Months before he became the Trump administration’s border czar, Tom Homan sat across from what he believed were immigration contractors at a Cava restaurant last September when one of them handed him a bag stuffed with $50,000 in cash. The men turned out to be undercover FBI agents.
Now, legal experts from across the political spectrum, as well as current DOJ officials, are questioning why the Biden DOJ pursued the case in the first place.
Recommended Stories
- Former FBI agent Peter Strzok loses case after being fired for anti-Trump texts in 2018
- Noem rips Newsom for ‘menacing’ social media post that triggered Secret Service intervention
- Ryan Routh tried to stab himself after being found guilty for attempting to assassinate Trump
The exchange between Homan and the FBI agents was recorded, according to multiple news reports. For months, Homan was under investigation for possible bribery. However, after President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, the case quietly evaporated.
FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed this week that the Justice Department closed its criminal investigation into Homan earlier this summer, calling it a politically motivated effort launched by then-President Joe Biden’s DOJ, which also led two criminal cases against the current president in the run-up to the 2024 election.
“This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review,” Patel and Blanche said in a joint statement to MSNBC. “They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. The investigation has been closed.”
Sources told MSNBC that the investigation into Homan began in August last year and stemmed from a separate, unrelated national security investigation. However, current DOJ officials see that narrative as dubious, with one DOJ source telling the Washington Examiner the idea that the Biden FBI “stumbled upon Homan is so bogus. No one stumbles upon Homan.”
Democrats in Congress are demanding answers about why the Trump DOJ closed the Homan case, even as prominent legal experts cast doubt on whether there ever could have been a credible case against Homan, based on what has been publicly reported.
In coordinated letters on Tuesday, House and Senate Democrats accused the Trump administration of a “brazen cover-up” and called on Patel, Blanche, and Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all FBI audio and video of Homan’s meeting. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Congress must look into the timeline, the prosecutorial decisions, and Homan’s conduct before and after joining the administration.
“We urgently request that you call him to testify before the committee on this matter without delay,” Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee wrote. Due to a Republican majority in the Senate, Democrats on the committee lack subpoena power to compel the release of the records they seek.
The White House has defended Homan, a former Immigration and Customs Enforcement director and Fox News contributor who now oversees mass deportation operations. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked Monday if Homan would have to return the money.
“Well, Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 that you’re referring to, so you should get your facts straight,” she said at a White House press briefing. Homan later told Fox News, “I did nothing criminal. I did nothing illegal.”
I think it is almost 100% certain that he didn't do anything illegal.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) September 23, 2025
Had he done something illegal the Biden DOJ would have racked him. They had no reason not to, and a Presidential election as a reason to indict him.
Nothing happened after the election so there is no… https://t.co/4HOadTHoqS
Former federal prosecutor Bill Shipley questioned the wisdom of Homan’s categorical denial, noting that if a video or audio recording exists, “it’s a high-risk position to take in a press conference.”
In a post on X, the former prosecutor and prominent Jan. 6 defense attorney said it is “almost 100% certain” that Homan did nothing illegal, adding that if he had, “the Biden DOJ would have racked him.”
“They had no reason not to, and the presidential election was a reason to indict him,” he added.
Shipley told the Washington Examiner that if the investigation had continued, prosecutors likely would have concluded the conduct didn’t rise to a crime. “He’s a private actor. Trump [wasn’t] in office” at the time of the alleged payment, Shipley said. “Homan had no way to deliver on whatever promises he might make.”
A grand jury investigation into Homan was assembled in the Western District of Texas, sources told Reuters on Monday, though it was reportedly still in its early stages by the time Trump was sworn in for a second term in January.
Other legal experts say the case likely fell short of the federal bribery statute. On CNN, former federal prosecutor Elie Honig explained that “it’s not necessarily a crime for a person to take a bribe … on the promise of, ‘If I get into office, I will do something for you.’” He added that under Supreme Court precedent, an “official act” defined under bribery laws requires something more specific than offering access or meetings.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani noted that the Supreme Court has “interpreted federal bribery laws very, very narrowly.”
“You really have to make sure you fit into the four corners” of the law in order to support a bribery charge, Rahmani said, agreeing with Honig’s assessment.
“Even though he was likely to be a public official, he was not at the time that he allegedly accepted the cash. It would be a very tough legal argument,” Rahmani added.
Shipley also cast doubt on the possibility that Homan could face any conspiracy charges. “You’ve got a quid … but you don’t have a quo,” he said, noting the only other individuals Homan interacted with in the alleged money scheme were federal agents. Shipley argued that unless Homan had authority to act on a bribe at the time, “it’s just not there yet,” calling it more of a “PR problem” than a serious offense.
Additionally, sources told Reuters that Homan placed the money he allegedly received into a trust that would remain there until he had completed his service in the Trump administration.
One administration source familiar with the matter told the Washington Examiner that disclosing the now-closed investigation to the press could be a criminal leak.
But while sources within the administration declined to tell the Washington Examiner whether the FBI is investigating it, Patel’s posture on past leaks, including his vow to investigate the leak of the 2022 draft Supreme Court opinion that foreshadowed the fall of Roe v. Wade, may signal his interest in uncovering who leaked details about the Homan investigation.
A source within the DOJ told the Washington Examiner the leak of the Homan investigation was seen as a grave betrayal internally, noting that the “leakers smeared a great American without giving him a day in court.”
Rahmani said that given the FBI’s interest in investigating past leaks, “I would not be surprised if they investigate this one.”
HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS ASK FBI AND DOJ FOR EVIDENCE OF HOMAN BRIBE
Shipley pushed back against the notion that the leak of the investigation would amount to a criminal offense, saying that unless classified material was disclosed, “it’s sensitive, but I don’t think it’s a crime.”
The DOJ has not confirmed whether any recordings of the interaction with Homan exist, though Shipley said he would not be surprised if agents did possess recorded evidence.