U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan for the Eastern District of Virginia said a federal grand jury has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344) and false-statement (18 U.S.C. §1014) charges, calling the alleged conduct a serious breach of public trust. If convicted, Ms. James faces up to 30 years in prison per count, fines of up to $1 million per count, and forfeiture; actual sentences typically fall below statutory maximums and will be set by a federal judge under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
New York State Attorney General Letitia James Indicted
Lindsey Halligan, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, announced today that a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging New York State Attorney General Letitia James with Bank Fraud under 18 U.S.C. Section 1344 and False Statements to a Financial Institution under 18 U.S.C. Section 1014.
“No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust,” said U.S. Attorney Halligan. “The facts and the law in this case are clear, and we will continue following them to ensure that justice is served.”
If convicted, Letitia James faces penalties including up to 30 years in prison per count, up to a $1 million fine on each count, and forfeiture. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
An indictment is merely an accusation. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
October 9, 2025Share
For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Virginia
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul launched Secure Choice, a state-run program that lets private-sector employees without workplace plans save automatically through payroll into portable Roth IRAs. The initiative—free and simple for employers—follows a pilot and now applies to businesses with 10 or more employees that don’t offer a qualified plan, targeting the more than half of working New Yorkers lacking retirement coverage. Ms. Hochul cast the rollout as part of her Affordability Agenda, saying automatic enrollment will boost long-term savings and help workers retire with greater security; legislative and city leaders praised the move as a practical fix for small-business employees and the self-employed.
Governor Hochul Announces Launch of New York State Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program
Governor Kathy Hochul today announced the launch of the New York State Secure Choice Savings Program, a new state-sponsored retirement savings program for private-sector employees who do not have access to a workplace retirement plan. Over 50 percent of working New Yorkers do not have access to a retirement plan through their employer — now for the first time in State history, those New Yorkers will have an easy way to save for their future. Governor Hochul continues to deliver on her Affordability Agenda, providing both direct financial assistance for today, and now with Secure Choice helping New Yorkers plan for tomorrow.
“With the launch of the New York State Secure Choice Savings Program, we are expanding access to retirement savings and empowering New Yorkers to invest in their future,” Governor Hochul said. “The program provides another tool for employees to build long-term financial security and plan for a dignified retirement.”
New York Secure Choice is free and easy for employers, and allows employees to save automatically through payroll deductions into portable Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) they own and keep.
Following a successful pilot program, New York employers with ten or more employees that do not already offer a qualified retirement plan will now be able to provide their employees the opportunity to save for retirement at work.
New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Acting Commissioner Amanda Hiller said, “New York Secure Choice provides a simple way for workers in New York State to save for retirement with every paycheck. By making saving automatic, the program helps more New Yorkers take control of their financial future.”
State Senator Jessica Ramos said, “The launch of the NYS Secure Choice Savings Program marks a major step forward in our commitment to financial security for all New Yorkers. For too long, many workers, especially in small businesses, have lacked access to building a stable retirement. This program changes that, and I thank Governor Hochul for making this part of her agenda.”
Assemblymember Al Stirpe said, “I am eager to see the New York Secure Choice Savings Program finally launch from idea to implementation. By making it easy for employees and self-employed individuals to save for retirement and employers to facilitate the process, New York Secure Choice provides an opportunity for previously uncovered workers to participate in long-term savings for the future. With more than half of New Yorkers left without an employer-sponsored retirement plan and hundreds of thousands of workers across the state, this program fills a critical gap with accessible financial assistance. Economic security and the ability to finish a hard-earned career with dignity are not privileges, but rights that each working person deserves.”
Assemblymember Rebecca A. Seawright said, “As Chair of the Assembly Committee on Aging, I commend Governor Hochul for launching the Secure Choice Savings Program, which offers working New Yorkers a simple and reliable way to plan for their financial future. Too many older adults face economic insecurity in retirement because they lacked access to savings options during their working years. This program will empower employees to build stability and independence, ensuring that every New Yorker has the opportunity to age with dignity and peace of mind.”
