NYC sues Dr. Phil’s son to block release of ‘extremely problematic’ NYPD footage

MANHATTAN (CN) — Television psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw’s son is in possession of “extremely problematic” footage of the New York City Police Department, the city claims in a new lawsuit.

According to the city in the claim filed Wednesday in New York Supreme Court, Jordan McGraw and his production company McGraw Media got their hands on the clips after being commissioned by ex-Mayor Eric Adams’s administration to create a pro-cop TV show about the NYPD in April 2025.

“The project was intended to highlight the extraordinary work of the NYPD, and granted defendants special, behind-the-scenes, exclusive access to film NYPD operations,” the city says in the 23-page complaint.

But when city officials received rough cuts from the first few episodes of “Behind the Badge” in December, they found them rife with “Non-Usable Content” — content that the city deemed inaccurate, confidential or “that would otherwise compromise public safety or the public trust.”

“Upon initial review, it was evident to the city that the episodes, as edited by McGraw Media, were extremely problematic and would violate the parties’ contract if released,” the city claims. “Perhaps of gravest concern, the episodes pose an imminent threat to the life and safety of active NYPD officers.”

With Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral administration now freshly at the helm, “Behind the Badge” is shelved. But according to the city, McGraw Media is “looking for a buyer” to air the scrutinized footage at some point in 2026, potentially jeopardizing the privacy of undercover officers, crime witnesses and suspects.

The city claims that the footage includes “numerous arrests, including those of juveniles,” many of which could be sealed and would be unlawful to release.

One clip even reveals the passcode to a precinct house’s back door, according to the city.

Additionally, numerous civilians — including several being taken into custody — are supposedly depicted in the footage without appropriate measures taken to preserve their privacy.

“I am not aware that any of these individuals consented to be filmed in any capacity in connection with the project, and they appear without any blurring or redactions applied to their faces,” Luis Martinez, senior advisor in the Police Commissioner’s Office, said in an affirmation accompanying the lawsuit.

Pursuant to the contract signed in April by McGraw and Adams’s former chief of staff Camille Joseph Varlack, the mayor’s office reserved the right to veto any content it deemed problematic. But McGraw purportedly refused, telling the city that it intends to publish the content as is.

On top of the privacy issues, the city claims it received some episodes that were edited so sparingly they wouldn’t have been usable as a TV show at all.

“These videos were a far cry from ‘rough cuts,’” the city claims, referring to them instead as an “unedited footage dump.”

According to the city, one of these so-called episodes featured a 30-minute unedited interview with a single police officer. Other episodes contained chunks of footage without any audio at all.

“Any of this footage airing threatens to interfere with law enforcement investigations, judicial proceedings, deprive numerous arrestees’ rights to a fair trial, and cause significant harm to the city and the department as it would undoubtedly tarnish their reputation and goodwill,” the city argues.

Even if McGraw can’t find a buyer, the city argues, it fears his company can still self-publish the footage at any time.

McGraw’s lawyer Chip Babcock told Courthouse News on Wednesday that a judge has already barred his company from releasing any unredacted footage — at least until a hearing scheduled for later this week.

Either way, Babcock said McGraw Media has no plans to publish the footage anytime soon.

“It made all of the edits that were timely requested and has expressed a willingness to consider edits that were not timely requested,” Babcock said. “The company is disappointed that it was not contacted before this TRO was issued ex parte. And even if all of the allegations are true, it does not justify a prior restraint on publication of matters of public concern. The First Amendment prohibits prior restraints of this sort.”

In addition to breach of contract, the city is accusing McGraw of tarnishing the NYPD’s brand under state trademark law. It claims his footage contains clips of NYPD officers “which were expressly disapproved and vetoed by the city as it portrays the city and NYPD in a negative light, and if released, would tarnish the reputation of the city and the NYPD.”

Neither a spokesperson for Mamdani nor Adams’ former spokesperson immediately returned requests for comment.

McGraw purportedly had a fruitful relationship with the Adams administration. Reports from last week tied the 39-year-old to Fairfax Digital LLC, which received $500,000 in payments from Adams’ unsuccessful 2025 reelection campaign.

Follow @Uebey Follow @uebey.bsky.social