Did Tom Homan take any official actions or policy changes after receiving the $50,000?

1. The allegation and the recording: what was reported

News organizations reported that in September 2024 undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen allegedly handed Homan a bag containing $50,000 and that hidden cameras and audiotapes reportedly captured the exchange; internal DOJ documents and multiple outlets described the recording as showing Homan accepting cash and discussing steering future government contracts ^{[5] [1] [6]}.

2. The investigative arc: opened, monitored, then shelved or closed

Media reporting and watchdog accounts indicate the FBI and DOJ examined the matter: the Public Integrity Section reportedly agreed to investigate in November 2024, the FBI monitored Homan into early 2025, and authorities ultimately shelved or closed the probe in 2025 amid internal disputes and intervention by Justice Department officials ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

3. White House and Homan responses: denials and equivocations

The White House publicly denied that Homan awarded contracts and initially some representatives issued categorical denials that he “took” the money; Homan has said he did nothing illegal. Critics note inconsistent or evasive answers from the administration — press statements that first denied Homan took the cash and later characterized the episode as an attempted entrapment by the FBI ^{[3] [7] [4]}.

4. Congressional oversight and political fallout

House Judiciary Democrats and several members pressed DOJ and the transition team for records and demanded release of recordings, framing the episode as potentially a cover-up and raising questions about who knew what and why Homan was appointed “border czar” despite the reports; those congressional letters cite internal DOJ documents and ask for explanations about the closure of the probe ^{[6] [4] [8]}.

5. Reporting on asset handling and legal technicalities

Investigative reporting and legal commentators noted unusual procedural features: federal sting operations typically secure evidence and proceed to arrest or forfeit funds, and some experts said the way this sting unfolded would make retrieval or forfeiture of the money difficult — which helps explain why the physical cash’s disposition became a point of dispute in coverage ^{[1] [9]}.

6. What the sources say about actions or policy changes by Homan after the alleged payment

Available reporting does not document Homan taking any specific official actions, awarding contracts, or enacting policy changes as a direct result of accepting the $50,000. The BBC reported the White House saying Homan “was not involved in awarding any contracts,” and journalism to date focuses on the alleged payment and the investigation rather than confirming any concrete policy decisions tied to the cash ^{[3] [1]}. If you are asking whether Homan used the money to influence federal contracting or immigration policy, the available sources do not show direct evidence of that (available sources do not mention any specific policy action taken by Homan after receiving the $50,000).

7. Competing interpretations and the limits of current reporting

Proponents of Homan emphasize his denials and the White House insistence that no contracts were steered; critics point to internal DOJ documents and the apparent shutting down of the probe under officials aligned with the administration as signs of a possible cover-up ^{[7] [4]}. Reporting notes both factual limits — there were recordings reported by major outlets — and procedural uncertainty — the investigation’s closure and the disposition of the cash remain contested ^{[1] [2]}.

8. What remains unreported and what to watch next

Sources do not provide a public accounting of whether the $50,000 was returned to the FBI, retained by Homan, or otherwise disposed of, nor do they provide judicial findings tying any policy action or contract awards to the payment (available sources do not mention whether the money was returned or how it was disposed). Future relevant reporting would include release of the recordings sought by House Democrats, any DOJ or Inspector General memos about the closure of the probe, and documentary evidence linking Homan to contract awards; Congress’ document requests ^[6] and continued press scrutiny are the likely mechanism for new disclosures.

Limitations: this analysis uses only the provided reporting. Where sources do not assert a fact — for example, that Homan made specific policy changes after receiving the cash — I note that absence rather than claim a negative. All factual assertions above are documented in the cited sources ^{[5] [10] [4] [6] [2] [3] [1]}.