Council Member Yusuf Salaam said, “I want to thank Governor Hochul for her continued leadership in advancing the Affordability Agenda and for launching the New York State Secure Choice Savings Program. This initiative is a game-changer for the more than half of working New Yorkers who’ve had no access to retirement plans. By giving workers a simple, automatic way to save for the future, the Governor is helping ensure that more New Yorkers, including those right here in our community, can look forward to a more secure and dignified retirement.”
Council Member Keith Powers said, “It is crucial for all workers to plan for retirement. The time to prepare for the future is now, but employees who do not have the option to save for retirement lose out on the ability to let their savings grow and ensure long-term security. New York Secure Choice opens that opportunity to all, allowing New Yorkers to have power over their future.” New York Secure Choice will notify employers required to facilitate the program and provide them with registration details. If you are an eligible employer, you can also enroll today by visiting www.NewYorkSecureChoice.com.
— New York City joined 73 other local governments in an Oct. 7, 2025 amicus brief backing Oregon in Oregon v. Trump, asking the Ninth Circuit to uphold a district court order blocking the Trump administration’s September deployment of National Guard troops to Portland. The coalition argues Washington overstepped its authority under 10 U.S.C. §12406, saying there was no invasion or rebellion to justify dispatching roughly 200 troops over local objections. City officials warn such deployments disrupt policing, chill commerce and shift costs to taxpayers—citing prior bills of $134 million in Los Angeles and an estimated $10 million in Oregon. The group frames Guard use as a last resort, not a tool for routine civil unrest, while the federal government seeks an immediate stay of the district court’s Oct. 4 temporary restraining order.
City of New York Takes New Action Opposing Federal Government’s Military Deployment in American Cities
– The City of New York — as part of a coalition of 74 localities from around the nation — has filed a new amicus brief supporting Oregon’s ongoing case against the federal government’s unlawful deployment of the National Guard in Portland. In the brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm a district court ruling in Oregon v. Trump, which enjoined the federal government from deploying federal troops in Portland. The coalition warns against the Trump administration’s plans to deploy the National Guard at “anytime, anywhere, for any reason — based on nothing more than sporadic incidents of conflict or being a disfavored jurisdiction.” The coalition highlights the harms to local sovereignty, to local peace and tranquility, and to local economies from the federal government’s deployment of the National Guard to American cities on pretextual and political grounds.
“New York City is proud to — once again — partner with a multitude of localities to assert local control over our own domain: public safety,” said New York City Mayor Eric Adams. “Our administration has been unrelenting in driving down crime, rooting out violent criminals, and protecting New Yorkers, and we have had record drops in crime thanks to our commitment to public safety and the precision policing of the NYPD. Collaboration with state and federal law enforcement has always been a key part of our public safety strategy, but we do not need a deployment of the National Guard to our city. Instead, we plan to continue to work with the federal government on areas where collaboration is warranted, such as stopping the flow of illegal guns to our city from the Iron Belt. We remain committed to keeping New Yorkers safe while upholding our constitutional rights.”
“As highlighted in this brief, the president is continuing to treat American cities as military ‘training grounds’ based on pretext and misinformation that is contrary to the facts on the ground,” said New York City Corporation Counsel Muriel Goode-Trufant. “Federalizing and domestically deploying the National Guard can sow chaos in local communities and should be a last resort, not a primary tactic, reserved for exceedingly rare circumstances. The district court ruling enjoining the federal government should be upheld.”
In September 2025, the Trump administration deployed members of the National Guard to Portland, citing protests of immigration enforcement operations. On October 4, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that the deployment likely violated federal law because plaintiffs submitted evidence that the cited protests were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days or weeks leading up to the president’s directive. The federal government filed an application in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking an immediate stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order.
