The Daily — "The Border Czar and a Bag of $50,000"
Date: October 15, 2025
Hosts: Natalie Kitroeff
Guest: Devlin Barrett, George Stephanopoulos
Key Topic: The FBI’s undercover bribery investigation into Tom Homan, Trump’s “border czar,” and the implications for corruption law and political accountability
Episode Overview
This episode dives deep into the controversy surrounding Tom Homan, the newly appointed border czar in the Trump administration, and a mysterious bag containing $50,000 in cash. Through an in-depth interview with journalist Devlin Barrett, host Natalie Kitroeff traces the origins, investigation, and fallout of the case, examining how a seemingly clear case of alleged bribery has become a lingering scandal, raising questions about the boundaries of corruption law, government accountability, and political cover-ups.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Setting the Stage: The Scandal Emerges
- Allegation: Tom Homan was secretly recorded by the FBI in September 2024 accepting $50,000 in cash as part of an undercover operation.
- Public Attention: Trump officials have repeatedly dodged media questions about whether Homan kept the money or if the FBI got it back. (“Did he accept that $50,000 or not?” — George Stephanopoulos [01:08])
- The White House staunchly backs Homan, denying any wrongdoing.
2. Backstory: How Did Homan Get Involved?
- Origins of the Case: The FBI was originally investigating a businessman in Texas unrelated to Homan.
- During undercover negotiations, the businessman unpromptedly claimed Homan could steer government contracts for a fee of $1 million.
- Homan’s Role: At that time (Spring 2023), Homan was a private consultant and former ICE director with clear ambitions to return to government if Trump was re-elected.
“Tom Homan just sort of wanders into the picture, wanders into the frame of what the FBI agents are already doing.” — Devlin Barrett [05:00]
3. The Undercover Operation: A Bag of Cash
- The Sting: In September 2024, undercover FBI agents arranged a meeting with Homan and handed him $50,000 in a takeout bag from Kava.
- Evidence: The FBI recorded the meeting. Though Homan accepted the money and seemed open to future cooperation, there was no explicit agreement or act performed in exchange.
- Contextual Challenge: Homan was not in government at the time, so he couldn’t guarantee or deliver any contracts.
“The person you’re investigating has taken the money and appears to have agreed to do things in exchange for the money. But that’s not really the end of the investigation.” — Devlin Barrett [08:11]
4. Legal Limbo: Why Was the Case Dropped?
- No Clear Quid Pro Quo: Investigators hoped the payment would be the first step in a longer sting operation, but Homan wasn’t yet in a position of power.
- Transition of Power: After Trump’s electoral win, Homan was rapidly appointed “border czar”— a role without Senate confirmation or rigorous background checks.
- Justice Department Action: Upon inheriting the case, the new administration’s top law enforcement officials viewed it skeptically and quickly closed the investigation.
“The senior officials… look at the case, and they don’t like it. They’re very skeptical that this is anything worth pursuing.… It just gets closed.” — Devlin Barrett [11:14]
5. Political and Media Fallout
- Official Responses:
- DOJ and FBI leaders (Cash Patel, Todd Blanch) insist there was “no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”
- White House spokesperson denies Homan took the $50,000, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
- Homan’s Defense: On Fox News, Homan repeatedly claims he did “nothing illegal” but does not directly deny accepting the cash.
“Look, I did nothing criminal. I did nothing illegal. And there’s hit piece after hit piece after hit piece.” — Tom Homan [15:30]
- Administration Line: Focus shifts from “Did it happen?” to “Was it a crime?”, turning the legal technicalities into a political defense.
6. Why This Case Won’t Go Away
- Simple Symbolism: Unlike other, more complex scandals (e.g., crypto, free airplane), the case centers on “a cava bag full of cash”— immediately graspable and powerful imagery.
- Lingering Questions: The administration refuses to clarify the fate of the $50,000, and rumors swirl about the unreleased FBI tape.
“You know what is easy to explain? A cava bag full of cash. That’s pretty simple. Why did he take a bag of cash? What did he do with the cash?” — Devlin Barrett [21:21]
- Legal Nuance: Debate persists about “stream of benefits” corruption— whether prosecutors need an explicit quid pro quo, or if a pattern of exchanges is enough for a conviction under evolving federal law.
7. Broader Implications
- Unsettled Law: Even inside DOJ, opinions vary—some say there was a chargeable case; others argue it was incomplete.
- Political Impact: The saga raises deeper questions about government oversight, the limits of “czar” appointments, and the durability of administrative scandals in a crowded, contentious news environment.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On Homan’s law-and-order image:
“We gotta enforce the laws. Entering this country illegal is a crime. We don’t pick and choose what we enforce.” — Tom Homan [02:33]
-
On investigators’ doubts and actions:
“They paid money to make a friend.” — Devlin Barrett [09:40]
-
On White House stonewalling:
“Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 that you’re referring to. So you should get your facts straight.” — Press Secretary Carolyn Levitt [15:00]
-
On persistent questions:
“The case may be dead, but … what hasn’t died is people’s desire to know … What did you do with the money?” — Devlin Barrett [22:55]
Important Timestamps
- 00:42-01:17: Introduction of the scandal and initial denials
- 02:33: Homan’s self-image as a strict lawman
- 03:45-05:16: How Homan came under FBI scrutiny
- 07:02-08:41: The actual handoff of $50,000 and recording
- 11:14: Handling of the case by Trump’s incoming administration
- 14:11-15:08: Official denials and White House strategy
- 15:30: Homan’s Fox News appearance and non-denial
- 19:23-20:11: Explanation of “stream of benefits” corruption
- 21:21: Why the public can’t let go of the bag-of-cash image
- 22:14: The still-unanswered question: Where did the $50,000 go?
Tone & Language
The conversation is direct, factual, occasionally incredulous, and marked by a persistent sense of unease at the evasions and legalistic defenses offered by the administration. There’s a heavy focus on transparency and legal nuance, but the underlying tone is skeptical—anchored in the pursuit of unanswered questions and public accountability.
Summary Takeaway
Through the story of Tom Homan and a bag of cash, this episode exposes the ambiguities of corruption law, the inadequacies of political oversight, and the power of simple, tangible symbols in driving public scandals. The saga remains unresolved, with the fate of the $50,000—and the integrity of government processes—still very much in question.