Politics

Eric Adams’ troubles pile up, just as he seems to get his post-indictment footing

Published

2 years ago

December 17, 2024

NEW YORK — New York City’s defiant Democratic mayor ran into one hurdle after another Monday — facing mounting fallout from the investigations into him and his inner circle just as he tries to improve his precarious political standing.

The city’s Campaign Finance Board voted Monday morning to deny Mayor Eric Adams $4.5 million in public funds for his re-election. Ninety minutes later, his longest-serving, closest aide — Ingrid Lewis-Martin — and her lawyer announced the Manhattan district attorney will soon indict her on alleged corruption charges. More than 1,200 miles away, President-elect Donald Trump said he would consider pardoning the mayor in his federal bribery case — a legal lifeline that carries great political risk in a New York City Democratic primary.

The cascade of bad news comes as Adams faces attacks from a bevy of lesser-known Democrats running to unseat him next year, as well as the prospect of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo jumping into the primary. The mayor has been aggressively trying to change his circumstances lately — alleging he was targeted for his criticisms of outgoing President Joe Biden, lambasting local reporters for their negative coverage and pushing out a string of positive announcements about public safety, tax relief and affordable housing.

None of that was enough to help him navigate the bad news Monday, which culminated in a combative news conference in which his staff tried to cut off reporters as they asked questions about the pressing stories.

In denying Adams matching funds, the local board condemned him to another six months of fundraising ahead of next June’s Democratic primary, a significant setback for any incumbent — though it is one he can appeal.

The board partially based its decision on a five-count federal indictment alleging Adams participated in a bribery scheme involving the Turkish government. The mayor has pleaded not guilty and will face trial in April.

On top of that, with its decision Monday, the board hand-delivered a line of attack that’s sure to dog the mayor throughout his campaign.

“There is now even less of a shot of Mayor Adams winning reelection,” said Democratic strategist Trip Yang, an adviser to Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, a potential Adams challenger. “He could raise more contributions, but it will require a lot of effort and time. And this adds to the litany of credibility arguments that could be used against him for the Trump-averse Democratic primary electorate.”

Adams noted at his press conference that while several of his potential competitors did not qualify for matching funds, the board could change its mind going forward. He did not, however, mention that his rivals were denied for different reasons.

“We’re going to continue to work with CFB to answer any questions that they have so we can continue to get the funding,” Adams said. “Even without the funding, we have out-raised substantially everyone else that’s in the race.”

He also had to contend with pending troubles for Lewis-Martin, who abruptly resigned Sunday ahead of expected criminal charges this week. She has been Adams’ closest and most loyal adviser for decades — and is departing his ranks during one of the most tenuous chapters in his political career.

The mayor addressed the loss — which came as the two have been reportedly feuding — in deeply personal terms Monday.

“Whenever I walked on stage to do a State of the City, or go to a debate, no matter what I did, she would walk in the room, ask everyone to leave, and she would grab my hands and she would pray for me,” Adams said. “This morning I did it for her — I lifted her up in prayer.”

The mayor said she is “not only a friend but she’s my sister, and I love her so much, and I just really ask God to give her strength in the days to come.”

Lewis-Martin’s press conference at the office of her attorney, Arthur Aidala, was a reminder that investigations into Adams and his inner circle are still piling up. Aidala, a friend and donor to Adams, answered in the affirmative when asked if he believed that Manhattan prosecutors were trying to get his client to cooperate in a case against the mayor.

For Adams, those legal troubles may be alleviated by the incoming president.

The Republican has shown sympathy toward the Democratic mayor, and each insists Biden’s Department of Justice is targeting them to seek political retribution.

In Adams’ case, he publicly criticized Biden’s handling of the migrant crisis. And both Adams and Trump say that act spurred the DOJ to action.

“I said he’s going to be indicted,” Trump said Monday during a press briefing at Mar-a-Lago. “And a few months later he got indicted. So, I would certainly look into [a pardon].”

Adams referred questions about Trump’s remarks to his attorney and said he hopes the president elect will make the DOJ less politicized.

“I think that what President-elect Trump has gone through is allowing him to see that if the Justice Department is doing what President Biden stated, such as being politicized, I believe he owes it to Americans to make sure that’s not the case,” Adams said.

A pardon from Trump would almost certainly be a political liability for Adams in a Democratic primary, in which left-of-center voters typically flock to the polls. In the last general election, Trump lost the city 68-30 — proving it remains an anti-Trump Democratic stronghold, even as he made significant gains statewide.