In the amicus brief, the coalition argues that the federal government has overreached its authority and that the lower court’s injunction should remain in place, based on longstanding federal laws prohibiting the National Guard from engaging in domestic law enforcement. The brief asserts that the federal government has provided no factual basis or legal justification for deploying 200 federal troops in Portland over the objection of local officials. The coalition states that there was no invasion or rebellion directed toward the federal government that would have allowed it to lawfully deploy the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406, and that this pretext dramatically increases the risk of irreparable injury by inflaming community tensions and interfering with local law enforcement personnel which is better trained to manage situations such as protests and crowd control.
Further, the brief cites the chilling effect that National Guard deployments have on the local economy and taxpayers — as more customers stay inside and local businesses lose customers. Also, taxpayers are stuck paying the bill for these deployments: $134 million for Los Angeles alone and, potentially, at least $10 million for Oregon.
Joining the City of New York and Portland, Oregon are the cities of Tucson, Arizona; Alameda, Anaheim, Berkeley, Culver, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San José, San Leandro, Santa Ana, Santa Monica, San Francisco, and West Hollywood, California; Denver and Ridgway, Colorado; New Haven, Connecticut; Tallahassee, Florida; Bloomington, Chicago, and Evanston, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Cambridge, and Lawrence, Massachusetts; Ann Arbor, Bellevue, and Exeter, Michigan; Hopkins, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, Minnesota; Hoboken and Newark, New Jersey, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Hudson, Rochester, and Brighton, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; Pittsburgh and Norristown, Pennsylvania; Providence, Rhode Island; Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee; Austin, El Paso, Iowa Colony, and San Marcos, Texas; Burlington, Vermont; Alexandria and Norfolk, Virginia; Tacoma, Washington; Madison and Exeter, Wisconsin; as well as the counties of Pima, Arizona; Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma, California; Denver and Ouray, Colorado; Montgomery, Maryland; Ingham and Bellevue, Michigan; Columbia, Cortland, and Monroe, New York; Multnomah, Oregon; Allegheny, Bucks, Clarion, Dauphin, and Montgomery, Pennsylvania; Davidson and Shelby, Tennessee; Harris and Travis, Texas; Kings and Pierce, Washington; Dan and Exeter, Wisconsin.
Donald Trump began by celebrating the Navy and the military, asserting that the United States possesses the greatest military in the world, which was largely rebuilt during his first term
Trump Touts Military, Claims Middle East Breakthrough, Blames Democrats for Crime and Layoffs
Trump Touts Military, Claims Middle East Breakthrough, Blames Democrats for Crime and Layoffs
In prepared remarks, Donald Trump praised the U.S. Navy and military as “the greatest,” saying he rebuilt them and that current operations have curbed Caribbean cartel drug routes by sea. He claimed to be advancing a swift hostage-and-cease-fire deal involving Hamas that he called a “great deal for Israel” and the Arab and Muslim world—framing it as a potential first in “3,000 years.” Domestically, he painted cities as gripped by unrest, saying Portland is “burning,” citing high violence in Chicago, and asserting Washington, D.C., went from “a hell hole to a safe place” in 12 days. He described the economy as “record setting,” labeled recent job cuts “Democrat layoffs,” called Obamacare a “disaster” needing fixes, and criticized a judge he said he appointed.
The chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees sent letters Wednesday to two consulting firms — along with the College Board, Oracle and a company called Ellucian — seeking information about any tuition pricing algorithms they have built and the college applicants’ data that feeds them.
The consulting companies, with names like EAB and Ruffalo Noel Levitz, may be unfamiliar to college applicants and their families. But colleges know the consultants well, since most schools hire one of the two firms, or smaller consulting companies, to help them attract students and plot financial aid offers.
“Colleges that agree to use a common pricing formula or algorithm, or knowingly do so through a third-party company, are likely violating the antitrust laws,” said the letters, which were signed by Representatives Jim Jordan and Scott Fitzgerald and Senators Charles Grassley and Mike Lee, all Republicans. The demands cite reporting in The New York Times in May, which pointed to past comments by an EAB executive who had described its work as “a form of arbitrage” and added that its financial aid optimization strategies were “like working in the financial markets.”
