Tom Homan, then-acting director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at a White House briefing in 2017.Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images file
Tom Homan found himself at the center of a secret federal investigation last year after undercover agents reportedly posed as business executives and offered him cash in exchange for government favors. According to reports, the meeting took place in September 2024, when Homan was not yet holding public office but was widely expected to join Trump’s team if the former president returned to power.
Video recordings from the sting operation allegedly showed Homan accepting the $50,000 and suggesting he could help facilitate contracts in the future. Investigators from the FBI and the Department of Justice examined the footage closely, weighing whether the conduct could amount to bribery or corruption.
After months of internal review, the Justice Department decided to close the case. Officials pointed out that, at the time of the alleged exchange, Homan was not a government official with decision-making power over contracts. Without that official status, prosecutors determined the evidence was insufficient to move forward with charges.
The closure of the investigation did not stop the controversy. Critics quickly raised questions about ethics, accountability, and whether political influence may have shaped the decision. Lawmakers on the opposing side argued that accepting such a large sum of money, regardless of one’s formal title at the time, points to serious issues of judgment. They called for stricter ethics rules to cover situations where political figures operate in the gray area between private consulting and public service.
Homan’s past connections to the private immigration industry added more weight to the criticism. Before becoming border czar, he had financial ties to GEO Group, a major detention contractor. For many observers, that history only deepened concerns about potential conflicts of interest now that he plays a central role in immigration policy.
Supporters of Homan, however, framed the matter differently. They argued that the probe was politically motivated, designed to weaken Trump’s team before they fully assumed office. They also emphasized that prosecutors, after reviewing all available evidence, declined to bring charges, showing that Homan did not commit a crime. In their view, the closing of the case amounts to full vindication.
The debate reflects a broader divide over standards for public officials and those preparing to take senior government roles. The fine line between private consulting work and potential government power is increasingly under scrutiny. Cases like Homan’s show how vulnerable that line can be to accusations of impropriety, even when no formal crime is established.
For now, Homan continues in his role as Trump’s border czar, where he remains a high-profile figure in immigration enforcement and border security policy. The controversy, however, may linger. Political opponents are likely to continue using the case to highlight concerns about integrity and transparency inside Trump’s inner circle.
Meanwhile, watchdog groups have called for reforms to ensure stricter ethical guidelines for individuals who are not yet government officials but are expected to take such roles. They argue that trust in public institutions depends on accountability, even before officials formally assume their posts.
