By Michael Leppert
The Indiana Citizen
February 19, 2025
An abundance of adjectives can be used to describe the first 30 days of the second Trump administration. “Chaotic” would be my first choice. But Thesaurus.com provides a list of synonyms to consider in my search for the perfect word. The six strongest matches to my top choice also work. “Tumultuous” or “turbulent?” Yes. “Disorganized” or “helter-skelter?” Ditto. “Lawless” and “anarchic” are the others on that short list, and yes, they both sadly apply as well.
This first month has not been about egg prices or healthcare. Nor has it been about education or justice. And though headlines are big about Ukraine and Gaza, those too are merely components of what today’s true battle is really all about: turf.
America is in the midst of a turf war. It’s so old-school, most don’t even recognize it for what it is. But when Trump’s new leadership at the Department of Justice eviscerated the Republican team in its Southern District of New York to force the dismissal of the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams, the White House was seizing the local government of the city.
The case against Adams is, or was, about as open and shut as possible. Turkish nationals were pumping campaign funds and luxury travel to the mayor and were receiving favors in return in several easily traceable instances. The corrupt relationship began when Adams was the president of the New York borough of Brooklyn. It intensified during his mayoral campaign, and it continued after he took office. The SDNY has or had the goods on him.
So, what is the motivation for Team Trump to dismiss a corruption case against a prominent Democrat? Again, with the word calisthenics, an oft used political descriptor would be “leverage.” But I think that word is a soft, understatement.
In a story from the Associated Press last week, Rev. Al Sharpton, an Adams ally, said, “It certainly sounds like President Trump is holding the mayor hostage…I have supported the mayor, but he has been put in an unfair position — even for him — of essentially political blackmail.”
Now, in New York, Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul has some interesting authority that could lead her to removing Adams from office, and those discussions began in earnest on Tuesday. Normally, I wouldn’t be much of a fan of that kind of intervention, and in Indiana, that authority doesn’t even exist.
I’m curious how many Republican governors, who are unconditionally loyal to the president, would like to force Democrat leadership in their state’s cities to behave the way the White House wants. In the example of New York, the “policy” reason for dismissing the Adams case is to gain cooperation on immigration enforcement in the city. But why would the public believe that is all the federal government would want from a mayor that would now be, as Sharpton pointed out, its “hostage?”
Control of his hometown, a city that despises him, is extremely attractive to the pettiest of presidents. That turf war is being made possible, or even easy, by the corruption of Adams. But there are plenty of other places that could logically follow, by merely applying other types of leverage.
Indiana cities are also susceptible to the use of expanded immigration enforcement as the justification for outsized influence and control by either the White House, the Statehouse, or both. House Bill 1531, blandly titled “Various Immigration Matters,” is a part of that turf war in the Hoosier state.
The bill was passed out of the Indiana House Judiciary Committee on Monday in a party line vote. Brandon Smith, reporting for IPB News, wrote, “Indiana law already requires law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities. The attorney general’s office said the bill would provide more specificity and make it easier for it to win ongoing lawsuits against two county sheriffs’ offices.” Those suits were filed in two of the state’s Democrat-dominant counties, St. Joseph (South Bend) and Monroe (Bloomington).
The “blue dots” in “red states” would seem to be easier conquests than places like The Big Apple. The city and the state of New York are both areas of resistance to the turf war, even with Mayor Adams as a hostage.
What would normally have been a battle between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government never even started. Congress has surrendered its oversight role, its appropriating authority, and embarrassingly, the Senate’s advice and consent responsibilities already. The remaining question is whether the Judicial Branch, as a whole, will stay committed to the law or not.
The interests of Americans are diverse, north to south and coast to coast. That’s why we have governments, plural, and why our respective turfs need our collective respect.
Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.
