A former New York City official accused of running multiple scams while holding a public housing liaison job has been arrested, and the case highlights systemic problems in city bureaucracy, alleged payoffs, wasted relief funds, and a broader debate about how much power government should have over people’s money.
Tony Herbert held the title New York City Mayor’s Office Citywide Public Housing Liaison, a job that was supposed to help low-income residents navigate public housing systems. Instead, prosecutors say he used the position to run a set of schemes that funneled money to himself and favored vendors while posing as a public servant.
Federal authorities say Herbert collected roughly $36,000 through a three-part operation during his three years on the job. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York accused Herbert of steering contracts and benefits to people and companies that paid him, then taking his cut.
One scheme allegedly involved pressuring City Hall to award NYCHA security contracts to a particular company that paid Herbert at least $11,000. A cooperating executive recorded conversations with Herbert, and in one recording Herbert said, “This is what we do, bro.” He also said, “This is what we do. I mean, ain’t nobody gonna do it for us.”
Herbert was recorded saying he was “putting the pressure” on Adams and that “Yo, we gotta put that money back.” Those lines were apparently used to convince officials to restore funding for NYCHA security programs, a move framed publicly as responding to senior residents’ safety complaints but allegedly designed to benefit the paying company.
Prosecutors say Herbert went further by drafting a security company’s contract proposal for the mayor’s office and then arranging meetings between the company and City Hall officials. The pattern suggests someone using official influence to manufacture business for a preferred vendor, all while claiming to serve public needs.
Another charge alleges Herbert steered $24,000 in burial assistance—meant to help low-income families pay funeral costs—to a particular funeral home director, who then paid Herbert $5,000. That is a clear example of private gain taken from funds intended for grieving families in need.
The third allegation targets COVID relief money. In April 2021 Herbert allegedly submitted a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program application for a bakery that did not exist, inventing invoices and even creating a fake email the day before filing. He supposedly fabricated an invoice for an “$810 80s-themed three-tier tie-dye cake” and is accused of stealing more than $20,000 from relief funds.
New Yorkers should be asking how these schemes lasted for years without earlier detection. In the private sector, someone caught doing this would be fired and likely prosecuted sooner; in city government, Herbert reportedly remained on the payroll while under federal investigation and lost his job only in September 2025 after making a public comment about a high-profile death.
He was fired after he mocked the death of Charlie Kirk, saying his assassination was “karma,” and federal charges followed.
Cases like this are not isolated. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has previously charged dozens of public housing workers in a broader corruption sweep, and this incident fits a familiar pattern of officials exploiting discretionary funds and contracts. When government controls scarce resources, the temptation for insiders to divert those dollars is large and constant.
This is why Republicans argue that shrinking the pool of government-controlled resources reduces opportunities for theft and waste. Better oversight matters, but shrinking the size of government and limiting discretionary programs is the real preventive step, since fewer centralized pots of money mean fewer chances for officials to game the system.
Herbert now faces up to 20 years on each of the six federal charges against him and pleaded not guilty at his initial appearance. Whether he is convicted or not, the case is a reminder that concentrated power and opaque processes invite abuse, and voters should demand systems that minimize those temptations.
