An unusual move was made early in Trump’s term when lawyers for New York Mayor Eric Adams submitted a formal request to the White House. They asked President Trump for a pardon before the mayor’s federal corruption trial had even begun.
Within a week of that letter, a leading political appointee at the Justice Department reached out to Mr Adams’s lawyer about possibly dropping the charges.
A fast sequence of communications between Mr Adams’s legal team and the Trump administration then escalated into a national dispute this week. Top Justice officials in Washington clashed with Manhattan prosecutors.
On Monday, the acting number two official at the Justice Department issued a memo instructing prosecutors to dismiss the charges against the mayor.
By Thursday, the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, resigned over what she described as an improper “quid pro quo” between the Trump administration and the mayor’s defense. Shortly after, five officials in Washington who oversaw the public integrity unit also stepped down.
How the Exchanges Started
The conflict began with private talks involving the mayor’s attorneys Alex Spiro and William A. Burck and Justice Department official Emil Bove III. These exchanges had not been revealed before now.
What followed where the acting number two at Justice, appearing to guide the mayor’s lawyers toward arguments to drop charges, breaking long-established norms for the agency responsible for enforcing U.S. law.
Lawyers and prosecutors with extensive experience say this shows that under Trump, prosecutorial decisions are being made based on politics, rather than legal merit.
Prompted by Mr Bove, the mayor’s team refined its strategy. That led to the memo instructing dismissal, which claimed the case “unduly restricted Mayor Adams’s ability” to address illegal immigration and violent crime. The memo also stressed that the decision had nothing to do with evidence or law.
Questions and Expanded Charges
This account comes from five individuals with direct knowledge of the situation and from documents related to Adams’s case. Still, several details remain unclear, such as how many times Mr Spiro and Mr Bove met.
The push to dismiss the case came even as Manhattan prosecutors were preparing further charges. Just weeks earlier in a January 6 filing during the presidential transition, they revealed “additional criminal conduct by Adams.”
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday, Ms Sassoon said her office was ready to push for fresh charges. She alleged new evidence showed Adams destroyed evidence, encouraged others to do the same, and lied to the FBI. They also intended to add claims of involvement in a straw-donor fundraising scheme.
Mr Spiro responded publicly, insisting that if prosecutors had proof he destroyed evidence, those charges would already have been filed. He also repeated that the existing charges were politically motivated.
Privately, though, the situation had changed. As rumors circulated about new indictments, Mr Spiro, Mr Burck, and Mr Bove worked together to build what might become the end of the corruption case.
Public Defence and Political Messaging
On Wednesday, the same day the acting U.S. attorney indicated she would refuse the Justice directive Mr Spiro held a news conference. He declared that the charges were politically motivated and that Justice’s dismissal decision was the only logical outcome.
Critics say Mr Bove’s memo sent a message that political ties matter more than facts. Mr Bove had been a defence lawyer for Mr Trump. Mr Spiro also represents Elon Musk, an ally of Trump’s, and Mr Burck recently became outside ethics adviser to the Trump Organisation.
Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman, formerly a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, said that this signal, “If you want to avoid prosecution, find someone from Trumpworld,” undermines the idea that prosecutions are based on evidence and law.
Inside the Case and Trump’s Influence
Mr Adams was indicted last September after a lengthy investigation. Charges included conspiracy, bribery, and fraud. Prosecutors alleged he accepted over $100,000 in flight upgrades and tickets, influenced approvals for a new high-rise Turkish consulate building, and improperly obtained millions for his campaign.
Adams pleaded not guilty. Shortly after Trump’s election victory, his lawyers began informally seeking a pardon. Around that time, Adams had met Trump near Mar‑a‑Lago, refused to mention Vice President Harris before the election, and shifted to a stronger position on immigration.
The letter from Mr Spiro appeared designed to align with Trump’s grievance about how the Justice Department treated him. It labelled the mayor a victim of a “weaponised” Justice Department and media leaks. It included a detailed critique of the case.
Mr Spiro quoted Trump writing that the president wants to reshape the department into “an agency that seeks justice and truth above all else.” He stated, “This case provides a prime example.”
Although Trump said in December he was considering a pardon, the White House remained silent after the letter. Then Mr Bove reached out. In one conversation, he asked how the case affected Adams’s ability to govern. He also arranged a Washington meeting with prosecutors and Mr Spiro on January 31, 11 days after Trump’s inauguration.
What Was Said at the Meeting
At that meeting, which Mr Burck joined alongside Mr Spiro, Ms Sassoon and deputies attended. Mr Bove said the decision to drop charges was not based on legal merits. He questioned whether the prosecution was politically motivated to hurt Adams’s re‑election prospects.
In her letter, Ms Sassoon said she was “baffled by the rushed and superficial process” that led to the dismissal. She claimed that, during the meeting, Adams’s lawyers “repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo.” They implied the mayor would help the administration with immigration enforcement only if the charges were dropped. She also accused Mr Bove of ordering her deputies to hand over and surrender their notes.
Mr Spiro denied the claim of any quid pro quo. He said Justice asked whether the case affected national security and immigration enforcement, and the team answered honestly.
Four days after the meeting, the lawyers sent a letter to Mr Bove. They reiterated that the indictment interfered with Adams’s ability to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration and security issues.
They also claimed the prosecution was politically motivated and that trial preparations limited Adams’s mayoral duties. The letter pointed to Adams’s lost security clearance and argued that further proceedings would hinder his cooperation with DHS. It stressed he shared policy views with the Trump administration.
Despite these arguments, Mr Bove’s memo included a disclaimer. It stated, “The government is not offering to exchange dismissal of a criminal case for Adams’s assistance on immigration enforcement.”
Potential Future Proceedings and Final Statements
Mr Spiro maintained that the case would not be revived if dropped. Nevertheless, the memo left open that when Trump’s nominee for U.S. attorney in Manhattan is confirmed post‑November, the case might be revisited.
Mr Spiro said the order does not give Trump leverage over Adams and insisted, “The case is closed. Everybody knows this case.”
On Thursday, Mayor Adams met with Trump’s immigration advisor Tom Homan. Afterwards, Adams announced a directive allowing federal immigration agents into Rikers Island jail.
