Why did DOJ drop the case against Tom Homan?

Three news stories in the U.S. aren't being discussed nearly enough. One of those stories is about Tom Homan, the border czar (or more properly, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement), being the subject of a 2024 FBI sting operation. What was he accused of doing, and why did the U.S. Department of Justice quietly drop the case this month? Plus: we're diving back into the curious case of Jeffrey Epstein and attacks on free speech in the United States. As always, we deliver the news in under 15 minutes!

Be sure to follow us on Instagram @thefridaybrief and sign up for The Friday Brief newsletter on thefridaybrief.com.

Chapters

• 0:00 Welcome
• 0:42 Who received luxury gifts from Jeffrey Epstein?
• 3:37 Who gave Tom Homan $50,000?
• 5:28 Why did DOJ remove a study on extremism?
• 7:21 Listen to The Civic Flame podcast
• 8:26 Until next time!

Transcript

Welcome to The Friday Brief, a news podcast by Girl Friday. I’m Phoenix Ricks, the CEO of Girl Friday and your host. This is your brief for September 24, 2025. Normally, I enjoy providing a global overview, but I believe three key stories in the U.S. deserve more attention. You’ll want to keep tabs on these. 

First, on September 11, Bloomberg News reported that it had obtained a cache of 18,000 emails from Jeffrey Epstein’s Yahoo account. At least one email included a lavish gift tracker, and I’m certainly curious to know who received luxury cars and premium watches from Jeffrey Epstein. And better yet, I think we’d all like to know why they received those gifts. Unlike the U.S. media, journalists in the UK appear eager to continue investigating this new information, and people are taking immediate action based on those findings. This week, the BBC reported that Sarah, the Duchess of York, is no longer a patron of a children’s hospice charity. If you guessed that her name appeared in those emails, you would be correct. In the 2011 email, she referred to Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was a known predator and a convicted sex offender, as her "supreme friend." 

A spokesperson for the charity said, "Following the information shared this weekend on the Duchess of York's correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein, Julia's House has taken the decision that it would be inappropriate for her to continue as a patron of the charity. We have advised the Duchess of York of this decision and thank her for her past support." Another charity, the Teenage Cancer Trust, may be considering a similar path. You see, this newly released email shows that after she’d publicly distanced herself from Epstein, she apologized by email and appeared to want to maintain the friendliest of ties. But, a spokesperson for the duchess said her email had been sent to “counter a threat from him to sue her for defamation - and that she still really regretted any association with him." 

We may never know whether to believe the text of her 2011 email or her spokesperson’s 2025 clarification, but it does seem clear that no one in the UK is off limits from facing the consequences of having close ties with Epstein. The Duchess of York is only the latest name to hit the press. The Prime Minister fired the UK Ambassador to the U.S., Lord Peter Mandelson, after his emails with Epstein were unearthed in that cache. Who in the U.S. is named in those emails, and why aren't we seeing the same kinds of investigations and actions here? Would the U.S. government and our civil society organizations follow the UK’s lead and reconsider their affiliations as well? Will our U.S. Department of Justice and, more broadly, this administration name officials who are in the emails? 

On that note, here’s the second piece of news that you may have missed. NBC reported that during an undercover operation in September of last year, the FBI recorded Tom Homan, who is now the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, accepting $50,000 in cash after implying he could help the undercover agents win contacts in a second Trump administration. This undercover operation materialized last summer because “a subject in a separate investigation claimed Homan was soliciting payments in exchange for awarding contracts should Trump win the presidential election.” As you can imagine, the case against Homan “indefinitely stalled” after Donald Trump took office again in January. NBC says the investigation was officially closed in recent weeks. The reason? Well, in a statement provided to MSNBC, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said, “This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. 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.” A White House Deputy Press Secretary said the case was a "blatantly political investigation” and then went on to talk about “millions of illegal aliens.” 

Which brings me to the third story, which also involves our Department of Justice. The Hill reported the agency quietly removed a study showing that far-right extremists were responsible for the bulk of ideologically motivated deaths. Interesting timing, given that the Republican Party is currently pushing a narrative about the “radical left” being the greatest danger. The 2024 study found far more deaths credited to right-wing groups. The study found that “the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism.” The study was still available on the Justice Department website until very recently and appears to have been removed following the murder of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing podcaster. The aftermath of his murder has triggered concerning conversations about free speech, which is a core pillar of our democracy. Our First Amendment guarantees our right to free speech, meaning the government is not supposed to dictate what we can or cannot say. Hate speech is subjective and therefore still protected by our right to free speech. So, it was deeply troubling to see Trump administration officials, like Pam Bondi, talking about hate speech as though it were separate from protected free speech and subject to government oversight and interference. 

If you want to learn more about the Constitution and our rights, I highly recommend listening to a new podcast by Dr. Amber Vayo called The Civic Flame. She’s breaking down the Constitution in easily understood terms, essentially opening her college classroom to the world. She’s an expert on our rights and responsibilities, and she’s also got a great sense of humor and genuinely loves a good debate. I think you’ll enjoy this new podcast, and it will give you the tools to understand when, or if, the government is overreaching. Her podcast isn’t about politics—left or right—it's about fundamentally understanding the framing of our government. 

Thank you for listening to The Friday Brief. Make sure you and your friends don’t miss an episode! Check out thefridaybrief.com, and follow The Friday Brief on Instagram. Until next time, I’m Phoenix Ricks, signing off from Washington, DC. Let’s work together for a world of good.