What happens if NYC Mayor Adams resigns, is forced out: Line of succession explained
Adams could resign, though he remains adamant about staying in office, or be forced to step down by Hochul and what's known as an 'inability committee.'
The committee would consist of the corporation counsel, Brad Lander, the City Council speaker (Adrienne Adams), a deputy mayor and the borough president with the longest consecutive tenure (currently Queens Borough President Donovan Richards), all of whom have called for Adams to consider stepping aside.
If a new mayor replaced Adams through a special election, their term would be brief, as mayoral primaries are set for June 2025, with the election in November 2025.
NEW YORK - New York Gov. Kathy Hochul held a meeting in Manhattan amid growing calls for embattled NYC Mayor Eric Adams to resign after four of his senior deputies stepped down.
This is the latest fallout from the Justice Department's push to end his corruption case.
Adams could resign, though he remains adamant about staying in office, or be forced to step down by Hochul and what's known as an 'inability committee,' after months of investigations and indictments within his administration.
Several steps would play out if Adams were to leave office, as laid out by THE CITY.
SKIP TO: NYC Voting | Inability commission | Who's running for mayor?
Local perspective
If Adams were to leave office on or after March 26, Public Advocate Jumaane Williams would take over until a new mayor is voted on at the Nov. 4, 2025 election, after also having run in the primary election.
If Williams were somehow unable to act as mayor, then Brad Lander, the city's comptroller (who is running against Mayor Adams in 2025), would be next in line.
Only two New York City mayors have resigned in history: Jimmy Walker in 1932 and William O'Dwyer in 1950.
Since the deadline to fill the vacancy in this year's Nov. 5th General Election has passed, a special election will likely be held.
If the vacancy occurs before March 26, a special election must be called for the first Tuesday at least 80 days after the vacancy, with some flexibility for the acting mayor to adjust the date, and it would be a nonpartisan primary using ranked choice voting.
According to the New York City Charter, Gov. Kathy Hochul has the power to remove Adams from office "upon charges."
Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo was pressured to remove then-mayor Bill de Blasio for his handling of the pandemic and his run for president, but he did not do so.
Section 9. Removal of mayor:The mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.
The likely option for forcing the mayor out would be what's called an "inability committee," which would seek to determine the mayor's inability to serve.
Dig deeper
According to THE CITY, the committee would consist of the corporation counsel, Brad Lander, the City Council speaker (Adrienne Adams), a deputy mayor chosen by the current mayor (in this case, Adams), and the borough president with the longest consecutive tenure (currently Queens Borough President Donovan Richards) all of whom have called for Adams to consider stepping aside.
According to Section 8 of the Charter, the committee would vote on a City Council panel, which would then vote to "discharge the powers and duties of the office of mayor."
If a new mayor replaced Adams through a special election, their term would be brief, as mayoral primaries are set for June 2025, with the election in November 2025.
Williams and whoever wins the special election would still be eligible to run.
Embattled, incumbent mayor Adams is currently facing an uphill political challenge as his approval rating heads downhill.
Historically, no incumbent mayor has lost a primary election in nearly 50 years, adding pressure on Adams as voter discontent grows.
It's unclear whether Adams would be able to run for mayor if he is removed by Gov. Hochul. According to the City Charter, the text does not explicitly state whether a mayor who has been removed from office is barred from running for election again.
What we don't know
It primarily outlines the process for removal, succession, and special elections in case of a vacancy but does not address eligibility for future elections.
What you can do
Here's a quick look at the key candidates vying for mayor in 2025:
Brad Lander
Jessica Ramos
Whitney Tilson
Zellnor Myrie
Zohran Mamdani
Scott Stringer
Michael Blake
Jim Walden
Why you should care:
In ranked choice voting, you can rank up to 5 candidates.
First Round: If a candidate gets over 50%, they win.
No Majority? The lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated, and their votes go to voters' next choices.
Repeat: This continues until two candidates remain, and the one with the most votes wins.
