The case against Eric Adams is dismissed.

This is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 13 minutes.

Last chance to bundle!

We’re extending the sale on our new podcast and newsletter bundle to the end of the day today (Thursday), meaning you can get the $99 annual membership bundle for $89 a year for the life of your membership. 

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the war in Ukraine. Trump said they discussed a possible ceasefire agreement and suggested that Putin wants the war to end. (The call) Separately, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the Trump administration does not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO as part of a possible peace plan with Russia, adding that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is “an unrealistic objective.” (The comments)
2. The Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as the director of national intelligence, with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as the sole Republican vote against the nomination. (The confirmation)
3. The Consumer Price Index, which measures the change in prices for common goods and services, rose 0.5% month-over-month and 3% annually in January. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell suggested the report will likely delay further interest rate cuts for the time being. (The report)
4. A federal judge restored President Trump's deferred resignation program for federal workers, which offers federal employees full pay through September if they resign. The judge ruled that the unions that challenged the program lacked standing to sue. (The decision) Separately, eight inspectors general sued to reverse President Trump’s decision to fire them in January, alleging that the decision was not carried out lawfully. (The suit)
5. Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) announced she will not seek reelection in 2026. (The announcement)

Today's topic.

The dropped charges against Eric Adams. On Monday, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove directed the Southern District of New York to dismiss without prejudice all charges in its corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. In its dismissal, the Department of Justice reasoned that the case was politically motivated by the Biden administration and interfered with the mayor’s ability to combat the city’s migrant crisis. Adams, 64, is currently serving a four-year term as mayor and is running for reelection, with the Democratic mayoral primary scheduled for June.

Back up: Last September, Mayor Adams was indicted in a corruption investigation and charged with five counts of bribery, conspiracy, fraud, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations. The mayor has been the subject of other criminal investigations, but the recent indictment made Adams the first mayor of New York City to be charged with a federal crime while still in office. Adams denies the allegations and pleaded not guilty to all charges. 

In its case, the Southern District accused Adams of accepting over $123,000 worth of undisclosed luxury travel benefits, making false disclosure statements to the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and directing staffers to solicit donations from foreign businessmen. In return for these gifts and accommodations, the indictment alleged that Adams leveraged his position to do favors for foreign donors, including pressuring the New York Fire Department to approve the opening of a 36-story Turkish consular building without a fire inspection. Mayor Adams faced up to 45 years in prison.

In his memo to the Southern District, Bove cited Adams’s criticism of President Biden’s immigration policies and his upcoming election as reasons for dismissal. “The timing of the charges and more recent public actions by the former U.S. Attorney responsible for initiating the case have threatened the integrity of the proceedings, including by increasing prejudicial pretrial publicity that risks impacting potential witnesses and the jury pool,” Bove wrote, adding that the decision was reached “without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based, which are issues on which we defer to the U.S. Attorney’s Office at this time."

Since the DOJ has ordered the charges dropped without prejudice, Adams can still be charged in the future. Furthermore, the Southern District has yet to officially drop the charges. A formal dismissal request must be submitted by prosecutors overseen by acting Southern District of New York Attorney Danielle Sassoon and reviewed by a judge. Sassoon has not commented on the order.

In an address following Bove’s request for the dismissal, Adams reaffirmed his innocence. “As I said from the outset, I never broke the law and I never would,” Adams said. “I absolutely never traded my power as an elected official for any personal benefit.” 

Today, we’ll share perspectives on the dismissal from the right and left. Then, Tangle Editor Will Kaback gives his take while Executive Editor Isaac Saul is on paternity leave.

What the right is saying.

• The right is mixed on the dismissal, with some arguing that the decision empowers voters.
• Others say that the Trump DOJ is now politicizing the legal system.
• Still others suggest that elected officials should not be prosecuted until they are out of office. 

The New York Post editorial board said dropping the charges will allow for “a healthier race for NYC mayor.”

“Whatever you think of the Justice Department’s order for prosecutors to drop charges against Mayor Eric Adams, it clearly paves the way for a feisty mayoral race. New Yorkers should be grateful for that. Adams will now have a shot of making his case for reelection without the distraction of a criminal prosecution — and trial — dogging him. Voters themselves will decide the best man, or woman, for the job,” the board wrote. “That’s a refreshing switch from Justice’s years-long record of weaponization, which fueled suspicions that the charges against Adams were politically motivated.

“Recall how Justice tied President Donald Trump’s hands during his first term with the completely bogus Russiagate probe, and how, under President Joe Biden, it launched charges against him just as he ran for reelection in 2024” the board said. “Voters now have a freer choice of candidates — rather than one tainted by arbitrary or weaponized decisions from Washington.”

In National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy called the DOJ’s decision “explicitly political.”