EAB boasts of up to 200 variables that colleges and universities can use when setting an individual admitted student’s price, drawing from data on over 350 clients and 1.5 billion “student interactions.” Ruffalo Noel Levitz has over 1,900 clients feeding its software models for everything from financial aid to fund-raising.
Ruffalo Noel Levitz did not comment immediately upon receipt of the letter. An EAB spokeswoman said the company was still reviewing it.
In those letters, the lawmakers are seeking descriptions of all products and services and their capabilities; explanations of the purpose of any pricing and financial aid algorithms and the data that the algorithms train on; and the names of the higher education institutions that use each product or service.
Violations of antitrust law could occur, the letters said, even if competitors were not discussing pricing with one another if “they are delegating their decision making to a software or algorithm” that results in the exchange of confidential pricing information. Spokeswomen for both the College Board — which licenses a need-based aid calculation tool called the CSS Profile to colleges — and Ellucian said they were still reviewing the letters. Oracle, which has a higher education technology unit, declined to comment.
The peculiar college pricing system — in which the list price is often not the real price, and different administrators handle need-based aid and merit aid — has drawn much scrutiny from regulators and politicians in recent years.
Earlier this year, this same group of politicians asked for an enormous amount of information from Ivy League schools, citing “apparent collusion to raise tuition prices.” The breadth of the inquiry included communications among the schools and the Common App and U.S. News, which publishes school rankings, as well as information about early decision practices.
In 2019, the Department of Justice announced an antitrust settlement with the National Association for College Admission Counseling. Association rules had effectively prevented schools from poaching students after May 1. Those rules went away, and now schools like Syracuse make six-figure discount offers to teenagers who have already committed to other colleges.
And in 2013, the department investigated discussions between college presidents about whether there was anything school officials could do to stop giving so much merit aid to students who didn’t need it. Later that year, the government dropped the inquiry, but not before scaring many higher education leaders away from discussing the matter.
In the current investigation, lawyers who work on antitrust cases say that crucial questions about the “common pricing formulas” could include the following: If EAB and Ruffalo Noel Levitz have access to dozens of pieces of data from tens of thousands of applicants from several hundred schools (including who responded, how they responded, and to what sort of financial aid offers), how do the firms feed that into the algorithms that help client colleges set prices and discounts?
Another question, lawyers say: Do they do it in real time, on an ongoing basis, in the middle of application season?
And once the algorithms are trained, do clients that compete with one another ultimately end up drawing on collective data to set prices?
“It is about time that policymakers are scrutinizing the enrollment management industry,” said Stephen Burd, a senior writer and editor on education policy at the think tank New America and the editor of a book about enrollment management. “If policymakers have any hope of solving the problems of college access, affordability, equity and indebtedness, they are going to have to finally acknowledge the industry behind the curtain.”
Georgia Nugent, a former president of Kenyon College and Illinois Wesleyan University, was one of the higher education leaders questioned by the Justice Department in 2013. She said the language in Wednesday’s letters presumes that colleges accept advice unquestioningly.
“In my experience, we didn’t just blindly take what the algorithm said,” she said, adding that she had worked at institutions that were clients of both EAB and Ruffalo Noel Levitz.
“An algorithm might have suggested X, Y or Z, and that did not accord with our values and objectives,” said Ms. Nugent, who is now the president in residence at the American Academic Leadership Institute. “To assume that colleges are just automata and do what consultants tell us to do, at least in my experience, would not be true.”
A federal grand jury in Denver returned an indictment on August 21, 2025, charging two Denver-area companies and the companies’ top executives for defrauding the federal government on sales of forklifts and conspiring to avoid paying proper tariffs on forklifts imported into the United States.
According to court documents, Endless Sales Inc. (Endless), Octane Forklifts, Inc. (Octane), current executives Brian Firkins and Jeffrey Blasdel, and former executive J.R. Antczak allegedly conspired to import forklifts from China, disguise the Chinese origin of the forklifts, and then sell the forklifts to federal government agencies by fraudulently representing the forklifts as being manufactured in the United States. The indictment also alleges that Endless, Octane, Firkins, Blasdel, and Antczak conspired with an unnamed Chinese national and a Chinese manufacturer to create fake commercial invoices that fraudulently undervalued the cost of forklifts that Endless and Octane imported into the United States, thereby defrauding the government of over $1 million in applicable tariffs, duties, and fees. Firkins, Blasdel, and Antczak are each additionally charged with separate wire fraud charges, and Blasdel is also charged with making false statements to the government.
