Former interim New York City Police Commissioner Tom Donlon asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to open a criminal investigation into Mayor Eric Adams and eight NYPD allies and top deputies, saying federal intervention is needed to "dismantle a criminal conspiracy inside the NYPD and restore integrity to law enforcement in New York City."
Donlon, a former FBI agent who served briefly as interim police commissioner, submitted a criminal referral letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and also urged that a federal monitor be placed over the department. The referral arrives roughly six months after federal prosecutors moved to drop a corruption case against Adams.
A Justice Department spokesperson told The Post that the department had not yet received the letter. A City Hall spokesperson called the referral "despicable," saying it was "despicable that anyone would lie about the incredible work of the NYPD and jeopardize the safety of every New Yorker just to serve their cheap efforts at financial gain."
Donlon's submission revisits allegations he laid out in a federal lawsuit filed this summer in which he portrayed himself as a whistleblower who was told to back off and faced retaliation while attempting to address alleged corruption during his roughly one-month tenure as interim commissioner last year. In addition to the criminal referral, Donlon's attorney, John Scola, said he filed an Internal Affairs complaint with the NYPD; Scola said no law enforcement agencies have yet contacted him or his client about the claims.
City lawyers, in responses to Donlon's federal lawsuit, called his short tenure "ill-suited" and characterized his allegations as "personal gripes," according to court filings. In public statements, Donlon has described Adams as "morally corrupt" and criticized the mayor's reelection efforts.
Donlon's call for a federal probe centers on allegations that senior NYPD officials protected corrupt behavior and shielded leadership from oversight. The referral seeks a broad federal review of conduct by the mayor and several high-ranking department figures, and requests monitoring by federal authorities if criminal wrongdoing is found.
The Justice Department's decision earlier this year to decline prosecution in the corruption case against Adams prompted debate in legal and political circles about the thresholds for federal charges and the sufficiency of evidence. Donlon's referral asks the department to revisit the matter and to consider additional investigative steps.
Legal analysts cautioned that a criminal referral does not automatically trigger an investigation and that the Justice Department evaluates referrals alongside evidence, statute of limitations considerations and prosecutorial priorities. The department has the authority to open or decline inquiries after assessing those factors.
Donlon's lawsuit and his public statements have increased scrutiny of leadership practices inside the NYPD and amplified calls from his supporters for outside oversight. Critics, including City Hall representatives and some department officials, maintain that Donlon's allegations are politically motivated and point to the short duration of his tenure when questioning his claims.
As of Tuesday, there was no public indication that the Justice Department had opened a new probe in response to the referral. Donlon and his attorney said they plan to press federal authorities to review the materials they submitted and to take steps they contend are necessary to restore public confidence in the city's police leadership.
The referral adds another chapter to a broader, ongoing controversy involving New York City politics, law enforcement oversight and prosecutorial discretion. Any decision by the Justice Department to open an investigation could lead to subpoenas, interviews and a review of internal NYPD communications, but such measures would depend on the department's internal assessment and priorities.
Donlon's move is likely to reverberate in municipal political conversations as the city approaches the next election cycle, with proponents of federal oversight arguing it is needed to ensure impartial scrutiny and opponents viewing it as an escalation of a personal dispute between a former official and the mayor.