“Politicized law enforcement is always wrong. And it is not more attractive when it insulates a politician from what appears to be righteous law enforcement than when it targets a politician with what appears to be discriminatory law enforcement,” McCarthy wrote. “Attorney General Pam Bondi, acting through acting deputy AG Emil Bove, is poised to abandon the case against Adams on explicitly political grounds — which are hilariously claimed to be part of the new DOJ’s crusade against politicized prosecutorial decision making.”

“Bove concedes that Main Justice has not ‘assess[ed] the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which it is based.’ It is thus impossible for Bondi and Bove to have made a responsible evaluation of whether the case is a political vendetta, or to have concluded that Adams was ‘targeted’ as the memo asserts,” McCarthy said. The Trump administration claims “that the prosecution… was interfering with ‘Mayor Adams’s ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the [Biden] administration.’ Put aside that this is just political messaging masquerading as Justice Department legal deliberations. The claim is laughable. It has been refuted by Adams himself, who insists that his lawyers have focused on the case while he has focused on governing the city.”

In Reason, Josh Blackman argued for “continued immunity while in office.”

“There was a time when an indicted elected official would immediately resign in shame. The stigma of holding office in the face of a criminal indictment was too great. Today, that stigma is long gone,” Blackman wrote. “[Recently indicted] politicians have argued, fairly or unfairly, that the indictments are partisan witch hunts. And at least to some degree, these politicians have maintained some popular support. Their supporters agree that politics went into their prosecutions. Indeed, President Biden said as much about the prosecution of his son Hunter. Who is the ultimate arbiter of these sorts of crimes? I would wager it is not the jury. Rather, it is the voters.”

“I would propose a 28th constitutional amendment that would overrule Trump v. United States, at least in part, but would extend immunity far more broadly. In short, federal and state elected officials can be indicted while in office, but cannot be tried for those indicted offenses until after they [are] no longer in that elected office,” Blackman said. “I think Lawfare has wounded our criminal justice system in ways that are difficult to quantify. When a politician is indicted, the automatic assumption is that politics played a role in the process. Under this amendment, the power of Lawfare would be blunted.”

What the left is saying.

• The left criticizes the dismissal, noting the DOJ did not even attempt to justify its decision. 
• Some worry that Adams will now prioritize Trump’s interests over his constituents. 
• Others say the dismissal is linked to Trump’s personal view of prosecuting politicians.

In New York Magazine, Elie Honig explored “the ominous legal logic of dropping the Eric Adams case.”

“New DOJ honcho Emil Bove (a friend and former colleague of mine at the Southern District of New York) instructed the SDNY in a disjointed letter to dump the case based on a madcap blend of conspiracy theories, claims of political persecution, and good old-fashioned illogic,” Honig said. “I wouldn’t predict that Adams was surely cooked had he gone to trial, but the odds would’ve been stacked against him, as they always are in federal court (especially in the SDNY). Now, we’ll never know.”

“Bove’s letter instructing SDNY prosecutors to drop the case is a piece of work. He starts by noting that ‘the Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based.’ Might want to consider those tidbits in the future… The letter cites no evidence to support its claims of the SDNY’s political motivation. Why prove it when you can just allege it in conclusory fashion,” Honig wrote. “Dismissal of the case against Adams is an obvious injustice. Maybe he’d have beaten it, maybe not, but let a jury decide that. Of broader concern, the letter from DOJ shows a disturbing willingness — eagerness, even — to distort the truth.”

In Vital City, Elizabeth Glazer wrote about the “norm-breaking implications” of the dismissal.

“What's going on is personal, not business — political, not legal — and particularly suited to the personalities and whims of the two players: A president who would be king, and a mayor who has, from the beginning, played at ‘governing’ when he was, in fact, just bartering,” Glazer said. “This dismissal is part of a diabolical bargain that holds the mayor and thus New Yorkers as hostages to the president and his whims. The mayor may be an enthusiastic hostage, trading his independence in making policy for his freedom from prosecution. But New Yorkers are the chumps who will have to live with, and pay the price, for the mayor’s cynical trade.”

“Look at what the Justice Department’s direction to dismiss the case without prejudice means: The case is essentially suspended and the United States Attorney can reactivate it at any time. Or, as the memo makes clear, at any time that is politically convenient to the president,” Glazer wrote. “This may be what brass knuckle politics are fairly about: mobilizing power to get your way. But it is emphatically not what federal prosecutions are about. They are supposed to leave politics at the door and be based on the law and evidence alone.”

In Slate, Shirin Ali said this outcome carries a sense of “déjà vu.”

“Adams is officially off the hook. Months of pandering to Donald Trump—defending him against accusations of facism, jetting down to Florida to dine with the president, and quietly showing up to Trump’s inauguration—finally paid off,” Ali wrote. “This directive came straight from Emil Bove, who was Trump’s personal defense attorney… Bove defended Trump in the hush money trial, which ended in Trump becoming a convicted felon. One of Bove’s signature legal strategies, along with basically every lawyer Trump hired, was to claim his client could not be tried in a court of law while he was campaigning for president because that would amount to election interference.”

