New York Attorney General Letitia James has drawn criticism for bringing a lawsuit tied to VDare, an anti-immigration website founded in New York but now based in West Virginia, while critics say her office has not pursued comparable legal action against large social-service providers that operate on New York taxpayer dollars.
An opinion article in the New York Post on Sept. 7 argued that James is devoting substantial staff resources to litigation against VDare even though the site no longer operates in the state and its contributions come from private donors. The Post noted that a press release announcing the latest lawsuit listed five section chiefs, assistant attorneys general and other staff as working on the matter, and said the suit alleges donor funds were used to buy a property in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia that doubles as a residence for the site's founder.
The Post's opinion piece contrasted the VDare litigation with findings from New York City’s Department of Investigation and federal prosecutions that have uncovered long-standing irregularities across the city's homeless-services sector. According to reporting in the Post summarizing DOI material, investigators documented patterns of self-dealing, noncompetitive contracting, excessive payments and nepotism among several high-dollar service providers that receive city funds.
The DOI findings, as described in the Post, singled out SEBCO, a shelter provider that reportedly hired a for-profit security firm it owned and then selected that firm without a competitive procurement process, paying top executives within the organization substantial salaries. The reporting also said the husband of a SEBCO executive was affiliated with multiple for-profit subcontractors used by the nonprofit for services including maintenance and pest control.
Other providers cited by the Post and tied to DOI reviews include Acacia Network and CORE Services. The Post reported that Acacia paid its top executive nearly $1 million in total compensation, a figure the charity defended as reasonable based on a consultant’s review. CORE Services, which lost city contracts in recent years, was described as having received hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds while contracting for security, food and other services through affiliated for-profit entities and paying executives six-figure salaries.
The Post said federal authorities have prosecuted some insiders tied to the city’s homeless-services sector and secured prison sentences in a limited number of cases. Those prosecutions, the article noted, were brought by federal prosecutors rather than by the state Attorney General’s office.
The New York Post criticized James for concentrating on VDare, an outlet that the Post described as "obscure," and for what the opinion piece framed as a pattern of targeting ideological opponents while overlooking large-scale, taxpayer-funded irregularities closer to home. The Post also pointed to the absence of press releases or lawsuits from the Attorney General’s office involving the city-funded providers cited by the DOI.
The Attorney General’s office did not publish a statement in the Post’s opinion piece. Public records show the office regularly litigates consumer protection, civil rights and charity cases; in recent years, James’s office has pursued high-profile suits on a range of issues. The Post’s column framed the VDare litigation as part of a broader debate about enforcement priorities.
Watchdogs and local officials have emphasized oversight of public contracting and nonprofit operations following DOI reviews and federal actions. City and federal investigations have, in some instances, led to contract terminations, federal charges and convictions. Advocates for stronger oversight say those outcomes underscore the need for coordinated enforcement among city, state and federal authorities.
The contention over the AG’s priorities underscores broader political disputes about how and where public resources and prosecutorial attention should be directed. Supporters of the Attorney General’s actions may point to statutory authority to investigate charities with ties to New York, while critics argue resources should focus on alleged misuse of taxpayer funds by large local providers. As of publication, the state Attorney General’s office had not released a public response to the Post’s opinion piece alleging a disparity in enforcement focus.