Scott Stringer’s ADL Partnership Claim Rebuffed as Fiction by Watchdog Group

By: Jerome Brookshire

In a sharp rebuke that raises questions about political posturing and factual accuracy, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) made clear this weekend that it has no plans to partner with New York City mayoral hopeful Scott Stringer, despite the candidate’s public claims to the contrary.

As reported by The New York Post, Stringer — a former city comptroller and longshot Democratic contender for mayor — told congregants at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun on Manhattan’s Upper East Side that his administration would collaborate with the ADL to harness cutting-edge technology aimed at curbing the city’s escalating antisemitism problem. Specifically, he vowed to equip the NYPD and the Office of Emergency Management with advanced monitoring tools that could flag potentially violent social media posts in real time, using data tools he attributed to the ADL.

The ADL was quick to distance itself from any formal alignment with Stringer or his campaign.  In a statement provided to The New York Post on Sunday, a spokesperson for the prominent anti-hate organization said unequivocally: “We are not aware of any authorized plans to partner with Mr. Stringer and, as a nonprofit organization, we would not partner with any candidate for elective office.”

The statement emphasized a common ethical boundary in the nonprofit world: that 501(c)(3) organizations — such as the ADL — are strictly prohibited from endorsing or aligning themselves with political candidates. That principle appears to have been breached, or at least misrepresented, in Stringer’s remarks.

The fallout comes as Stringer tries to gain traction in a crowded Democratic primary field, where he has consistently polled in the low single digits. His appearance at the Upper East Side synagogue was part of a broader outreach effort to New York’s Jewish community, which has seen a disturbing spike in antisemitic incidents since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel and the subsequent outbreak of war in Gaza. According to the report in The New York Post, Stringer’s message to congregants centered on the promise of predictive policing tools to help Jewish communities feel safer amid rising hate crimes.

Indeed, the ADL’s own data underscores the scope of the threat. As The Post has frequently reported, the ADL Center on Extremism has developed an innovative, first-of-its-kind interactive hate map that tracks antisemitic, extremist, and terror-related incidents across all 50 states. This public tool has gained wide acclaim and is often cited by public officials and community leaders alike.

Stringer’s campaign later attempted to downplay the controversy, characterizing the mayoral hopeful’s remarks not as an announcement of a formal partnership but rather a strong endorsement of ADL’s existing resources.

In a written statement provided to The New York Post, a spokesperson for Stringer clarified: “The ADL has one of the best tools available, and this one has been widely cited by Jewish thought leaders and elected officials. It’s been broadly promoted and positioned as a best practice. We should use the best tools and resources available to fight antisemitism — especially from groups that have long led the way on this issue.”

The statement went on to say that Stringer’s references to the ADL were not meant to suggest a formal campaign affiliation but were instead “an example of good leadership” in promoting best practices.

“The ADL has welcomed others promoting their resources,” the campaign added, in what appeared to be a partial walk-back.

Nonetheless, the exchange highlights the increasingly fine line political candidates must walk when invoking the names of respected institutions. For Stringer, who has previously branded himself as both a proud Jew and committed Zionist, the misstep may prove costly as he attempts to build credibility on one of the most emotionally charged and politically volatile issues facing New York’s electorate today.

As The New York Post has covered in recent months, Jewish New Yorkers — particularly in Brooklyn, Queens, and parts of Manhattan — have faced a wave of antisemitic vandalism, verbal harassment, and physical assaults. These attacks surged in the aftermath of the Gaza war’s outbreak and have prompted widespread concern among local leaders and law enforcement officials.

Many in the city’s Jewish community have expressed growing frustration with the tepid responses from elected officials, including Mayor Eric Adams, who has struggled to convince skeptics that his administration is doing enough to ensure synagogue safety and in confronting antisemitic threats on college campuses.

In that political vacuum, Stringer is attempting to craft a platform rooted in digital vigilance and community protection. But by invoking the name of a nonprofit without its permission — and misrepresenting its neutrality — the candidate may have undercut his own message.

As The New York Post report noted, the episode serves as a reminder that rhetoric alone does not substitute for concrete policy, nor can campaign trail enthusiasm substitute for ethical clarity.

With the Democratic primary just weeks away, voters are left to decide whether Stringer’s invocation of the ADL was an overzealous appeal to concerned Jewish voters or a calculated attempt to boost his own credibility at the expense of institutional independence. Either way, the ADL’s firm response has turned a campaign talking point into a cautionary tale.