White House Claims $50,000 Payment to Tom Homan Was Signing Bonus, Not Bribe

September 23 , 2025

Washington, D.C. — The White House today pushed back against widespread media reports that Tom Homan, the administration’s border czar, accepted a $50,000 bribe from undercover FBI agents, saying instead that the sum was a “signing bonus,” not illicit payment.

At a press briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the narrative of bribery is false. She asserted that Mr. Homan “never took the $50,000 that you’re referring to,” and insisted that the payment was arranged as a legitimate bonus connected to his transition into the administration — not as a quid pro quo. “You should get the facts straight,” Leavitt said, describing the earlier reports as “misleading.”

According to previous news reports, the FBI in 2024 conducted a sting operation in which agents posing as business executives allegedly offered Mr. Homan $50,000 in cash in exchange for promises to help secure government contracts. The reports further claimed there was video or audio evidence of the payment, reportedly made in a restaurant‑takeout bag. The Justice Department later opened an investigation, but it was officially closed after the administration change, citing a lack of credible evidence to support criminal charges.

Leavitt called the more sensational allegations “politically motivated,” alleging that they were part of an attempt to entrap Mr. Homan and cast suspicion on his integrity. She also affirmed that both the FBI and Department of Justice conducted reviews and found no evidence of wrongdoing. “He did absolutely nothing wrong,” she said.

Tom Homan himself has denied wrongdoing, saying there was no illegal activity and no criminal case to answer. Supporters in the White House have reiterated that President Trump continues to back him “one hundred percent."

Opponents — including lawmakers and watchdogs — say the new claim that the payment was a signing bonus requires documentation, such as contracts or board minutes, to substantiate the White House’s explanation. They also argue that the closure of the investigation raises questions about whether justice was equally enforced.

Legal analysts say the case hinges on proving intent: whether the payment was tied explicitly to the promise to secure contracts (which could constitute bribery), or whether it was a bona fide bonus with no conditions attached. The standard for bribery under federal law generally requires a quid pro quo — that is, some promise or act in exchange for the money. Without clear evidence of those conditions, proving criminal liability can be difficult..

For the moment, the new “signing bonus” explanation remains unverified by independent evidence. The White House has not yet released documentation supporting this characterization, and media outlets say they are reviewing their sources. Meanwhile, political pressure is increasing for transparency, especially given Mr. Homan’s prominent role in immigration enforcement policies.

Olivia Asher