A pardon from Donald Trump would almost certainly be a political liability for Adams in a Democratic primary, in which left-of-center voters typically flock to the polls.

Whether any of Adams’ lesser-known opponents can effectively wield that against him remains to be seen, but early signs show most of them are trying that line of attack — presuming voters will be turned off by any whiff of MAGA affiliation.

Adams had steered clear of criticizing Trump — or stumping for Kamala Harris — during the campaign. Since Election Day, he hosted the incoming border czar at his official residence of Gracie Mansion to discuss immigration policy, and has spoken enthusiastically about Elon Musk’s high-level role in the incoming White House.

“I should not have been charged,” Adams said at Monday’s press briefing. “God has a way of showing the irony of life: I’m just saying the same thing that President Biden said. President Biden stated his Justice Department has been politicized. President Trump stated that. I stated that.”

He was referring to Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, and the president’s subsequent statement alleging his own DOJ was engaging in politically motivated selective prosecution.

Adams’ no-good Monday came as things were starting to look up for the mayor.

Earlier this month, City Council members approvedAdams’ signature housing plan. He joined a politically influential union to announce a populist state measure to provide tax relief to low-wage workers. And the NYPD helped catch the 26-year-old suspect in the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO — with a hefty assist from a fast food worker in Pennsylvania.

Back in City Hall, Adams pushed out top advisers who were ensnared in local and federal probes at the behest of Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has the power to remove him from office. That group of embattled aides — including the former police commissioner, schools chancellor and two deputy mayors — has been replaced by government veterans whom insiders generally regard as serious and competent.

Political and government insiders particularly lauded his appointmentof Maria Torres-Springer as first deputy mayor in October as a sign the administration would begin to focus on governing amid the probes and charges.

City Hall spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus said overall crime numbers have come down since Adams took office, while job numbers have increased.

“As Mayor Adams says all the time: ‘Stay focused, no distractions, and grind,’” she said in a statement. “The best way to serve New Yorkers is to continue keeping our eyes on the goal of improving this city and let the results speak for themselves.”

Politics

A forced-labor crackdown or an end-run around Congress? Dissecting Trump’s new tariffs

Published

4 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration has imposed double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countriesusing a legal justification that permits the president to levy import taxes and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices.

The new tariffs announced in recent days take effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expiredand critics say they are less about cracking down on forced labor than they are a way to replace those tariffs. The expired tariffs were themselves a temporary replacement for worldwide tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February.

The tariffs were levied on countries that the U.S. says either don’t have or don’t effectively enforce a forced-labor import ban. The affected countrieswhich account for 99% of U.S. imports, were quick to protest, calling the Trump administration’s claims unfounded and arbitrary, as nations with vastly different records on forced labor received the same tariff level. The U.S. spent four months investigating but gave few details on how it arrived at the tariff rates, which are either 10% or 12.5%.

Sidestepping Congress

The tariffs were levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on countries that the U.S. determined had failed “to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”

During President Donald Trump ‘s first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports amid a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics Beijing was using to challenge America’s technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.

“The 301s allow a permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute,” said Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law. “That’s what all of this is about. The president doesn’t want to knock on the front door of Congress, so he’s trying every side door and every unlatched window to get in.”

Little evidence that countries failed to enforce import bans

The office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) said it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation and held two rounds of public hearings, elicited more than 2,100 public comments, and had “engagement” with its trading partners about what they were doing to combat forced labor bans.

It didn’t detail its talks with the countries, saying those were confidential. Experts say it is fairly straightforward to investigate whether a country has a ban or not, but it is difficult to determine the government’s exact rationale for each country’s failure to enforce import bans.

“There’s not a lot of hard evidence there,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “It’s pretty laughable on its face to think that a country like the ones in Europe or in Norway or Switzerland aren’t doing enough to police forced labor.”

And even if countries do enact and enforce the forced-labor import bans the U.S. wants, they would still need to prove that they’re enforcing them to Washington’s satisfaction before the tariffs would be removed, said lawyer Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official.

“This suggests that no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available,” he said.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Countries and industries reject the forced labor argument

Many countries have pushed back against the Trump administration’s findings.

Brazil, which faces a 12.5% forced-labor tariff, called the U.S. move “arbitrary and unjustified.” The U.S. “chose to manipulate an issue of great importance to human rights and the struggles of workers worldwide in order to accuse 59 countries and the European Union of unfair practices,” it said in a statement.

Australia also questioned the justification for its 12.5% tariff.