“Trump and his inner circle are accustomed to simply ignoring that which is inconvenient for their agenda. Even as he faced four criminal indictments, and was found liable for sexual abuse, defamation and business fraud, Trump insisted he was innocent at every turn and denounced every shred of evidence as fake news or a tool of political vengeance,” Ali said. “Extending that strategy to Adams has now provided the New York City mayor with a new lease on life as he’s running for reelection.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion from our editorial team. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• I think the DOJ was wrong to dismiss the case.
• The evidence against Adams is strong, and a jury is best suited to determine his guilt or innocence.
• In its stated attempt to fight politicized prosecution, Trump’s Justice Department seems pretty politically motivated.

I won’t belabor the point: I’m disappointed by the DOJ’s decision. 

As we discussed in our coverage of Adams’s indictment, the allegations against the mayor were serious and the available evidence merited prosecution: Adams was accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in luxury travel and lodging benefits in return for political favors to foreign donors, soliciting illegal campaign donations, and attempting to cover it up. You can read the indictment yourself to get a sense of the case’s strength.

Of course, Adams retains the presumption of innocence, and despite the compelling evidence the case was not a slam dunk on every charge. While accepting flight upgrades and free hotel stays from the Turkish government then helping them fast-track their consular building feels like textbook corruption, past Supreme Court rulings suggest that such actions may not be considered criminal. In McDonnell v. United States, the court found that “bribery” must involve a formal exercise of government power, and it’s not clear that Adams “pressuring” the New York City Fire Department to skip its fire inspection constituted an official act. Separately, in Snyder v. United States, the court established a distinction between “bribes” and “gratuities” — Adams accepting travel perks may not meet the definition of a “bribe” under this precedent. 

Regardless of what might have happened in the trial, though, prosecutors presented sufficient evidence to justify bringing the case, something Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove seemed to acknowledge. In his memo, Bove only offered the timing of the indictment to support his assertion that the Biden Justice Department was politically motivated. Additionally, the claim that Adams has been unable to effectively serve as mayor while under indictment is undermined by the mayor’s explicit and repeated statements that the case has not impacted his ability to do his job. 

Bove then essentially torpedoed his argument’s credibility when he wrote, “The Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based.” In other words, the DOJ did not even attempt to determine the strength of the case before moving to dismiss it. 

Even though the DOJ’s justification was unconvincing to me, several conservative writers challenged my initial reaction that the dismissal was uniformly bad. I think these are the two strongest arguments in favor of dismissing the case against Mayor Adams:

1) Prosecutors excessively charged Adams for acts that did not rise to the level of criminal. As James Burnham and Yaakov Roth argued in The Wall Street Journal, “The indictment spends many paragraphs discussing benefits received—many of them travel and entertainment—but is light on official actions promised in return.” While no one disputes that Adams received these benefits, this argument says the evidence that he acted illegally in return for them is scant. However, I think that’s more of a reason to acquit Adams on some charges than drop the entire case — whether the benefits motivated his actions is a dispute our courts are explicitly designed to settle. 

2) Prosecuting Adams while he runs for reelection denies voters the ability to choose their elected representatives. I’m sympathetic to this view, and I think prosecutors should have to meet a high bar for bringing charges against elected officials. But again, they have. Neither Bove nor anyone else in the Justice Department has presented evidence that the case was improperly handled; in fact, Bove stressed that he was not questioning “the integrity and efforts of the line prosecutors responsible for the case.” Unless you argue that politicians should simply never be prosecuted while in office, it’s hard to see how voters are harmed by legitimate investigations of legitimate allegations. 

Even if your primary worry is a weaponized DOJ under Biden, I think this dismissal gives more reason to be concerned. As many commentators have noted, Bove requested the case be dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning Adams can be re-indicted on the same charges at a later date. That could mean that Adams is subject to prosecution when he leaves office, or it can be seen as a threat by the Trump administration to Adams: The DOJ can resume the case at any time if you do something we don’t like. 

I read Bove’s memo as a not-so-subtle directive to this effect, particularly in his reference to Adams supporting “critical, ongoing federal efforts” on immigration. Add to this that border czar Tom Homan is meeting with Adams on Thursday and is expected to ask him to authorize the NYPD to assist in federal deportation efforts, and I think worries about Adams’s subservience to the president are justified.

Adams can still be prosecuted if he loses the Democratic mayoral primary in June or the general election in November (one of the two seems likely), but it’s hard not to see dropping the case now as an abuse of power by the Justice Department. The Trump administration is in a sprint to enact its immigration agenda, and New York City is a focal point of that effort; having a deferential mayor in place for even just a few months could be all they need to achieve their immediate goals. Whether or not the case resumes once Adams leaves office is secondary to the message being sent by the DOJ right now: We’re comfortable subverting the justice system to advance our political agenda. 

