What evidence exists that Tom Homan accepted a $50,000 bribe and who reported it?

Checked on December 4, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

Multiple mainstream outlets and congressional Democrats say internal DOJ documents and reporting show Tom Homan was recorded accepting a $50,000 cash payment from undercover FBI agents during a 2024 sting; Reuters, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Guardian and congressional releases describe hidden-camera recordings and an FBI sting that produced the $50,000 Cava bag transaction [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The White House and Homan deny he “took” the money and the Justice Department under the Trump administration closed the probe, prompting House Democrats to demand the release of recordings and documents [6] [7] [5].

1. What the reporting says: hidden cameras, a Cava bag, and $50,000 in cash

Multiple news organizations report that FBI undercover agents posing as business executives staged a meeting in which Tom Homan was recorded accepting a bag containing $50,000 in cash; internal DOJ summaries and sources say hidden cameras and audiotapes captured the exchange and Homan’s comments about helping secure government contracts in a future Trump administration [1] [2] [3] [5]. Reuters specifically reported two sources saying Homan “accepted a $50,000 bag of cash from an undercover FBI agent” and that the recording showed the transaction in a Cava takeout bag [1].

2. Who reported it first and who amplified it to Congress and the public

MSNBC and The New York Times were key in the early public reporting that brought the matter to wider attention; congressional Democrats — notably Judiciary Committee Democrats led by Rep. Jamie Raskin and others — cited internal Justice Department documents and demanded release of the recordings, sending formal letters to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI leadership [2] [3] [5]. House members also published press releases and oversight letters pressing transition and DOJ officials about what they knew and whether the probe was closed prematurely [8] [9].

3. Official responses: denials and an investigation closed

The White House and Homan have denied that he “took” the money; White House spokespeople told press that Homan did not accept $50,000 and complained the undercover operation was an entrapment attempt, while the Justice Department under the incoming Trump administration closed the investigation — a fact acknowledged in reporting and raised as a potential cover-up by Democrats [6] [7] [8]. Reporting indicates the probe was closed after transition officials signaled opposition to continuing it [2] [9].

4. Legal and evidentiary context cited by reporters

News accounts and The New York Times explain why prosecutors hesitated: Homan was not a government official at the time of the payment, which complicated a straight bribery charge, and some DOJ sources expressed doubt about whether prosecutors could prove the elements in court; another thread of reporting says career prosecutors believed they had evidence for conspiracy and bribery counts but the case stalled [3] [4]. Reuters and The Guardian report investigators set up the sting after sources said a target repeatedly alleged Homan collected bribes to steer contracts [1] [4].

5. Political consequences and oversight demands

House Judiciary Democrats publicly demanded DOJ and FBI produce the recordings and documents, framing the closure of the probe as evidence of political interference and a potential cover-up tied to the transition; they argued the recordings — described in their letters as showing Homan accepting the cash — are central to understanding whether laws were broken and whether the administration suppressed the investigation [5] [8]. Republicans and White House officials have characterized the probe as politically motivated and denied wrongdoing [6].

6. What the sources do not establish or resolve

Available sources document recordings and internal summaries that portray Homan taking $50,000 and the existence of an FBI sting, but they also report the DOJ closed the investigation and no charges were filed; whether Homan ultimately retained, returned, or was required to account for the cash remains disputed in reporting and uncertain in public records [3] [10]. Available sources do not mention a criminal indictment of Homan arising from this matter (not found in current reporting).

7. Why readers should care: competing narratives and accountability stakes

The story sits at the intersection of criminal investigation standards and partisan transition politics: reporters cite tangible investigative materials (hidden-camera footage, audiotapes) that allege Homan accepted $50,000 for promised favors, while the White House and Homan deny taking the cash and the DOJ closed the probe — a sequence Democrats call a cover-up and Republicans call political overreach [1] [5] [6]. The central accountability question rests on the recordings and DOJ files that congressional Democrats and newsrooms say exist and want released [5] [3].

Want to dive deeper?
What documents or recordings allege Tom Homan accepted a $50,000 bribe?
Who first reported or leaked the bribery allegation against Tom Homan?
Have law enforcement or prosecutors opened an investigation into Tom Homan over a $50,000 payment?
What is Tom Homan’s response or public statement about the alleged $50,000 bribe?
Are there corroborating witnesses, bank records, or communications supporting the bribery claim against Tom Homan?