“Defrauding the United States to profit from goods made in adversarial nations like China undermines our economic and national security,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Justice Department is committed to protecting American taxpayer dollars, defending our national security against those who would undermine it, and holding accountable anyone who pursues illegal profits over our country.”
“Defendants fraudulently hid the origins of the products they sold the government and conspired to avoid paying tariffs,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force and its law enforcement partners will continue to prosecute and hold accountable those who seek to fraudulently obtain taxpayer funds.”
“Today’s indictments are the result of the collaboration among the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and our law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who seek to violate America’s trade laws to enrich themselves,” said Acting Inspector General Steve Stebbins of the Department of Defense. “DCIS remains committed to safeguarding the integrity of the DoD contracting process.”
“Federal contractors are expected to be honest in their dealings with the government,” said Deputy Inspector General Robert Erickson of the U.S. General Services Administration Office of Inspector General. “These indictments demonstrate our special agents’ commitment to pursue allegations of procurement fraud and protect the government’s supply chain.”
“My office is committed to protecting taxpayer dollars and the integrity of federal procurement,” said Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari, Ph.D of DHS OIG. “Octane Forklifts, Endless Sales, and their executives allegedly engaged in a brazen scheme to sell rebranded Chinese made forklifts to FEMA and the Department of Defense , all while falsely certifying their compliance with the Buy America Act. It is especially reprehensible that this alleged fraud involved a FEMA contract using disaster funds. I commend our law enforcement partners, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado, and DOJ’s Antitrust Division for their steadfast commitment to holding these individuals accountable.”
“This indictment reflects the commitment of the Air Force to uphold the integrity in public contracting and protect taxpayer dollars,” said Director Jason T. Hein, Office of Procurement Fraud Investigations, Office of Special Investigations, USAF. “Procurement fraud undermines trust in government and diverts resources from maintaining our national security and missions they’re meant to serve. We will continue to pursue accountability wherever public funds are at risk.”
“Intentionally violating the Buy America Act to defraud the US Government, isn’t just a legal issue, it is a demonstration of complete disregard for US law and the safety and security of our US military.” said Special Agent in Charge Derek Tilton of the Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division. “The US Army will not tolerate contract fraud and will vigorously pursue all available legal recourse.”
“This indictment demonstrates the VA OIG’s commitment to protecting taxpayer funds and ensuring companies who do business with the government are held accountable,” said Special Agent in Charge Anthony Heddell with the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General’s Western Field Office. “The VA OIG will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure the integrity of VA’s programs and services.”
Firkins, Blasdel, Antczak, Endless, and Octane are charged with conspiring to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Firkins, Blasdel, and Antczak are similarly charged with individual counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the individuals, each count of conviction carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. For the corporations, the maximum penalty is a fine of $500,000. Firkins, Blasdel, Antczak, Endless and Octane are also charged with conspiring to enter goods into the United States by means of false or fraudulent statements. For the individuals, a count of conviction carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000. For the corporations, the maximum penalty is a fine of $500,000, or twice the gain derived from the offense, or twice the loss caused by the offense. Finally, Blasdel is charged with making false statements to the government, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
If convicted, a federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The Antitrust Division’s Chicago Office is prosecuting the case, which was investigated with the assistance of the United States Army Criminal Investigative Division, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigation, U.S. General Services Administration Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, and U.S. Defense Contract Audit Agency. The Westminster, Colorado, Police Department provided valuable assistance.
In November 2019, the Justice Department created the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant and program funding at all levels of government — federal, state and local. To learn more about the PCSF, or to report information on bid rigging, price fixing, market allocation and other anticompetitive conduct related to government spending, go to www.justice.gov/procurement-collusion-strike-force. Anyone with information in connection with this investigation can contact the PCSF at the link listed above.
