. The indictment charges him with five counts of violating federal anti-corruption laws, alleging that he accepted over $100,000 in gifts from Turkish nationals in exchange for favors, such as helping open a Turkish consular building despite fire safety concerns.
At the heart of the Justice Department’s crisis is a core disagreement over the duty of a federal prosecutor. In her letter to Attorney General Bondi, Ms. Sassoon noted that Mr. Bove’s reasons for ending the Adams prosecution have “nothing to do with the strength of the case.”
The evidence against Mr. Adams “proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed federal crimes,” she wrote. “My duty as a prosecutor [means] prosecuting a validly returned indictment regardless whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous, to the defendant or to those who appointed me.”
In his letter accepting her resignation, Mr. Bove saw it differently.
Accusing her of “insubordination” and “misconduct,” he said Ms. Sassoon’s duty to follow orders from the DOJ’s political appointees outweighed any legal or ethical concerns she might have.
“In no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected President,” he wrote.
Breaking with norms of DOJ management
The president and Justice Department leadership do “have the ability and authority to decide which prosecutions to approve and dismiss,” says Richard Schechter, who served in the Justice Department for three decades, in an email. But “this authority must be exercised within Constitutional, legal and ethical limits.”
There is a difference between agency leadership making broader policy decisions and inserting itself into specific cases, experts say.
A new DOJ leadership has every right to change department policy and focus resources on different areas. There is nothing wrong, for example, with Attorney General Bondi ordering the department to focus on border security and immigration enforcement. But it is problematic for agency leadership to try to influence specific cases.
“Policy determinations are appropriately made by political officials,” says Rebecca Roiphe, a former Southern District of New York prosecutor. “But when it comes to a particular case ... partisan concerns [cannot be] among them.”
According to former prosecutors in the Adams case, partisan concerns have been part of the push to dismiss the prosecution.
In her letter, Ms. Sassoon described a January meeting with Mr. Bove and Mr. Adams’ attorneys, during which she said the mayor’s lawyers “repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo,” suggesting that if the indictment were dropped, the mayor could assist in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. The agreement to dismiss the case, she added, “was negotiated without my office’s awareness or participation.”
In his letter accepting her resignation, Mr. Bove wrote that claims of a quid pro quo are “false.” Instead, the prosecution should be dismissed because it’s politically motivated, he argues. The investigation “accelerated” after Mayor Adams publicly criticized President Joe Biden’s failed immigration policies, he wrote. The case was also led by Damian Williams, a former U.S. attorney. Mr. Williams, he said, has “deep connections” with former Attorney General Merrick Garland, who “oversaw the weaponization of the Justice Department.”
Ms. Sassoon wrote in her letter that Mr. Williams was one of four U.S. attorneys who oversaw the Adams investigation. And he “did not manage the day-to-day investigation.”
“A court is likely to view the weaponization rationale as pretextual,” she concluded. “Moreover, dismissing the case will amplify, rather than abate, concerns about weaponization of the Department.”
Concerns about weaponization of the justice system have been brewing for years.
During the first Trump administration, the Justice Department faced accusations of partisanship in its investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and its interactions with the Trump campaign. Mr. Trump and his supporters continue to claim that prosecutions related to his efforts to stay in power after his 2020 election defeat were politically motivated. (There is no confirmed evidence that Mr. Biden ordered any investigation into Mr. Trump.)
Will Judge Ho reject the dismissal motion?
This week, concerns about political weaponization in the Justice Department appear to have spread beyond the Adams case.
Denise Cheung – a department prosecutor for 24 years who was leading the criminal division – resigned after agency leadership asked her to open a criminal investigation into a contract the Biden administration entered. According to media reports, she was forced to resign after saying there wasn’t “sufficient evidence” to begin an investigation.
The Adams case has now landed in a Manhattan courtroom. On Wednesday, DOJ officials laid out their arguments before U.S. District Judge Dale Ho as to why they want to end the prosecution. It’s rare for a dismissal motion to be rejected by a judge – especially, as in this case, when both parties support it. But in some cases, judges have rejected such a motion because they felt it didn’t serve “the public interest.”
Judge Ho now must determine who is acting in “the public interest”: the DOJ leadership or the federal prosecutors who have resigned en masse. As the judge untangles the dueling narratives, one persists. At the Wednesday hearing, according to reports, Mr. Bove said the government’s discretion regarding the dismissal is “virtually unreviewable in this courtroom.”
“Now you have accusations [of weaponized justice] going back and forth, and it’s going to undermine public confidence,” says Bruce Green, a former Southern District of New York prosecutor.
“If you’re inclined to the Trump side of things, you’re going to have your suspicions of the previous Justice Department reinforced. If you’re [not], you’re going to have your suspicions of the current Justice Department reinforced,” he says.
“I can’t see how that’s a good state of affairs.”
