Danielle Sassoon
Former Interim US Attorney for the Southern District of NY
“It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams’ opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration ... with dismissal of a criminal indictment.” – Danielle Sassoon on the Trump administration’s dismissal of charges of corruption against NYC Mayor Eric Adams
In September 2024, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office on charges of taking illegal campaign contributions from Turkey and accepting $100,000 in travel and hotel perks in exchange for official acts. But in February 2025, as prosecutors were preparing additional charges, the Trump Justice Department ordered them to drop the case, a move protested by then Acting Manhattan US Attorney Danielle Sassoon, a Trump appointee.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Sassoon argued: “Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations.” She pointed out that the justifications cited by Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III for dismissing the charges were because the indictment would hinder Adams’ ability to assist with Trump’s deportation efforts – a political issue, not a matter of justice. Rather than give in to pressure, Sassoon resigned, along with six other prosecutors.
Sassoon isn’t an aggrieved Democrat; she is a registered Republican and a member of the conservative Federalist Society. She received her BA from Harvard and her law degree from Yale, then clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She has a reputation for being tough but fair. As a colleague put it, she is “exactly the type of prosecutor that people should want serving their country." As an assistant US Attorney, she secured prominent convictions against sex trafficker Larry Ray and fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried, among highlight cases.
In her letter to AG Bondi, Sassoon wrote: “It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams’ opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration ... with dismissal of a criminal indictment.” She also argued that the dismissal of charges amounted to a quid pro quo, saying that the mayor’s lawyers had “repeatedly urged … that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.”
The reaction from the Justice Department was swift. In a long response to her resignation, Bove appeared to place the president’s wishes above the Constitution: “In no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected President,” he wrote to Sassoon, “and anyone romanticizing that behavior does a disservice to the nature of this work and the public’s perception of our efforts.” He said that he would open an investigation into her actions.
Until recently, the Department of Justice has maintained its independence from the presidency – a key element in providing nonpartisan judicial actions that support the law rather than whomever is in office. However, legal analysts point out that the DOJ’s independence is fragile, because Congress has never codified the safeguards that would maintain this independence. A consistent application of the law – rather than political partisanship – is only maintained by “the reliance on federal prosecutors’ ability to utilize norms and internal DOJ regulations.”
Now there is a climate of fear where some lawyers and judges appear afraid to speak up. We’ve seen that with law firms capitulating to Trump, while others have refused to be intimidated by his threats against judges and attorneys who don’t agree with his orders. As one lawyer said, “People are keeping their heads down. Scared of being audited. Scared of being investigated. The federal government is very powerful.” This person did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation.
Danielle Sassoon’s courageous insistence on maintaining the integrity of the District Attorney’s office, even in the face of DOJ attacks, shows her to be an example of a prosecutor willing to hold the guardrails in place – to apply the law consistently and ethically, no matter who wishes to tip the scale. As a patriot, she refuses to buckle under to partisan pressure or support corruption.