An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
New York City said it will participate in a proposed $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, steering about $48 million to the five boroughs to combat opioid harms. The deal—stemming from litigation launched in 2017—combines $6.5 billion from certain Sackler family members and an expected $900 million from Purdue’s bankruptcy estate pending court approval later this fall. City officials said the funds build on roughly $190 million already recovered and are projected to push total opioid-related proceeds to more than $550 million by 2041, supporting prevention, harm-reduction, and treatment efforts across DOHMH, NYC Health + Hospitals, and the Office of Chief Medical Examiner. The Adams administration has ramped opioid spending to about $50 million annually as overdose deaths showed improvement in late 2024. New Yorkers can call or text 988 for 24/7 support.
City of New York Takes Steps Toward Recovering Approximately $48 Million From Opioid Manufacturer in Ongoing Litigation to Bring Closure to Communities Affected by Opioid Crises
– New York City Mayor Eric Adams and New York City Corporation Counsel Muriel Goode-Trufant today announced the city’s commitment to participate in a new proposed settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family that would bring approximately $48 million to the five boroughs and, more importantly, closure to the communities torn apart by the opioid crisis. The settlement is the result of litigation brought, beginning in 2017, by the city, numerous state attorneys general, and several thousand subdivisions across the country to address the harms caused by the opioid crises. The total settlement amount is expected to be approximately $7.4 billion, including $4.5 billion for state and local governments, of which approximately $48 million will go to the City of New York. The settlement would combine an agreement with certain members of the Sackler family to pay $6.5 billion and an anticipated contribution from the bankruptcy estate of Purdue Pharma, expected to be $900 million pending approval from the bankruptcy court on the proposed bankruptcy plan later this fall. Purdue Pharma and certain members of the Sackler family were at the heart of a scheme to misleadingly market prescription opioids as safe and effective for long-term chronic pain management, contributing greatly to the nationwide opioid crisis.
“The opioid crisis stole thousands of lives, tore apart countless communities, and devastated families across our city and the rest of the nation, and while nothing can replace all that we lost, we will never stop fighting until we bring justice to communities devastated by this crisis,” said Mayor Adams. “At the heart of the scheme to hook Americans on opioids were the Sackler family and their company, Purdue Pharma, and the potential for this $7.4 billion settlement will serve as an example of how New Yorkers can trust us to always hold those with power accountable when they break the law and harm our citizens. I thank Corporation Counsel Goode-Trufant and the Law Department for their role in this settlement and for helping to ensure we do what we can to help make New Yorkers whole again.”
“This settlement will represent a major milestone in the city’s longstanding legal effort to hold manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids accountable for their role in the city’s deadly opioid epidemic,” said Corporation Counsel Muriel Goode-Trufant. “The opioid crisis resulted in a tremendous human and financial cost to the city. This $48 million settlement adds to the hundreds of millions of dollars we have already worked to recover from irresponsible drug companies. I commend all the dedicated individuals on the city’s legal team for their work in bringing about this outstanding result.”
Today’s announcement builds on the work the city has done to bring justice to the victims and families of the opioid epidemic. In January 2018, the City of New York sued manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids to remedy the harms caused within the city by the misleading marketing and improper distribution of these drugs. New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a similar lawsuit in March 2019. Settlements reached by both the city and the state, as well as a court victory by Attorney General James, have provided the City of New York alone with nearly $190 million as of the end of Fiscal Year 2025, which, with this new settlement, is expected to grow to a total of more than $550 million by 2041. In April 2022, Mayor Adams and Attorney General James announced allocations for the first of hundreds of millions of dollars coming to New York City to combat the opioid crisis. In September 2024, Mayor Adams announced city funding will ramp up to an annual $50 million for opioid prevention and treatment.
Ongoing funds from opioid settlements have supported new and expanded activities at New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), NYC Health + Hospitals, and the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner that collectively aim to reduce opioid overdose deaths through harm reduction, preventive, and treatment strategies.