We can’t render final judgment on this decision while the case remains open, but I’m confident in saying that the Justice Department’s inadequate rationale for dropping these charges raises the specter of the exact kind of politicized decision-making in the justice system that President Trump ran against. 

Take the survey: What do you think of the DOJ dismissing the Adams case? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Help share Tangle.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

• Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.

Your questions, answered.

Q: What I am genuinely curious about is how you consume news sources and if there is even a realistic path forward for regular people like me to trust news when there's almost always financial influence at play behind the scenes?

— Luke from Brooklyn, NY

Hunter Casperson, Editorial Fellow: I totally understand feeling pessimistic about the state of journalism, but I do believe there is “a path forward.”

We’re in the eye of the storm right now — our society is currently adapting to meet the information needs and challenges that have resulted from the rise of social media, deregulation of journalism, and the hyperpolarization of news outlets. But solutions to these challenges are already being built; after all you’re reading Tangle — a publication created specifically to help rebuild trust in journalism, supported by readers who share similar concerns. 

Being intentional about finding platforms that present multiple perspectives is a great place to start. Here are some things to consider when evaluating the bias of reporting or trustworthiness of a news outlet: 

• Do they interview subjects from both sides of a story? 
• Do they include heavy emotional language in their articles? 
• Are they data driven? 
• Are they calling out false claims and running fact-checks on both parties, or just one? 
• Are they open about their corrections?

Another thing to remember is to differentiate between news and opinion — the former is typically held to higher standards of fact-checking and editorial review. Television news in particular is often closer to entertainment than traditional journalism, so you should always consider the context of what you’re consuming. Ask yourself: Is this an article from an outlet’s news desk, or one of its opinion writers? Is this news program conveying facts, or a commentator’s interpretation of events? Being aware of these differences helps to clarify that the industry as a whole is not the sum of its loudest parts.

Lastly, the wider the range of perspectives and media you consume, the easier it becomes to develop a critical eye for reporting practices and motivations which helps distinguish fact from framing techniques.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

This week, France and India hosted a global summit on artificial intelligence (AI) in Paris, France, bringing together countries from around the world to discuss their vision for the burgeoning technology. Vice President JD Vance attended the summit, his first foreign trip since taking office, and delivered an address advocating for "pro-growth AI policies.” Later, the United States and United Kingdom declined to sign on to an agreement joined by 60 other countries that calls for an "open", "inclusive," and "ethical" approach to AI development. The UK government highlighted concerns about national security and “global governance” in its comments on the decision, while Vance said excessive regulation of the technology would “kill a transformative industry just as it's taking off.” The BBC has the story.

Numbers.

• 3. The number of New York City mayoral staff and agency heads who were indicted or convicted by state or federal prosecutors between 1990 and 2021 for ethical misconduct.
• 3. The number of New York City mayoral staff and agency heads who have been indicted or convicted during Mayor Eric Adams’s term for ethical misconduct.
• 49%. The percentage of New York City voters who said they oppose the Justice Department dismissing Mayor Adams’s corruption case, according to a February 2025 PIX11 News poll. 
• 27%. The percentage of New York City voters who said they support the case being dropped. 
• 10%. The percentage of New York City voters who say they would support Adams in the Democratic mayoral primary.
• 33%. The percentage of New York City voters who say they would support former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary.
• –46%. Adams’s net favorability with New York City voters, according to a Manhattan Institute poll conducted in January 2025. 
• –29%. Adams’s net job approval with New York City voters.

The extras.

• One year ago today we wrote about the Tucker Carlson-Valdimir Putin interview.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the dictionary of idioms across languages.
• Nothing to do with politics: The trend of teenagers forming relationships with chatbots.
• A little to do with politics: Our recent Instagram short on China’s involvement with the Panama Canal.
• Yesterday’s survey: 2,643 readers answered our survey on the CFPB with 41% saying the bureau should not be changed. “This agency is delivering for Americans, and the whack-a-mole approach it has had to take to keep Wall Street, banks and other financial ‘services’ from ripping us off is the primary reason for any bloat,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Filled with grief from the fires in her hometown in Southern California, artist Maya Brattkus posted on Reddit offering to draw people’s lost homes for free. The project has now developed into the Lost Homes Project, where Brattkus aims to memorialize what was lost in the community by creating as many drawings as possible, sourcing donations to support the fire victims, and eventually compiling the drawings and their related stories into a book. “It’s been such a gift to be able to bring a bit of light to people in such a dark time,” Brattkus said. Nice News has the story, and you can find Brattkus’ project website here.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 320,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!