“We believe that amongst all of the countries in the world, Australia does take the issue of slavery, modern slavery, seriously, and will continue to do that,” Trade Minister Don Farrell told reporters in Adelaide.

Carve-outs have riled some industries. The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), which describes itself as the voice of the American textile industry, protested a mechanism that exempts the Section 301 tariffs for textile and apparel imports from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia based on those countries’ imports of U.S. cotton and textiles.

“No other industry has been more disadvantaged by forced labor than the U.S. textile industry, which employs 453,000 workers and has lost 41 plants over the past two plus years,” NCTO chief executive Kim Glas said in a statement. “We remain strongly concerned that USTR’s textile mechanism will harm the very domestic manufacturers the administration seeks to help.”

US forced-labor bans don’t always work

The U.S. has two major pieces of legislation related to forced-labor import bans. The Tariff Act of 1930 gave Customs and Border Protection the authority to seize shipments where forced labor was suspected and to block further imports. But it had a big carve-out: If there was “consumptive demand,” meaning there wasn’t sufficient supply to meet domestic demand, imports were allowed regardless of how they were produced. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act that took effect in 2016 eliminated that loophole.

In 2021, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was passed. It blocks imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless businesses can prove the items were made without forced labor.

But goods made with forced labor can still make it into the U.S. In 2015, an Associated Press investigation found that slave labor was used in the fishing industry in Southeast Asia. The seafood they caught made its way to supermarkets and pet food providers across the U.S.

An investigation by The Associated Press in 2020 into the $65 billion palm oil industry found labor abuses among an invisible workforce consisting of millions of men, women and children in Asia. The fruit they harvested made its way into the supply chains of major companies, including Unilever, L’Oreal, Nestle and Procter & Gamble.

Calls for a more comprehensive approach to combat forced labor

During hearings on the tariffs this month, National Retail Federation vice president Jonathan Gold, who was representing the business coalition the Joint Association Forced Labor Working Group at the hearing, said that in order for the import bans to work, they would have to be much more extensive.

He said there need to be “clear, measurable benchmarks” tied to tariffs for countries to hit, and that the U.S. should help countries build enforcement programs.

Kenya Davis, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, said an effective ban needs a “comprehensive approach” that provides transparency about what the investigations consisted of, along with programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans.

Politics

El-Sayed comes under fire for ‘ogre on a pike’ leaked comment

Published

6 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing backlash from within his own party after using controversial rhetoric to describe the stakes of his victory in a recent donor meeting.

“You put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message, and all of a sudden starts to sound a lot different,” El-Sayed said, describing how his win could propel the progressive movement, according to audio of a Zoom meeting obtained by POLITICO.

On Monday, several Democrats were quick to slam his comments, which they took as direct reference to his Senate primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens. El-Sayed had not explicitly mentioned Stevens in the portion of the call Blue Light News reviewed.

“Calling your female opponent an ogre you want to put on a pike is not beating the rap that this race has some serious sexism,” Neera Tanden, a centrist Democrat and president of the Center for American Progress, posted on X. Melissa Byrne, a former staffer for Sen. Bernie Sanders, called the remark an “unforced error” that is “really bad and beneath the progressive project.”

El-Sayed’s leaked comments and the reaction to them amount to another flashpoint in a tense primary that is dividing the progressive and moderate wings of the party, and at times has been defined by accusations of racism and sexism.

“Abdul continues with personal insults and making this race about his personal political ambitions and the other 49 states,” said Arik Wolk, spokesperson for the Stevens campaign. “Haley is focused on getting things done for Michigan, and only Michigan.”

Republicans also immediately jumped on the comment, and some leaned into stereotypes of El-Sayed’s religion as a Muslim. “Michigan Islamist discusses beheading his opponents,” said Steve Guest, a former staffer for Sen. Ted Cruz, on X.

An El-Sayed campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the backlash. A spokesperson had previously told Blue Light News that the candidate was “speaking metaphorically” about his intention to support a primary against Sen. John Fetterman in Pennsylvania.

This is not the first time El-Sayed has used — and defended — aggressive political rhetoric. “When they go low, we don’t go high,” the progressive said while speaking at a campaign rally earlier this year, riffing on a famous line from former first lady Michelle Obama. “We take them to the mud and choke them out.”

He and Stevens will face off in their final Democratic Senate debate Monday night, and the results of the Aug. 4 primary could have major consequences for the party as it grapples with its ideological tack ahead of the 2028 presidential election.