Fact check: What are the specific charges against Tom Holman in the bribery case?

1. What the reporting says about the alleged bribe and the $50,000 recording

Contemporaneous reporting states that undercover FBI agents recorded Tom Homan accepting a $50,000 cash payment and that the encounter occurred in September 2024 with the alleged quid pro quo described as promises to steer or facilitate government contracts if Trump prevailed in the election. These factual claims are reported consistently across multiple outlets describing the FBI sting and the recorded payment; the central allegation is accepting cash in exchange for promises tied to contract awards ^{[1] [3] [2]}. The outlets frame the recording as the evidentiary core that prompted the initial probe, and they identify Homan by his role as White House “border czar,” linking the allegation to his position.

2. How the Department of Justice handled the investigation and closed it

Reporting notes that the investigation began during the Biden administration and was later transferred to the Trump administration, which ultimately closed the inquiry. DOJ officials reportedly justified the closure by stating there was no credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and therefore no charges were filed against Homan ^[2]. Coverage highlights the procedural fact of a closed investigation rather than the filing of formal bribery charges, meaning no indictment or criminal counts were publicly pursued following the probe’s termination ^{[2] [3]}.

3. What charges — or lack of charges — are explicitly reported

None of the provided reports document formal charges filed against Tom Homan in connection with the alleged bribery. The consistent storyline is an investigation into accepting $50,000 in an FBI sting that was closed without prosecution; sources specifically state the DOJ ended the probe and did not bring criminal charges ^{[1] [2]}. In short, the available materials describe an alleged bribe and an investigative file, but they do not cite any criminal indictment, complaint, or statutory counts lodged against Homan as of the dates of those reports.

4. Diverging narratives: evidence vs. politics in reporting the closure

Coverage diverges on whether the closure reflects a lack of incriminating evidence or political interference in prosecutorial decision-making. Some reports emphasize DOJ statements that the probe found no credible evidence of criminality and conclude on procedural grounds ^[2]. Other accounts underscore the optics of transferring the inquiry to an administration that had direct ties to the subject’s political alignment, raising concerns about politicization of the department—even where the reporting stops short of asserting wrongdoing by DOJ itself ^{[2] [3]}.

5. What the principals said publicly in these reports

Tom Homan is reported to have dismissed the investigation in blunt terms, calling it “bulls—” according to one source, and the White House stated he was not involved in contract award decisions, framing the matter as unsubstantiated or irrelevant to official procurement processes ^[1]. DOJ officials are reported to have framed the closure around evidentiary thresholds, asserting the absence of credible criminal evidence; those competing statements form the public record and are central to how different outlets interpreted the significance of the probe’s end ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Gaps in the public record and omitted considerations

The reporting does not include public charging documents, an indictment, or a public explanation of evidentiary decisions beyond high-level DOJ statements; therefore the specific statutory elements that prosecutors considered unmet are not documented in the materials provided ^[2]. The lack of court filings or charging documents means there is no public legal record specifying potential counts such as bribery, honest-services fraud, or conspiracy; the publicly reported facts are confined to the recorded payment, the FBI sting, and the subsequent closure of the probe.

7. Bottom line: what is established and what remains unresolved

Established facts across the sources are that FBI undercover agents recorded a $50,000 cash transfer to Tom Homan in September 2024 and that the DOJ later closed an investigation and did not bring charges ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Unresolved items include prosecutorial reasoning at the evidentiary level, whether other investigatory avenues were exhausted, and why no charging document was ever filed—questions that remain because the reporting shows no formal bribery charges were ever announced in the public record provided ^[2].