Jumaane Williams: Controversies and Criticism
Jumaane Williams's career as an "activist-elected official" has generated recurring controversy, much of it flowing directly from the tension between his role as a government official and his record of street activism. The most significant controversy of his career emerged in 2025 over the foreclosure of a Brooklyn rental property he owned. This section presents the major controversies and criticism neutrally, separating documented facts from allegations and presenting both critics' arguments and Williams's responses, with citations to primary or strong secondary sources.
A note up front: some of these matters involve allegations that have not been adjudicated or proven. Where that is the case, the text says so explicitly. Coverage of Williams is also sharply divided along New York's partisan media lines, with the New York Post and conservative outlets driving much of the critical coverage and progressive outlets defending him. The framing throughout tries to surface that divide rather than adopt either side's conclusions.
The 2025 foreclosure of his Brooklyn rental property
The most consequential controversy of Williams's career concerns a two-family home in the Canarsie section of Brooklyn that he owned for nearly two decades and rented to tenants.
The documented timeline, drawn from property records reported across multiple outlets, is as follows:
Williams purchased the Canarsie property with his mother in 2005 for $370,500, and secured full ownership about a year later 1.
In 2006, he took out a mortgage of $389,600 on the property 1. Per his office, a portion of the financing was used to fund a vegan sandwich shop in Park Slope, a business that failed in 2008 1.
He stopped making his roughly $1,344 monthly mortgage payments in 2010, according to records cited by the New York Post 2.
Bank of America, which had acquired the original lender Countrywide Financial, initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2014 3.
The property failed to sell at auction in April 2025 and reverted to the bank after no bidders met the minimum owed 1.
The matter became politically explosive because Williams's office publishes an annual "Worst Landlords Watchlist" naming the city's most-cited building owners, and because he is a self-described democratic socialist and longtime critic of landlords. Critics framed the foreclosure as hypocrisy.
A Democratic primary opponent, identified in coverage as Sooknanan, said Williams had collected rent from tenants while failing to make his own mortgage payments, characterizing the situation as hypocrisy 3.
Queens City Council Member Robert Holden, a Democrat known for breaking with progressives, went further. In May 2025, he sent letters to the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the New York City Department of Investigation, urging a formal probe into whether Williams had violated mortgage-fraud laws or city ethics rules by allegedly misrepresenting his financial status and rental income over 15 years 2,4.
It is important to state clearly: the mortgage-fraud claim is an allegation made by a political opponent, not a finding by any investigative body. As of the most recent available reporting, no charges had been filed and no investigation had publicly substantiated wrongdoing.
Williams's office defended him through spokesperson William Gerlich, who positioned the foreclosure as a consequence of "exploitative banking practices" tied to Countrywide's subprime lending, noting that Bank of America had previously settled federal charges related to discriminatory lending against Black and Latino homeowners 3. Gerlich argued that many New Yorkers were facing far worse outcomes amid the affordability crisis 3.
The episode crystallized a recurring critique of Williams: that his public moral positioning on housing did not match his private financial conduct. His defenders countered that being a victim of predatory banking practices is not the same as being a predatory landlord, and that the comparison to the Worst Landlords Watchlist conflated two different things.
A record of civil disobedience arrests
Williams has been arrested multiple times across his career in acts he and his office describe as deliberate civil disobedience. These arrests are not hidden controversies but a feature of his self-described "activist-elected official" identity, though critics argue they are inappropriate for a sitting official.
Documented arrests include:
A 2015 sit-in for rent control in front of the governor's office 5.
A January 2018 arrest, alongside 17 others, for protesting the ICE detention of immigrant-rights activist Ravi Ragbir. Williams fought the charges at trial but was convicted 6.
A June 2019 arrest at a tenant-rights protest outside Governor Andrew Cuomo's Albany office, where he was among 61 people charged with disorderly conduct 5,6.
An April 2024 arrest, alongside more than a dozen tenants, for blocking the entrance to the Real Estate Board of New York's Midtown offices in an act of civil disobedience; he was charged with obstructing pedestrian traffic 7,8.
Williams has consistently framed these arrests as principled. His office's official statements describe them as civil disobedience "on behalf of tenants 8. Critics, particularly in conservative media, argue that repeated arrests undermine the dignity of a citywide constitutional office that is first in line to the mayoralty.
A prior arrest was raised during the 2019 campaign
During the 2019 Public Advocate race, someone leaked records of a roughly decade-old arrest of Williams on harassment and criminal-mischief charges. Williams addressed it publicly, characterizing it as the result of a verbal disagreement with a girlfriend at the time 9. He said he believed political opponents had leaked the records but was not certain who was responsible 9. The matter did not prevent his election and has not been the subject of subsequent legal action.
Criticism of the activist-elected-official model
Beyond specific incidents, Williams has faced a broader, recurring line of criticism: that his activist approach is in tension with the administrative and watchdog responsibilities of the Public Advocate's office.
Conservative and tabloid coverage has periodically questioned the productivity and management of his office. The New York Post and similar outlets have run critical pieces over the years on office operations and staffing.
Williams's defenders argue that the Public Advocate's role is precisely to be a public-facing advocate and watchdog, and that his activism is the job rather than a distraction from it. The disagreement reflects a genuine debate about what the office is for, a debate that predates Williams and that has followed every holder of the position.
Partisan framing of his record
Williams himself has acknowledged the partisan dimension of much of the criticism he receives. According to New York Post coverage, he has at times compared critics to President Trump, a rhetorical move that his opponents cite as evidence of a tendency to dismiss legitimate scrutiny 10. His supporters argue that much of the criticism directed at him is driven by ideological opponents of his progressive housing and policing agenda.
The result is that assessments of Williams's controversies tend to split along the same lines as assessments of his politics: critics see a pattern of hypocrisy and inappropriate conduct, while supporters see a principled progressive being targeted for his activism. Readers are best served by the documented facts (the foreclosure timeline, the arrests, the leaked record) and by an awareness that the interpretive framing around them is itself contested.