Funds from opioid settlements through DOHMH have supported wraparound services for syringe service programs, including on-site medical care, connections to health care and social services, and support for basic needs. Between July 2024 and April 2025, syringe service programs that operate Overdose Prevention Centers provided more than 38,000 harm reduction services to approximately 6,600 participants, reducing the risk of overdose and infectious disease and providing referrals to treatment and other health and social services. In 2023, the Adams administration also allocated $3 million to eight providers on Staten Island through a request for proposal to directly support the expansion of buprenorphine treatment, outreach and engagement, and care navigation services in the borough. Procurement to expand the number of hospitals participating in DOHMH’s emergency department-based nonfatal opioid overdose response program, called Relay, remains ongoing.
Since beginning to receive funding through opioid settlements, NYC Health + Hospitals has had over 9,800 patient engagements with expanded substance use services at Street Health Outreach and Wellness vans, nearly 80,000 encounters with patients in emergency departments with addiction services provided by the Emergency Department Leads program, and has successfully launched a cutting-edge addiction simulation training for emergency department prescribers. Additionally, NYC Health + Hospitals has provided comprehensive addiction consultations at over 23,000 inpatient admissions through the Consult for Addiction Treatment and Care in Hospitals program. Further, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s Drug Intelligence and Intervention Group program has offered support services to more than 2,000 individuals following the death of a loved one from an overdose.
Today’s investment and all of the actions taken by Mayor Adams and the Adams administration to prevent overdose deaths also underscore the administration’s efforts to improve and extend the average lifespan of all New Yorkers through “HealthyNYC” to 83 years by 2030. HealthyNYC sets ambitious targets to address the greatest drivers of premature death, including chronic and diet-related diseases, screenable cancers, overdose, suicide, maternal mortality, violence, and COVID-19.
New Yorkers looking to access substance use services can call or text 988 for free, confidential support 24/7. Resources can also be found on the “NYC HealthMap” and on DOHMH’s website.
Today’s announcement builds on Mayor Adams’ “End the Culture of Anything Goes” campaign, which highlights the work the administration has done to date to change the culture and laws that prevented people with severe mental illness from getting the help they needed, while simultaneously making the investments necessary to support outreach, harm reduction, wraparound services, and housing — all in an effort to make lasting impacts in lives and communities. Mayor Adams is bringing the same energy and approach that proved to be successful in carving a new path to help people with severe mental illness to address other health crises, like drug addiction, playing out on city streets, and recently laid out plans to realize that vision by connecting those suffering with treatment.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, joined by 19 state attorneys general, said mifepristone has been safely and effectively used for more than 25 years and criticized an FDA review ordered by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary as unsupported by science. The coalition argued medical decisions should rest on evidence rather than politics and vowed to take legal action to preserve access if the drug is threatened. Ms. James also pointed to recent litigation and policy moves by her office aimed at safeguarding abortion access and emergency reproductive care.
Attorney General James and 19 Attorneys General Defend Mifepristone’s Safety
Attorneys General Emphasize that Despite FDA’s Unnecessary and Baseless Comments, Mifepristone Remains Safe and Available
– New York Attorney General Letitia James today co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general in releasing the following statement after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Martin Makary launched an FDA review of the abortion medication mifepristone:
“For more than 25 years, mifepristone has been used safely and effectively in the United States and globally. It is currently the most common method for early-term abortion care in the United States and is the standard of care for managing early miscarriage. The decision to reexamine access to this medication was made in response to a scientifically baseless letter and ignores decades of research that prove mifepristone is safe and effective. Medical decisions should be left between patients, their families, and their providers – and they should be guided by science, not political agendas.
“As state attorneys general, we have a responsibility to enforce state laws and protect our residents, including their access to reproductive care. If access to mifepristone is challenged, we will take action to protect it.”
