Is the Mayor of New Orleans Guilty of Corruption?

On August 15, 2025, a federal grand jury indicted New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell on multiple charges — including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and obstruction of justice, among others.

At the center of these allegations is Cantrell’s alleged romantic relationship with her bodyguard, New Orleans Police Officer Jeffrey Vappie, and whether the two were involved in a scheme to defraud the City of New Orleans.

What are the Charges Against the Mayor of New Orleans?

Prosecutors claim the mayor used taxpayer dollars to cover costs for Vappie’s security detail when, in reality, the two were allegedly spending personal time together — going out for drinks and acting more like a couple than a mayor and her assigned bodyguard.

The indictment suggests that while Vappie was on the clock and being paid by the city, he and Cantrell were engaging in personal activities unrelated to his official duties.

The Government’s Alleged Evidence

Here’s what prosecutors say they have:

• Text messages from Vappie referring to Mayor Cantrell as “baby.”

• A photo of the two posing at a vineyard in California.

• A message from Vappie about making a cocktail while riding in a city-owned vehicle.

• Picture messages from Cantrell to Vappie talking about “putting a ring on it.”

• The “infamous” restaurant photo of them dining and laughing together in the French Quarter.

• A Google search by Vappie for the main character in The Bodyguard (1992), the romantic drama starring Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner.

Prosecutors also allege Cantrell deleted thousands of other messages to conceal the relationship.

What Cantrell Says

As of this writing, Cantrell hasn’t issued a formal public statement. Reports indicate she has pushed blame toward Vappie — saying it was his decision to drink on the job and submit inaccurate time cards. She claims there’s not enough evidence to prove she was misusing city resources for personal purposes.

The Money in Question

The indictment lists six wire fraud counts involving Mayor Cantrell, totaling about $6,136. That’s not nothing — but if this were truly some large-scale scheme to defraud the city, wouldn’t you expect a lot more money at stake?

The Big Question

Yes, there are photos, messages, and some eyebrow-raising details — but is that enough to convict a sitting mayor on federal charges? That will be up to the jury.

We’ve included the full PDF of the indictment below so you can read it for yourself.

INDICTMENT.pdf

Download PDF • 2.73MB

FAQs

1. What is wire fraud?

Wire fraud is a federal crime that involves using electronic communications — such as email, phone calls, or text messages — to commit fraud. In this case, prosecutors allege Mayor Cantrell and Officer Vappie used electronic communications as part of a scheme to defraud the city.

2. What is obstruction of justice?

Obstruction of justice refers to conduct intended to interfere with the administration of justice, including investigations and official proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, knowingly destroying or deleting electronic records with the intent to impair their availability in a federal investigation or proceeding constitutes obstruction. Prosecutors allege that Cantrell deleted thousands of messages; if those deletions were made to conceal evidence relevant to a foreseeable investigation, such conduct could qualify as obstruction of justice.

3. How serious are these charges?

Wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud are federal felonies, each carrying potential prison sentences and significant fines. Obstruction of justice is also a serious federal offense.

4. What happens after a federal indictment?

After an indictment, the accused will usually be arraigned in federal court, where they enter a plea. Then comes the pretrial process, which can involve motions, discovery, plea negotiations, and, if no agreement is reached, a trial.

5. Can someone be convicted with only $6,000 at issue?

Yes. The dollar amount doesn’t have to be huge for wire fraud charges to stick. The key is whether prosecutors can prove intent to defraud and the use of electronic communications in carrying out the scheme.