Results are final only after all ballots (including absentee) are counted. For the June 27 Primary, ranked-choice voting will be used for City Council races.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats see weaponization blitz in moves from DOJ, intelligence leaders
Lawmakers and advocates are sounding the alarm over a series of actions taken by the Justice Department and intelligence community that they argue are both abuses of power and threats to the traditional independence held by both organizations. The FBI agreed to aid the Texas government last week in tracking down Democratic members of the state's legislature who fled in an effort to block a controversial redistricting plan. The commitment came as it fired a series of agents, including those who had worked on controversial matters related to President Trump, prompting complaints agents were facing retribution simply for taking on assigned cases. Meanwhile, the Justice Department subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) for documents related to court victories against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association. The same day, DOJ also tapped Ed Martin to investigate James as well as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on allegations of mortgage fraud. DOJ on Monday also launched a grand jury investigation into Obama-era officials they've accused of engaging in a 'treasonous conspiracy' in investigating Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election. Intelligence community leaders have since come under fire for releasing a number of documents related to the claim. Democrats say the documents expose sources and methods of intelligence gathering. James, through an attorney, said she was targeted as part of 'the president's political retribution campaign.' 'Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration. If prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth, we are ready and waiting with the facts and the law,' her attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. The other moves are likewise coming under scrutiny. Democrats sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for the legal basis under which the bureau could be involved in tracking down the Texas lawmakers. 'These reports suggest that the FBI is diverting federal law enforcement away from fighting terrorism, drug trafficking, and other federal crimes to instead harass and target Texans' duly elected representatives, and thus raise urgent questions about the legal basis, scale, and appropriateness of federal law enforcement involvement in a state-level political matter,' Reps. Robert Garcia (Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, wrote in a letter also signed by Texas Democrats Reps. Greg Casar and Jasmine Crockett. The group pointed to a 2003 ruling from a state judge that reviewed another incident in which state lawmakers sought to prevent a legislative quorum, determining that the Texas Department of Public Safety was limited in pursuing residents in cases where there was no crime. 'The ruling made clear that the state cannot treat quorum-breaking as a criminal offense subject to law enforcement pursuit,' they wrote. The firing of numerous agents also sparked claims the bureau's leadership was abusing its power and running afoul of civil servant protections in dismissing several career agents. Brian Driscoll previously served as acting FBI director before Patel was confirmed, and during his brief tenure rebuffed an early request from the Trump administration to turn over the names of all agents who worked on the cases of Jan. 6 rioters – a group that includes thousands of people. Also fired was Scott Jensen, who Patel had recently promoted to director of the Washington, D.C. Field Office, and Walter Giardina, an agent who worked for special counsel Robert Mueller and aided in the prosecution of Peter Navarro. In a final note to staff, Driscoll said he was given no reason for his dismissal. The FBI Agent's Association criticized the firing as unlawful. 'The FBI Agents Association strongly condemns today's unlawful firing of FBI Special Agents. These Agents were carrying out the assignments given to them and did their jobs professionally and with integrity,' the group said in a Friday statement. 'This action sets a dangerous precedent. It increases our vulnerability to criminal and national security threats at home and abroad. It prioritizes division over unity, stokes anger instead of solidarity within our ranks, and threatens to chill the work of agents rather than support it.' The move was also blasted by Raskin and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'These are individuals [who] have dedicated their careers to protecting the American people, and their firings are part of a disturbing pattern of retaliation and politicization at an institution charged with safeguarding national security and the rule of law,' Warner said in a statement. The FBI and DOJ declined to comment on the firings, their involvement in Texas, the launch of the grand jury, or its probe into James. But the Trump administration has broadly defended such moves, consistently arguing the FBI and the Justice Department were political tools of previous administrations while arguing their own actions help confront those abuses. 'President Trump is restoring integrity to the Department of Justice after four years of weaponization, hoaxes, and attempts to imprison him. The DOJ is upholding Lady Justice and working to execute President Trump's Make America Safe Again agenda, which is lowering crime, holding criminals accountable, and empowering our law enforcement community,' White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement to The Hill. Trump has at various turns denied asking for Justice Department interventions, though he has not hid his approval of the actions. 'Pam is doing a great job,' Trump said on CNBC when asked about the grand jury investigation into Obama officials. 'I have nothing to do with it. I will tell you this, they deserve it. I was happy to hear it.' The mortgage investigation from Martin is one of the first public actions taken by the Justice Department's new Weaponization Working Group, a role he was given after senators signaled their opposition to him for a U.S. Attorney role. Schiff, through an attorney, said Martin has a conflict of interest in the matter as the lawmaker previously placed a hold on his nomination, in part due to Martin's vocal defense of Jan. 6 rioters. 'The allegations against Senator Schiff are transparently false, stale, and long debunked. Now Ed Martin, the most brazenly partisan and politically compromised person possible for the task, has been picked to investigate a political adversary. The bias here is glaring,' said Preet Bharara, a former U.S. Attorney fired by Trump who is now representing Schiff. 'Mr. Martin is a January 6-defending lawyer who has repeatedly pursued baseless and politically-motivated investigations to fulfill demands to investigate and prosecute perceived enemies. Any supposed investigation led by him would be the very definition of weaponization of the justice process.' Also sparking pushback is the decision to open a grand jury inquiry into referrals made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. A memo released by Gabbard last month accuses Obama-era officials of a 'treasonous conspiracy' she said was designed to undermine Trump. The documents she released, however, largely show officials discussing something that was never in dispute – that Russia was never able to alter vote totals. She later released a report from House Intelligence Committee Republicans casting doubt on whether Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed to help Trump win the election rather than just sow chaos in the U.S. election. Most other reviews, however, determined Russia wanted to help Trump win. The Justice Department later released a previously classified annex to special counsel John Durham's report on the 2016 election. Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said both the Durham annex and the Republican report were both 'considered so sensitive and revealing of sources and methods that, until last month, [the committee] was not even permitted to retain a copy of either document within a classified safe in our own secure facility.' 'The highly irregular declassification process you engaged in could imperil critical intelligence sources and methods—a destructive action taken in order to advance a patently false political narrative,' he wrote, adding that they failed to consider 'how foreign adversaries might use the information exposed.' 'When done in a cavalier manner for partisan ends, declassification can literally endanger lives and enable adversaries to discover and disrupt the means through which we collect intelligence.' Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, two of the officials involved in the claims, have called the accusations 'patently false' and rejected claims they attempted to smear Trump. 'Every serious review has substantiated the intelligence community's fundamental conclusion that the Russians conducted an influence campaign intended to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election,' the two wrote. 'Contrary to the Trump administration's wild and baseless claims, there was no mention of 'collusion' between the Trump campaign and the Russians in the assessment,' they added. The intelligence community under Trump has defended the release of the documents, calling it a transparency measure. 'This effort reflects Director Ratcliffe's continued commitment to elevating the truth and bringing transparency to the American people,' the CIA said in a statement when Gabbard released the documents. Gabbard during a White House press conference also brushed off questions about the release. 'I think it's a disservice to the American people that former President Obama's office and others who are criticizing the transparency that is being delivered by releasing these documents,' Gabbard said. 'They are doing a disservice to the American people in trying to deflect away from their culpability in what is a historic scandal.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lawsuit over Epstein files could expose Trump administration's handling of the matter
Denying the Justice Department's motion to unseal Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury transcripts on Monday, a federal judge rejected the DOJ's professed interest in transparency as disingenuous. What the judge described as the government's feigned interest in revealing Jeffrey Epstein-related information puts a finer point on a separate new lawsuit regarding the Trump administration's handling of the matter. The lawsuit, from nonprofit Democracy Forward, seeks to shed light on the administration's actions by asking a judge in Washington, D.C., to order the government to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. The group filed Freedom of Information Act requests, detailed in its complaint filed Friday, seeking senior administration officials' 'communications regarding the Epstein matter, including those regarding correspondence between President Trump and Epstein, as well as records concerning agency review of the Epstein matter.' The suit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presided over Donald Trump's federal election interference case, which the DOJ moved to dismiss after he won the 2024 presidential election. The legal claim in the new suit is that the government failed to comply with FOIA by not granting speedy processing of the group's requests under the federal transparency law. 'By failing to grant Plaintiff's requests for expedited processing on Plaintiff's FOIA requests concerning matters of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence, ... and national urgent need to inform the public, ... [government] Defendants have violated FOIA,' the complaint alleges. The administration will have an opportunity to respond in court. How it does so will reveal its latest stance in the affair that has dogged the White House for its lack of transparency and failure to fulfill its promise to release the full Epstein records. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Trump says he'll "end" no cash bail in Chicago while announcing National Guard deployment to D.C.
President Trump again singled out Chicago while announcing that he is deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C. alongside a federal takeover of policing there. Trump announced these moves Monday at a news conference, saying it's part of a push to crack down on crime in the nation's capital even though data from the Justice Department shows violent crime in the city is at its lowest levels in more than 30 years. But while speaking to the media, the president turned his attention to Chicago, crime and cash bail. "Every place in the country you have no cash bail is a disaster," Mr. Trump said. "That's what started it in New York and they won't change it, they don't want to change it. That's what started it in Chicago." He blamed "bad" politicians, but continued, "That's where it started, no cash bail. I mean, somebody murders somebody and they're out on no cash bail before the day is out." Mr. Trump then vowed that he would "end that in Chicago." "We're going to change the statute," he said. "I spoke with Pam and Todd, everybody, and we're going to change the statute and we're gonna have to get the Republicans to vote because the Democrats are weak on crime. Totally weak on crime." Illinois passed the original version of the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act, known as the SAFE-T Act, in 2021, then an amended version in 2022, becoming the first state in the country to eliminate cash bail. It was put on hold hours before it was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023, but in July 2023 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled the law is constitutional and it took effect in September of that year. The law applies to the entire state of Illinois, not just Chicago, and is meant to prevent people arrested for nonviolent or low-level crimes from being held in jail simply because they do not have enough money to pay cash bond or bail. Judges are given the discretion to choose if defendants should be held in custody or released, often on electronic monitoring, before trial, which advocates said will allow more dangerous people to remain in jail even if they could afford to post bond. In September 2024, just before the first anniversary of the elimination of cash bail in Illinois, data showed there had been no rise in crime as a result of the elimination of cash bail; in fact, violent crime and property crime were both down. The latest data on violent crime in Chicago as of July 2025 shows that trend has continued, with violent crime continuing to drop largely in line with national crime trends. President Trump did not offer details about how he planned to "end" or "change" Illinois' no cash bail law, but he did seem to say he would rely on the Republican-controlled Congress to do so. "We're going to change no cash bail, we're going to change the statute and get rid of some of the other things and we'll count on the Republicans in Congress and the Senate to vote," he said. "We've got the majority, so we'll vote. We don't have a big majority, but we've gotten everything, including the 'Great Big Beautiful Bill,' we got that done." CBS News Chicago has reached out to Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson for their reaction to the president's remarks and are waiting to hear back.
