Mayor Adams Faces Heat Over Forced Mental Health Removals | Image Source: www.newsday.com
NEW YORK, March 24, 2025 – On Monday, Mayor Eric Adams fiercely defended his government’s controversial policy of unintentionally eliminating the mentally ill from the streets and houses. His comments were made in response to a critical report by the municipal council that questioned the fairness, effectiveness and transparency of the programme, particularly with regard to racial disparities and the results of long-term treatment.
Introduced at the end of 2022, the mayor’s initiative allows law enforcement and health professionals to transport people who are considered mentally unstable – and cannot be treated – to hospitals, even without their consent. While Adams was seen as a necessary measure to deal with mental health and statelessness crises in public areas such as metro systems, the latest conclusions of the municipal council questioned the effectiveness and ethical basis of the approach.
Idealism comes into reality, Adams said at his weekly press briefing. “We are dealing with real people in real crisis, and we will not apologize for trying to help them.” Critics argue, however, that the program does more harm than good, and often leaves those eliminated without access to long-term care, community support or follow-up treatment.
What does the municipal council report reveal?
The municipal council report, based on data that Adams was legally required to publish, painted a sober image. According to the analysis, more than 7,000 involuntary dismissals were undertaken by New York police in 2024 and 660 by doctors. However, almost 40 per cent of boarding schools were not admitted to psychiatric care. Worse still, even for those admitted, there is little evidence that they received long-term, person-centred treatment later.
The report highlighted three main concerns: lack of transparency in data exchange, inefficient link to long-term mental health care and reports on racial disparities. In particular, 54 per cent of all involuntary transportation was by New Yorkers, who accounted for only 23 per cent of the city’s population. This disproportionate rate has alarmed civil rights groups and advisers.
“The Authority has consistently used involuntary abductions as a solution for all take-ups without providing funding for the necessary treatment measures,” said Councillor Linda Lee, Chair of the Mental Health Committee.
Even more striking: moves were five times more likely to occur in private households than in public areas such as the metro. This goes directly against the repeated formulation of the mayor’s policy as a fundamental tool for public safety in transit systems and sidewalks.
Is the unintentional disposal policy effective?
The short answer: it depends on who you ask. Mayor Adams continues to claim that the program is a proactive lifeline for people who might otherwise go into a deeper crisis or pose a danger to themselves or others. He framed the criticism as careless and idealistic. “You have to leave the environment sterilized in the Council Chamber and see what happens in the basement,” said Adams, responding to the critics of the legislators.
However, mental health professionals and defence organizations contradicted the fact that the policy of involuntary elimination did not meet the stated objectives. Sharon McLennon Wier, Executive Director of the Centre for the Independence of Persons with Disabilities, highlighted the need to humanize people with mental illness. They’re not monsters. We need to find a way to destigmatize mental health so that people really seek and receive attention,” he said.
According to the data cited in the Commission’s analysis, nearly 1,015 involuntary transfers in the last quarter of 2024 came from private homes, compared with only 219 from public transport and 241 from other public spaces. The consequences are twofold: firstly, the data contradict Adams’ assertions that the initiative focuses on public safety related to public transit; Second, it reveals that the scope of the program is much broader and perhaps more invasive than before.
Why are racial inequalities so pronounced?
This may be the most controversial issue in the debate. The Council’s report shows that more than half of the involuntaryly displaced persons were black, despite the fact that Black residents accounted for less than a quarter of the city’s total population. For many critics, this raises red flags about implicit prejudices, police and systemic inequalities.
Adams strongly opposed the idea that politics is racially biased. “Let’s go where the problem lies,” he said. “We don’t do racial politics. We’re not going to say, “Oh, this person needs attention but we’re not going to act because they’re black or Hispanic. “
However, the figures speak loudly. Critics argue that the system is deeply flawed and risks becoming another example of marginalized communities that carry the weight of public policy mistakes. Public counsel Jumaane Williams strongly stated: “It is not just about eliminating people. This is what happens next, and this part of history is neglected. ”
What alternatives are proposed?
City council members and mental health experts not only criticize, but offer concrete alternatives. Among the most mentioned are intensive mobile treatment teams (ITTs), transitional housing support programs, crisis relief centres and mental health centres that provide community resources without stigmatization of hospitalization.
These initiatives highlight ongoing support, drug management and integration into housing and employment services, rather than episodic emergency response. As for mental health lawyer Matt Kudish of the NYC National Mental Illness Alliance, “There is no magic pill. Continued care is needed that includes housing, family support and, most importantly, time
The Council urged management to increase investment in these services in the 2025 budget, arguing that it had a much more positive long-term stabilization record.
How do the Heads of State react?
Meanwhile, the legislature of the State of Albany is weighing on changes that would give local officials wider powers to undertake involuntary dismissals. Governor Kathy Hochul was supportive of this measure and aligned herself with Adams on the need to deal with the mental health crisis more aggressively. A proposed adjustment would extend the categories of professionals authorized to assess mental health crises and begin hospitalizations.
This legislative moment is part of an increase in the number of high-profile crimes – such as assault – allegedly committed by persons with untreated mental illness. As global crime rates decline, public perception of security has increased, giving urgent impetus to reform. However, critics caution that amending laws without addressing systemic gaps, such as housing and monitoring, may perpetuate a cycle of unrecovered abductions.
According to Adams, “We were bold enough to accept criticism. Now others must be bold enough to offer real solutions.” But these solutions, mental health experts say, may not come from more aggressive surveillance, but from patient-centred care systems that bring people where they are.
What are the consequences for the 2025 municipal career?
Adams’ position on the unintentional elimination of mental health quickly became a key theme in the 2025 mayor’s career. While some evaluators are cautious in supporting strategic objectives, many use them to differentiate their approaches to public health and civil liberties. The gap reflects a broader national conversation: how can cities manage serious mental illness without trampling on individual rights?
As Albany’s momentum grows to potentially broaden the reach of politics, the next few months will determine whether Adams’ approach to hard love gains legislative traction or faces political resistance. Anyway, the New Yorkers are watching closely. Their concerns are real: from the increasing cost of living to the visibility of untreated mental illnesses, they want a city that feels safe and fair.
But as defenders warn, solutions must go beyond ambulances and hospital beds. Without sustained investment in community care, housing and support networks, the cycle of crisis, remoteness and liberation is unlikely to break.
Counsel Linda Lee can best summarize the heart of the question: “This is not about politics. It’s about people. And they deserve more than an emergency trip. “
