Fact check: Are there any other agencies involved in the investigation into the alleged bribe to HOMAN?

1. Who led the inquiry — FBI’s undercover work and DOJ’s Public Integrity role revealed

Contemporaneous accounts identify the FBI as the lead investigative body, conducting an undercover sting that allegedly recorded Homan accepting $50,000, while the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section was involved in assessing charges and prosecutorial decisions. Reporting indicates the operation originated while the Biden administration was in office and that FBI agents compiled evidence including recorded transactions and coordination with DOJ prosecutors. This framing implies standard federal criminal investigative architecture: an investigative agency gathering evidence and DOJ weighing charges, though the precise chain of internal decisions is contested ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Why the case’s closure is controversial — DOJ decision-making under scrutiny

Multiple analyses report the probe was closed after the Trump administration assumed control of the Justice Department, with sources saying senior DOJ officials opted not to pursue prosecution. That closure is the central point of controversy, prompting allegations of politicization by critics and denials or alternative explanations from administration-aligned figures. Congressional reactions, including calls to preserve evidence and requests for transparency, underscore the political stakes tied to a prosecutorial decision that halted an investigation with reportedly recorded evidence ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

3. Competing narratives — accusations of protection vs. procedural discretion

Two divergent narratives dominate: one asserts the Trump DOJ closed the probe to protect a high-profile ally, while the other, advanced by administration defenders, frames the closure as a reasoned prosecutorial choice or politically motivated smears against officials. Both narratives rely on the same underlying fact set — an FBI sting and DOJ review — but interpret the closure’s intent differently, reflecting partisan readings of DOJ independence and classical tension between prosecutorial discretion and public expectations for accountability ^{[2] [4] [1]}.

4. What other agencies are relevant — domestic vs. international anti-corruption actors

The available analyses introduce separate, country-specific agencies—such as the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM)—but these references pertain to distinct investigations and jurisdictions, not to Homan’s case. No supplied source directly connects those regional anti-corruption bodies to the FBI/DOJ matter involving Homan, suggesting conflation risks when aggregating international reports about bribery probes. Readers should treat p2 entries as parallel examples of anti-corruption activity rather than corroboration of the U.S. federal investigation ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

5. Evidence reported publicly — recordings, cash, and the Western District of Texas nexus

Reports consistently mention recorded video and cash exchanges as the basis for the FBI’s operation, and identify the Western District of Texas as the originating office for the probe. These factual touchpoints underpin calls from lawmakers for preservation and release of evidence. If those evidentiary elements exist as reported, standard practice would involve DOJ prosecutors deciding whether they meet the federal standards for indictment, which in this case became the flashpoint for accusations of improper influence once the administration changed ^{[3] [2] [1]}.

6. Political reactions and investigative follow-ups — Congress and media pressure

Senator-level statements demanding transparency and preservation of materials illustrate the political consequences of the case closure, with some lawmakers asserting a pattern of interference and others likely urging restraint or further fact-finding. Media outlets and congressional actors are pushing for access to the underlying materials, and those requests shape public perception—either reinforcing claims of wrongdoing or framing the episode as an unresolved prosecutorial decision. The presence of public pressure increases the likelihood of further inquiry or oversight actions ^{[4] [2] [1]}.

7. Bottom line — multiple agencies appear in reporting, but only federal actors are tied to Homan’s probe

Summing up, the supplied analyses indicate the FBI and DOJ’s Public Integrity Section were the agencies directly involved in the Homan investigation, and the probe’s termination coincided with a DOJ transition that prompted partisan scrutiny. References to other anti-corruption agencies (CIAA, NAPOLCOM) reflect different national contexts and are not shown to have played roles in the Homan matter, so claims that “other agencies” are involved require careful source-specific qualification to avoid conflating separate cases ^{[1] [2] [3] [5] [6]}.