NEW YORK — A Texas-based government watchdog group has filed a formal ethics complaint against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, accusing his administration of using taxpayer money to coordinate with social media influencers and of using the encrypted messaging app Signal to hide public records. The complaint, filed with the New York Conflicts of Interest Board, could open a new front in the ongoing political war over transparency and accountability in City Hall.
In a letter obtained exclusively by The Center Square, Houston Keene, director of the nonpartisan watchdog group Democracy Restored, called for an investigation into the mayor’s office’s communications with more than 200 social media influencers. The complaint alleges that Mamdani’s director of New Media and Cultural Communications, Emilia Rowland, created an official Signal account and invited a “curated list” of influencers to receive talking points and promote the mayor’s agenda. According to Keene, the purpose of the official Signal chat was clear: “to relay talking points to more than 200 social media influencers.” The complaint states that this is exactly what happened, and that taxpayer money was spent on a campaign designed to manufacture public support for Mamdani’s left-wing policy platform.
The allegations were first detailed in an investigative report published in August by the Columbia Journalism Review, which revealed the inner workings of the mayor’s influencer outreach program. The report sparked immediate backlash from City Council members, good government groups, and transparency advocates, who accused the administration of using dark patterns and disappearing messages to evade scrutiny. The new complaint now asks the Conflicts of Interest Board to determine whether the mayor’s office violated city ethics rules, conflict of interest regulations, and New York’s Freedom of Information Law, which requires public agencies to retain electronic communications as records. By using Signal with its “disappearing messages” feature, the complaint argues, the administration intentionally prevented those communications from being saved as public records, making it impossible for journalists, council members, and the public to know exactly what was said, to whom, and at what cost.
The City Council held an oversight hearing in September where lawmakers peppered Mamdani administration officials with questions about the influencer program. At the hearing, members of the council and good government groups raised concerns that the app was being used to spread propaganda or conceal public information from the public. The complaint cited these concerns directly, noting that “taxpayer money is being spent on campaigns involving influencers with almost no knowledge of how or why.” Keene further argued that the ethical and conflicts-of-interest implications presented by the mayor’s office’s use of the Signal chat are “undeniable.” He pointed to the fact that the administration has not provided basic details about the cost of the program, the selection of influencers, or the content of the messages, despite repeated requests from council members and the press.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist who took over City Hall in January, has previously denied any wrongdoing connected to the use of Signal. He has also denied that his administration paid social media influencers for interviews or promotional content. Supporters of the mayor note that Signal has been used by previous New York City mayors and city agencies for various kinds of communications, and they argue that the app is simply a legitimate tool for modern communication. Ramzi Kassem, the mayor’s chief counsel, told reporters in September that after news reports emerged that staffers were deleting messages, the administration “took immediate corrective action.” That included training staff to ensure they disable the “disappearing messages” function on the Signal app when using it to communicate. Kassem claimed the city is in compliance with all rules governing the use of social media apps and pointed to the fact that the administration was cooperating with the City Council’s oversight efforts.
But Keene, in an interview, took a much harsher view. He said Mamdani’s office has largely resisted the City Council’s investigation and has so far provided little information about the use of the Signal app since the hearing. He accused the mayor of failing to answer for how taxpayer money was spent on the influence-peddling campaign and of brushing aside the larger issue of deleted public records. “What the mayor was basically doing was astroturfing public support for his agenda by getting social media influencers to promote his government agenda and goals,” Keene said. “We believe there are serious ethical and conflict of interest issues involved here, and that there is very good cause for the conflict of interest board to get involved.” Keene’s language reflects a growing frustration among transparency advocates who say that the Mamdani administration has repeatedly attempted to move the goalposts, first by denying the messages were deleted, then by claiming the practice has ended, and now by refusing to release the full scope of the influencer program.
The complaint comes at a delicate moment for Mamdani, whose progressive administration has already faced intense scrutiny over its handling of public safety, housing, and fiscal policy. The influencer outreach program was supposed to be a cutting-edge way to connect with younger voters and digital-native communities, but it has instead become a symbol of the administration’s perceived arrogance and lack of transparency. The Conflict of Interest Board, which has broad jurisdiction over city employees and elected officials, will now have to decide whether to open a formal investigation. If the board finds probable cause, it could subpoena records, interview staff, and potentially impose fines or other penalties. While the mayor’s office has not yet responded to the complaint, the sheer volume of public pressure from the City Council, watchdog groups, and the press may make it difficult for the board to ignore. In the meantime, Keene and Democracy Restored are calling on the board to act swiftly, arguing that every day the administration operates without accountability further erodes public trust in a city government already under strain.
The broader implications of the case extend far beyond one mayor or one agency. At its core, the dispute is about what it means to govern openly and honestly in an era of disappearing messages, anonymous social media accounts, and sophisticated digital influence operations. If public officials are allowed to communicate with private influencers on encrypted apps and then delete the messages, FOIL becomes a shell, and government transparency collapses. The outcome of the Mamdani investigation could set a precedent for how city officials across New York and the entire country handle digital communications. It could also signal whether elected officials who use taxpayer funds to cultivate online followers will be held to the same ethical standards as those who use traditional media. The Mamdani administration’s defenders insist that no formal wrongdoing has occurred, and they have chided critics for overreacting to what they call a routine communications effort. But for Keene, the issue is simple: the mayor’s office spent public money to build an online army of influencers who would amplify its talking points, and then attempted to hide the evidence by using disappearing messages. That, in his view, is not innovation; it is propaganda. The Conflicts of Interest Board now has the opportunity to decide whether that conduct crosses the line from smart politics into illegal secrecy. Until then, unanswered questions remain: Who chose the influencers? What were they paid? What did they promise? And why, if everything was transparent, did anyone feel the need to delete it?