Some of the most contentious fights between Eric Adams and Adrienne Adams

In 2022, back at the beginning of their terms, New York City Mayor Eric Adams and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams seemed to share a lot. A brand of moderate Democratic politics. A high school alma mater and childhood in Southeast Queens. A last name, though they’re not related. But recently, the two leaders have diverged on several policy and budget fights, pitting the cost-cutting, more conservative-minded mayor against the leader of the increasingly progressive legislative branch. While the two Adamses have mostly maintained a publicly cordial personal relationship, here are some of their more contentious fights. This post was originally published on May 31. It was updated on Aug. 1.

Round 1

Issue: Speaker’s race 

The speaker of the City Council is supposed to be elected by the members of the council. That’s rarely how it plays out in reality, however, with labor unions and other interested parties – including the mayor of New York City – rallying votes for their preferred candidates.

Adrienne’s objective: Become City Council speaker

Eric’s objective: Get ally Council Member Francisco Moya elected speaker

Outcome: Mayor Adams’ support of Moya fell flat, and the council rallied around Adrienne Adams, who was elected the first Black speaker of the City Council.

Round 2

Issue: CityFHEPS expansion

Though not the mayor’s first time wielding his veto power against this City Council, the two sides of City Hall had a protracted fight in 2023 over a package of bills expanding access to city rental vouchers. 

Adrienne’s objective: Usher through bills that would expand access to CityFHEPS rental vouchers

Eric’s objective: Squash those bills, predicting a steep cost to implement them

Outcome: TBD. The legislation passed the City Council, Mayor Adams vetoed the bills and the council promptly voted to override his veto. But after the administration refused to fully implement the laws, the Legal Aid Society sued to force implementation, and was joined in the suit by the council. In an initial victory for the mayor, a judge sided with the Adams administration, ruling in August 2024 that the council doesn’t have the authority to legislate eligibility rules for the program. The City Council said that they will pursue an immediate appeal.

Round 3

Issue: Criminal justice bills

The City Council passed bills limiting the use of solitary confinement and requiring more reporting in low-level police investigative encounters.

Adrienne’s objective: Advance an early priority of the City Council – limiting the use of solitary confinement in city jails – and achieve more police transparency

Eric’s objective: Preserve more flexibility for correction officers to discipline inmates and keep police officers free from bureaucratic reporting requirements

Outcome: Council passes criminal justice bills, mayor vetoes them and the council overrides the vetoes. Despite the administration saying that it will implement the laws, Adams issued an executive order that suspends parts of the law that he most fiercely disagreed with, including the time limit on how long incarcerated individuals who pose a safety threat can be isolated.

Round 4

Issue: Expanding council oversight of mayoral appointments

Speaker Adams has introduced legislation that would require the council’s advice and consent for 21 additional commissioner-level positions. It could expand the scrutiny that the council has given the administration over Randy Mastro’s potential nomination for corporation counsel.

Adrienne’s objective: Give the council more power to oversee – and potentially deny – commissioner-level appointments

Eric’s objective: Preserve his executive authority to appoint whomever he likes to commissioner positions at most city agencies

Outcome: TBD. The City Council passed Speaker Adams’ legislation, and despite speculation, the mayor passed on the opportunity to veto it. (The council likely would have voted to override the veto anyway.) But the legislation will still need to be approved by voters in a referendum, something that Adams’ Charter Revision Commission – another City Hall power struggle – will delay.

Round 5

Issue: Charter Revision Commission

Eric’s objective: The mayor’s stated objective in convening a Charter Revision Commission was to make the city government more responsive and transparent, though critics allege the commission was politically motivated.

Adrienne’s objective: Prevent the commission from tampering with the council’s processes, or from delaying getting her advice-and-consent legislation on the ballot.

Outcome: Five proposals from the Charter Revision Commission were approved to be sent to the ballot in November, where voters will have the final say. The council has strongly objected to two of them in particular that would alter the council’s process for passing public safety-related legislation, and how the fiscal impact of bills is assessed. The Charter commission proposals take precedence over the speaker’s advice-and-consent proposal on the November ballot, delaying the speaker’s opportunity to put her question to voters.