Corruption in politics is occasionally clear-cut: think wads of cash handed over in a briefcase. More often it is blurry; trading favours is part of politics. This week New Yorkers were treated to an unsolicited lesson in the squishy concepts of quid and quo courtesy of their mayor and their president.
On February 10th the Department of Justice (DoJ) dismissed an indictment against Eric Adams, New York’s mayor. Three days later he was set to meet Tom Homan, Mr Trump’s border czar, to talk up joint work on immigration enforcement. Mr Homan said he foresees a “great agreement”. Mr Adams’s eagerness to co-operate with the feds differentiates him from practically every other high-profile Democrat across the country.
Mr Adams has been currying favour with Mr Trump ever since he was indicted in September. He paid tribute at the president’s Florida estate and at the inauguration. Some called this grovelling. Others saw it as shrewd participation in the transactional politics so extravagantly practised by Mr Trump. It paid. Mr Adams has been spared a trial, previously set for April, over allegations that he took bribes from a Turkish official. These included free flights on Turkish Airlines and discounted stays at the Istanbul St Regis. Prosecutors alleged that in return he fixed a fire inspection at the Turkish consulate in New York. He denied all wrongdoing.
In its memo to shelve the charges, the DoJ cited matters of politics, not law. It said that fighting the case would distract Mr Adams from immigration enforcement and from campaigning for re-election ahead of the mayoral primary in June. The indictment can always be revived—pointedly, the DoJ said nothing about the merits of the evidence—giving Mr Trump leverage over Mr Adams until his term ends next year. Al Sharpton, a fixture of city politics, called Mr Adams a “hostage”.
As far as corruption allegations go, those against Mr Adams were small-bore. What makes the saga striking is the Trump administration’s transparent use of prosecutorial power to turn Mr Adams into an ally or, more cynically, a client, says Jacob Eisler of Florida State University. The notion that politics should stay out of law enforcement—an aspiration since Watergate—seems dead and buried. This tension was present (though rarely so public) during Mr Trump’s first administration. During Joe Biden’s presidency it was explicit, in the prosecutions of Mr Trump and the pre-emptive pardons of Liz Cheney, Mark Milley and others.
Mr Trump’s impulse to harness law enforcement for political ends manifests in two ways. He has often threatened to go after his political enemies for what he calls their corruption; meanwhile he has undercut prosecutions of his friends and allies. In his first term he granted clemency to seven former Republican congressmen convicted of various forms of self-dealing. This week he pardoned Rod Blagojevich, a former Democratic governor of Illinois who appeared on his reality-TV show. Mr Blagojevich went to prison for trying to sell a Senate seat. He was caught on tape calling it “fucking golden”. Mr Trump released him in 2020. Mr Blagojevich now calls the president a “great effing guy”.
If Mr Trump meant to telegraph a more permissive approach to graft this week, it was not just at home. He also ordered a six-month pause on enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law that makes it illegal for businesses to bribe foreign officials. His executive order called bribes “routine business practices in other nations”. The implication seems to be that American firms should have licence to bribe too. It names “critical minerals” and “deep-water ports” as assets that American firms lose out on by being too persnickety about graft. If and when the DoJ resumes FCPA enforcement, it may focus on pay-offs to cartels and organised crime; these are a preoccupation for Mr Trump.
What to make of Mr Trump’s moves? Firms will not give up on FCPA compliance en masse; the statute of limitations for a bribe paid today will outrun his presidency. As for corruption at home, pursuing it may fall increasingly to prosecutors in state courts rather than federal ones. And to voters. In a few months New Yorkers will deliver their verdict on Mr Adams. He polls in the single digits among Democrats. ■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.