What evidence supports allegations that Tom Homan took a $50,000 bribe?
Executive summary
Multiple independent news outlets and congressional Democrats say internal DOJ materials, hidden-camera footage and audiotapes show Tom Homan accepting $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen — the FBI opened an undercover bribery probe in 2024 that was later closed after President Trump took office — while Homan and the White House deny he took or kept the money (see Reuters on the $50,000 payment and the probe being closed [1]; House Judiciary and Democratic press statements citing recordings and internal DOJ documents [2] [3]).
1. What the reporting says: hidden cameras, audiotapes and a brown Cava bag
Multiple investigations and Democratic oversight letters state that internal Justice Department documents and recordings captured Homan accepting $50,000 in cash in a restaurant takeout bag and discussing steering government contracts to the undercover operatives; Judiciary Committee Democrats explicitly cite “hidden cameras and audiotapes” and a “brown Cava bag” as part of that reporting [2] [3]. Reuters reported that two sources familiar with the matter said Homan accepted a $50,000 bag of cash from an undercover FBI agent during a DOJ bribery investigation that was later closed [1].
2. How the sting reportedly worked and what Homan allegedly promised
According to reporting summarized by Forbes and Reuters, FBI agents posed as business executives seeking immigration-related government contracts in a future second Trump administration; Homan allegedly indicated he could facilitate securing those contracts and accepted $50,000 at a September 2024 meeting, per the news accounts and the oversight letters [1] [4] [2].
3. Official denials and competing narratives
Homan has forcefully denied taking $50,000 “from anybody,” calling reporting “hit pieces,” and the White House has repeatedly said there is no credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing; Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt first denied Homan “took the $50,000” and later characterized the episode as undercover FBI agents trying to entrap an ally [5] [6] [2]. The White House’s shifting language is flagged in opinion and oversight pieces as a red flag [7].
4. Why the probe was closed — contested explanations
News outlets report the FBI/DOJ probe was closed after Trump took office; reporting attributes the closure variously to prosecutorial doubts about proving bribery at trial and to internal pressure from Trump transition figures, including claims that acting DOJ officials signaled the investigation should be shut down [1] [4]. Judiciary Democrats argue the closure suggests a cover-up and demand DOJ and FBI release the recordings [2] [3].
5. What’s corroborated by multiple outlets versus what remains internal
Major wire reporting (Reuters) and multiple outlets (New York Times, ProPublica cited in secondary sources) describe sources and internal DOJ documents pointing to recordings and the $50,000 handoff; congressional Democrats publicly cite the same internal materials and demand release of the evidence [1] [2] [3]. Independent verification of the underlying footage in publicly released form is not reported in these sources; Judiciary Democrats’ public letters request DOJ/FBI turn over those recordings [3].
6. Legal and evidentiary gaps acknowledged in reporting
Several accounts note the DOJ did not prosecute Homan and that officials said there were concerns about whether the transaction would meet the legal standard for bribery or whether charges could be proved to a jury — explaining, in part, why the case was closed [1] [4]. Available sources do not mention any prosecution or public release of the full footage as of the cited reporting [1] [3].
7. Political context and why this matters
Democratic lawmakers frame the episode as evidence of a potential ethics and accountability failure and demand documents from the Trump transition and DOJ; Republicans and Homan call the reports politically motivated and emphasize denials, illustrating how the story has been litigated through partisan channels as much as legal ones [2] [8] [6].
8. Bottom line for assessing the allegation
Reporting from Reuters, congressional Democrats, and multiple outlets describes internal DOJ materials and recorded evidence indicating Homan accepted $50,000 from undercover agents and discussed steering contracts; Homan and the White House deny he took or kept the money, and the DOJ ultimately did not charge him, citing prosecutorial doubts — the recordings and prosecution-level evidence have not been publicly released in full, and Democrats are seeking those materials [1] [2] [3] [6].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the cited reporting and congressional statements; available sources do not mention any public release of the underlying video or audio files nor any criminal charges brought against Homan [3] [1].