Joining Attorney General James in releasing this statement are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
Donald Trump briefly answered reporters’ questions today about the investigation into alleged crimes by former FBI Director James Comey, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.Trump called Comey “corrupt,” saying he lied about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. “The only thing Comey didn’t anticipate was that he’d get caught,” Trump said, stressing this is about justice, not “revenge.” He claimed Comey lied to Congress. Media reports, Trump added, noted that Comey once posted a photo of arranged seashells that supposedly formed a number associated in slang with “murder” and with Trump’s presidency.
Before departing the White House to represent the United States at the RYDER Cup, Trump opened his remarks by focusing on the recent charges against Comey. He repeatedly described Comey as a “dirty cop” and a “corrupt, radical left Democrat,” saying even Democrats are better than Comey.
Trump insisted the case is about justice, not payback, arguing Comey was “caught” lying to Congress. He said Comey gave a very specific, emphatic answer to an important question, checked it several times, but “the only problem” was that the answer “was a lie.”
Denying the existence of any “enemies list,” Trump said he hopes “others” will also face charges. He argued the Justice Department had been “weaponized like no one in history” and said such things must not be allowed to happen to the country. He claimed “sick, radical left people” had pursued legal cases against him for four years, starting when he took office in 2016, and “found nothing.”
Beyond the political accusations, Trump offered a foreign-policy update, saying the U.S. is “very close to a deal on Gaza.” He expects it would be the eighth such agreement, returning hostages, ending the war, and bringing peace.
Turning to domestic issues, Trump praised the U.S. economy, citing “fantastic” numbers, low prices, and “virtually no inflation,” and said the country is respected worldwide. He blamed any potential government shutdown entirely on “radical left Democrats,” alleging that Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer are trying to block government funding while demanding money for undocumented immigrants.
Trump said Democrats want a shutdown because they aim to provide billions—“and ultimately trillions of dollars”—to illegal migrants, some of whom he claimed are criminals; he accused them of supporting open borders and allowing men to compete in women’s sports.
– New York Attorney General Letitia James’ Office of Special Investigation (OSI) today released its report on the death of Gary Worthy, who died on November 19, 2024 following an encounter with members of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in Queens. After a thorough investigation, which included review of footage from body-worn cameras and security cameras, interviews with involved officers and witnesses, and comprehensive legal analysis, OSI concluded that a prosecutor would not be able to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the officer’s actions were justified under New York law.
Shortly before 6:30 p.m. on November 19, NYPD officers responded to multiple 911 calls reporting a robbery with a gun at a smoke shop on Guy R. Brewer Boulevard in Queens. When officers arrived near the scene at 160th Street and Jamaica Avenue, one of the 911 callers approached the officers’ police car, pointed toward Mr. Worthy, and identified him as the alleged robber. One officer got out of the car in an attempt to pursue Mr. Worthy on foot, and Mr. Worthy started to run down the sidewalk along Jamaica Avenue. As they ran, Mr. Worthy turned and fired a gun, striking the chasing officer in the leg. The bullet went through the officer’s leg and struck a bystander in the leg. The chasing officer discharged his firearm in response, striking Mr. Worthy. Mr. Worthy was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The officer and the bystander were treated for their injuries. Officers recovered a gun at the scene.
Under New York’s justification law, a police officer may use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend against the use of deadly physical force by another. In this case, as officers attempted to apprehend Mr. Worthy, he fired a gun, striking one officer and a bystander. Under these circumstances, given the law and the evidence, a prosecutor would not be able to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the officer’s use of deadly physical force against Mr. Worthy was justified, and therefore OSI determined that criminal charges would not be pursued in this matter.
In this case, officers did not render aid to Mr. Worthy during the five minutes he lay on the ground waiting for the ambulance to arrive. While OSI acknowledges that medical attention outside of a hospital setting would not have saved Mr. Worthy’s life, OSI recommends that NYPD – and all police agencies – emphasize in training that officers must aid any person injured by police use of force, even if the person who needs aid has injured a police officer. Currently, NYPD’s training and policies require that when an officer uses force, officers must “obtain medical attention for any person injured as soon as reasonably possible,” and officers must “render reasonable aid to injured person(s) and/or request an ambulance or doctor to the location as necessary.”
