On Wednesday, a high-ranking Justice Department official implied that the Trump administration has valid reasons to favor a public official’s political collaboration over concerns from prosecutors about potential legal violations.
Emil Bove III presented this notion during a hearing where a judge required him to justify the decision to drop a corruption case against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams.
When questioned by the judge, Bove reiterated his belief that the case’s dismissal was necessary as it was obstructing Adams’s collaboration with Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts.
Judge Dale E. Ho inquired if this reasoning could extend to other officials responsible for crucial public safety and national security roles in New York. “For instance, the police commissioner?” the judge posed.
“Yes, absolutely,” Bove affirmed.
This remarkable response marks a significant moment, as it is the first public acknowledgment from the Trump Justice Department that its reasoning for dismissing the corruption allegations against the mayor could be applied more generally. His remarks highlighted the department’s transformation into an enforcement apparatus for Trump’s agenda.
Judge Ho concluded the session without making a decision regarding the government’s request to drop the charges. However, the discussion highlighted the complex issues surrounding the Adams case, and the judge’s cautious demeanor extended a tumultuous chapter that has unsettled the Justice Department, resulted in the resignations of at least eight prosecutors, and prompted calls for the mayor’s resignation.
One of the resigning prosecutors, interim head of the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, Danielle R. Sassoon, noted that during a meeting in Washington with Bove and other prosecutors, Adams’s attorneys “persistently pushed for what amounted to a quid pro quo.” She indicated that the mayor effectively offered his full support for Trump’s immigration initiatives in exchange for the dismissal of his charges.
“This sets an alarming and perilous precedent,” Sassoon stated in her resignation letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Both Bove and Adams’s attorney, Alex Spiro, have strongly denied any prior agreement before the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Adams, who has pleaded not guilty.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Adams stated that every element of his agreement with the government had been included in court documents. He emphasized that he was neither promised incentives nor threatened to consent to the dismissal motion.
Bove maintained that the mayor’s testimony under oath discredited the notion of a quid pro quo.
As the hearing wrapped up, Judge Ho did not indicate when or how he would make his ruling. “It’s not beneficial for anyone here for this to prolong,” he remarked.
The rationale provided by Bove for the dismissal contrasts with Adams’s declarations. The mayor has insisted that the indictment has not distracted him from managing New York City.
“I am capable of performing my duties. My legal team will manage the case,” Adams expressed in a December interview on Bloomberg Television. He added: “Individuals remarked it would be distracting. I am progressing and will continue to serve the people of New York City.”
Following the hearing, Bove stated that his presence was meant to express his personal dedication to “ending weaponized government” and “curbing the influx of criminal illegal immigrants.”
In court, Bove’s demeanor was notably subdued. After addressing questions from the judge, he simply requested that the charges against Adams be dismissed immediately so that the mayor could “return to his duties, unhindered and unencumbered.”
Judge Ho also posed questions to Adams, who sat between his two attorneys at the defense table. The mayor informed the judge that he had agreed to the dismissal of the charges against him “without prejudice,” indicating that the Justice Department could refile them.
“Judge, I haven’t committed a crime and don’t foresee them bringing it back,” Adams stated. “I’m not concerned about that.”
Throughout the hearing, Adams remained composed, seated between Spiro and another lawyer, William A. Burck.
In contrast, Spiro appeared irritated as Judge Ho inquired about timelines related to the case. Instead of providing a direct answer, Spiro implied that the judge had minimal discretion to deny the government’s push to dismiss the case—something Judge Ho himself had acknowledged repeatedly.
The judge queried Spiro regarding his statement in a letter, asserting that Adams had not committed to further assistance with the immigration crackdown in exchange for resolving the case. Spiro offered to swear an oath “to anyone who claims such a thing, as it simply did not occur.”
Wednesday’s hearing represented the conclusion of a chapter that has caused significant political and legal turmoil in New York.
Following the resignations of Sassoon and six other federal prosecutors, Bove submitted a motion to dismiss the case. Numerous opponents of Adams’s campaign then demanded his resignation, along with several other city officials.
Judge Ho commenced Wednesday’s session by expressing his intention to proceed with caution. Throughout the hearing, he was methodical and straightforward—first questioning Adams about his understanding of the agreement with the government before engaging in extensive questioning of Bove.
The judge informed the attorneys that the situation was “very intricate, at least from my standpoint.”
The judge’s inquiries for Bove focused on the reasoning behind the government’s request to dismiss the case against Adams.
Last week, Bove instructed Manhattan prosecutors to end the prosecution of Adams. In his directive, he explicitly stated that the desire to dismiss the charges was not based on the legal strengths of the case. He noted that the case was obstructing the mayor’s ability to support Trump’s mass deportation agenda.
In court, Bove firmly adhered to this position. The motion to halt the case ahead of a scheduled April trial was “a standard exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” Bove stated, adding that the indictment had stripped Adams of his security clearances and “impacts the national security and immigration goals” of the president.
A former criminal defense attorney for Trump, Bove told Judge Ho that the prosecution gave off “appearances of impropriety” and represented an abuse of the criminal justice system.
The hearing shed light on issues that could test the boundaries of prosecutorial independence during the Trump era and the president’s intentions to leverage the Justice Department for his policy objectives. After Adams was charged last year, he allied himself closely with Trump, who asserted that the mayor had faced unfair treatment from Manhattan prosecutors.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has traditionally been recognized for its independence, affectionately referred to as the “sovereign district.” However, in the Adams case, Justice Department officials have shown little patience for that tradition. Bove made this clear in his remarks.
“There are no separate sovereigns within this executive branch,” he stated.
Wesley Parnell, Kate Christobek, Devlin Barrett and Olivia Bensimon contributed reporting.
