New York City Faces Criticism for Renting Pakistani-Owned Hotel for Migrants

The City of New York is reportedly paying $220 million to rent the Roosevelt Hotel, a property owned by the Government of Pakistan, to house illegal immigrants. This claim, revealed on Saturday, has sparked significant backlash and raised questions about the allocation of taxpayer funds.

Republican politician Vivek Ramaswamy called the arrangement “nuts” in a social media post, expressing frustration over the deal. “A taxpayer-funded hotel for illegal migrants is owned by the Pakistani government, which means NYC taxpayers are effectively paying a foreign government to house illegals in our own country. This is nuts,” he stated. His comments highlighted the unusual nature of the agreement, which involves a foreign government benefitting from American taxpayer money.

The post was accompanied by a link to further details, amplifying public discourse on the issue. Ramaswamy’s reaction came after author John LeFevre disclosed the arrangement on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.

LeFevre stated that New York City is spending $220 million to rent the Roosevelt Hotel, located in Manhattan, entirely for the purpose of accommodating illegal immigrants. The 19-story building, which houses over 1,200 rooms, had been shuttered since 2020 due to low occupancy and a need for significant renovation. According to LeFevre, the hotel was reopened under this rental agreement as part of a broader financial arrangement tied to international assistance for Pakistan.

“The hotel is owned by the government of Pakistan, and the deal was part of a $1.1 billion IMF bailout package to help Pakistan avoid defaulting on their international debt,” LeFevre explained. The Roosevelt Hotel is under the ownership of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), a state-run airline controlled by the Pakistani government.

This financial arrangement has drawn scrutiny not only for the use of taxpayer money but also for its implications in the context of international finance and diplomacy. The Roosevelt Hotel, named after former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, had faced years of declining business before its closure and subsequent reopening under this agreement.

In his critique, Ramaswamy, who is working alongside Tesla CEO Elon Musk on a newly created Department of Government Efficiency under the direction of President-elect Donald Trump, emphasized the need to eliminate wasteful government expenditures. The department has been tasked with improving overall government efficiency and scrutinizing spending practices.

Ramaswamy’s reaction underscores the broader concerns about fiscal responsibility and the ethics of using public funds in this manner. The agreement not only underscores issues of mismanagement but also places a spotlight on the relationship between local government spending and foreign entities.

While the city’s arrangement to rent the hotel appears to address the urgent need for housing illegal immigrants, critics argue that alternative solutions could have been pursued that did not involve a property owned by a foreign government. The deal’s connection to Pakistan’s efforts to stabilize its economy through an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout further complicates the matter.

Before its closure, the Roosevelt Hotel was already struggling with low occupancy rates and was deemed to require substantial renovations. The current use of the hotel as a migrant shelter represents a stark transformation from its historical role as a luxury property named after an American president.

The financial dynamics of the deal and its implications for international relations have added fuel to ongoing debates about the handling of immigration and public resources. For New York City, which is facing a housing crisis and a growing number of migrants, the deal represents a significant expenditure that has polarized opinions.

Critics like Ramaswamy and LeFevre argue that the agreement highlights broader systemic issues. By involving a foreign-owned property in this capacity, the deal raises questions about oversight, priorities, and the potential for unintended consequences in international diplomacy.

This controversy arrives at a time when immigration remains a contentious topic in the U.S., and local governments are under pressure to manage increasing numbers of migrants. As the debate unfolds, the arrangement with the Roosevelt Hotel is likely to remain a focal point for critics of government inefficiency and proponents of fiscal accountability.

In response to the revelations, many are calling for greater transparency and a reevaluation of the policies and agreements that led to this situation. Whether the deal represents an innovative solution to a pressing problem or a misstep in fiscal planning will continue to be a matter of public and political debate.