DOJ reportedly closes bribery probe into border czar Tom Homan
MSNBC reports the inquiry was halted after a DOJ review found no credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing; the investigation began in Texas in 2024 and stalled after Trump took office.
MSNBC reported that the Justice Department closed a criminal bribery investigation into Border Czar Tom Homan, ending a probe that examined whether he accepted cash payments in exchange for helping secure future border-enforcement contracts. The inquiry was opened in western Texas in the summer of 2024 after a person involved in a separate investigation alleged that Homan solicited payments should Donald Trump win reelection. Homan, a longtime immigration official who has pledged to ramp up enforcement in major cities, had not publicly commented on the matter.
According to an internal Department of Justice summary reviewed by MSNBC and described to people familiar with the case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District of Texas, working with the FBI, asked the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section to join the ongoing probe, which was based on evidence of payment from FBI undercover agents in exchange for facilitating future contracts related to border enforcement. The investigation’s focus centered on whether Homan had solicited or accepted payments tied to awarding contracts in the border-enforcement arena should Trump win a second term.
The case’s trajectory, including its late-stage closure, reflects a shift that occurred after Trump took office in January. Sources described the inquiry as stalling during the early days of the administration, with recent weeks seeing the matter formally closed after FBI Director Kash Patel requested a status update, according to MSNBC. The university-level oddity of the name, as reported by MSNBC, underscores the unusual sequence of events surrounding the investigation and its ultimate disposition.
In a statement provided to MSNBC, Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the allegations against Homan were “subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors.” They added, “They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.” The statement continued, “The Department’s resources must remain focused on real threats to the American people, not baseless investigations. As a result, the investigation has been closed.” The brief remarks fit the pattern of internal reviews that conclude without charging a public official, though they do not necessarily settle all questions about the conduct under scrutiny.
MSNBC noted that the report rests on an internal DOJ summary and conversations with people familiar with the case. The network emphasized that the information reflects those sources and the department’s own accounting of the decision to close the matter. The decision to end the inquiry comes amid a broader national dialogue about border policy and the role of enforcement priorities within the Trump administration, including questions about how investigations into high-profile immigration officials are pursued and concluded.
The closure, while described by MSNBC as the end of a formal criminal inquiry, does not eliminate public interest in the episode or its implications for how procurement and enforcement decisions are linked to potential financial considerations. Officials and observers have noted that investigations of this kind involve complex evidence, multiple agencies, and a timeline that can stretch across political transitions. Whether this case will influence future handling of similar allegations remains a matter for political and legal analysts, but current public records indicate the department concluded there was insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing to proceed toward charges.
For readers tracking US politics, the episode adds to a broader narrative about how the federal government handles allegations involving senior immigration officials, procurement practices, and ongoing debates over border security policy. It also highlights how internal DOJ processes interact with externally reported information, and how timelines can shift with changes in administration priorities. As officials move forward, observers will watch for any related or follow-on actions in related investigations, as well as how the administration communicates about past inquiries and current enforcement strategies.