Two federal agencies from the Trump era are under scrutiny for allegedly breaching the Freedom of Information Act by withholding details about a purported $50,000 in “bribes” accepted by Border Czar Tom Homan. This accusation has led to the filing of two federal lawsuits on Monday.

The Democracy Defenders Fund has filed complaints against the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, accusing them of missing legal deadlines and illegally keeping records secret. The complaint against the Department of Justice spans 15 pages, while the Department of Homeland Security faces a 14-page document detailing the accusations.

The lawsuits are rooted in a report from September 2025 by MS Now, which alleged that Homan was caught on tape the previous year taking a $50,000 bag of cash from FBI agents posing as business executives. These agents were reportedly trying to secure advantageous government contracts in anticipation of Donald Trump’s potential return to the presidency.

According to one of the lawsuits, the investigation into Homan started towards the end of the Biden Administration. It began when a target in a separate investigation revealed that Homan was allegedly accepting bribes, anticipating a future appointment by Trump. The FBI planned to monitor whether Homan would fulfill his promises of contracts if appointed by Trump.

The lawsuits also highlight that the investigation against Tom Homan was inexplicably dropped after the Trump Administration took control of the Department of Justice, raising further questions about the handling of the case.

As Law&Crime previously reported, once Kash Patel’s FBI and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s DOJ took the reins of the corruption probe, the agencies said “no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing” was uncovered and the Homan case was closed.

In both lawsuits, the nonprofit group says the agencies have simply taken too long to respond to the FOIA requests.

But that’s not all.

The DOJ-focused lawsuit also claims the agency has “failed to produce responsive records” or explain why such records “cannot be produced because of exemptions” under the FOIA statute — suggesting the agency has such records in its possession but refuses to give them up for one reason or another and refuses to explain why.

Such actions amount to an outright “denial” of the FOIA request, leaving only litigation to enforce the law, the lawsuit claims.

“Defendant is frustrating Plaintiff’s efforts to adequately understand and educate the public regarding the Department of Justice and broader Trump Administration’s efforts to curtail a corruption investigation into Tom Homan, who remains a senior White House adviser currently leading the most prominent components of the President’s domestic agenda,” the DOJ lawsuit reads.

The DHS-focused lawsuit takes a slightly different angle by claiming the agency has “failed to search for records responsive” to the FOIA requests — suggesting a more basic aversion to FOIA requirements.

“Defendant is frustrating Plaintiff’s efforts to adequately understand and educate the public regarding millions of dollars of potentially corrupt contracts,” the DHS lawsuit reads.

Both FOIA requests were filed with the relevant agency on the same day — Feb. 3, 2026 — and contain roughly a page worth of names, descriptions of documents, and relevant custodians.

The DOJ request is specifically tuned toward records of Biden-era case files, law enforcement applications for undercover work — including the application for the stack of cash used in the set-up, interview reports, interrogation records, as well as the resulting communications from DOJ officials under the Trump administration.

The lawsuit describes the general thrust of the request as:

All records related to any investigation or investigations or the potential prosecution by the Department of Justice of Thomas “Tom” Douglas Homan in connection with alleged bribery or violation of any federal law created, collected, stored, and/or reviewed by any current or former employee of the Department of Justice, from January 1, 2024 through the date the search is conducted.

The DHS request is geared toward correspondence, such as emails, chats, and instant messages, as well as meetings, calendar entries, phone calls, travel, events attended, and appointments for a laundry list of Trump administration staff — including visitor logs and ethics determinations.

The DHS lawsuit also clarifies that this request includes personal accounts as well as governmental accounts, personal staff reporting to the custodians and correspondents, and any known aliases or nicknames “as well as their organizational or corporate affiliations.”

The DOJ lawsuit notes some early responses — including acknowledgment of the request by subagencies on three different occasions in February. After that, however, the nonprofit says it had to reach out for a response — after being denied expedited processing — in order to ascertain when, exactly, the subagencies estimated the request would be complete.

One of four subagencies said the request would be completed “within 12 months,” the lawsuit says. The second subagency declined to answer in terms of measurable time but said the request was currently “pending behind 109 other requests.” Finally, the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) estimated completion by “November 15, 2027, 650 days from the receipt” of the request. A fourth subagency did not yet respond to the group, the plaintiff says.

The filing puts a fine point on the lengthiest estimate, at length:

To date, Plaintiff has yet to receive any information regarding the state of the search for responsive records. The only information Plaintiff has learned is that OIP believes 650 days is an overly optimistic estimation for how long it should take to disclose information from the Offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General regarding what role, if any, they played in clearing the way for Thomas Homan to become a senior adviser to the President less than a year after accepting $50,000 in cash in a paper bag from undercover FBI agents.

The DHS lawsuit posits a bit less attention to detail.

Again, the agency — and the relevant subagencies — acknowledged receipt of the group’s FOIA request, according to the lawsuit.

In terms of responsiveness to the details of the request, however, only Customs and Border Protection (CBP) replied — to say they would be limiting their search to exactly one person in the custodian list, Special Agent Gregory Bovino.

But after that, the agencies have largely been silent or reliant on form letters, according to the lawsuit.

“To date, none of the agencies have made a substantive determination regarding DDF’s request, nor have they provided any responsive documents,” the lawsuit reads. “None of the agencies have made a determination regarding DDF’s request for expedited processing. Only DHS has made a determination regarding DDF’s request for a fee waiver, which the agency granted.”

In each case, the plaintiffs are asking a judge to rule that the agencies violated statutory FOIA deadlines, “wrongfully withheld requested agency documents,” and to issue a permanent injunction directing the defendants to disclose the documents in question. They are also seeking attorneys fees.

A 30-year-old Texas man faces allegations of murdering his young daughter and her mother, having reportedly enticed them with the promise of money in what authorities have labeled a “premeditated and targeted attack.” This tragic event unfolded amidst a contentious custody battle.

Authorities have identified the suspect as John Mbuyi, accused of fatally shooting 33-year-old Raissa Thatukila and their 6-year-old daughter, Nathy Mbuyi, before attempting to take his own life. This information was shared in a news release by the Haltom City Police Department.

Police investigations suggest the killings were meticulously planned rather than spur-of-the-moment actions.

According to law enforcement, Mbuyi “lured the victims to the location under the pretense of providing money, then executed an ambush he had carefully orchestrated beforehand.”

The release further reveals that a custody dispute was ongoing between Mbuyi and Thatukila, with evidence indicating that Mbuyi held deep-seated grievances against her.

Detectives also uncovered troubling details about Mbuyi’s state of mind leading up to the violence, alleging he was “experiencing personal distress following the death of his father and expressed concerning thoughts related to death.” Based on those findings, investigators concluded the killings were “not a spontaneous incident but a deliberate act of violence.”

The shooting took place about 4:30 p.m. Friday in the parking lot of Birdville ISD Stadium, in the 6100 block of East Belknap, according to KDFW, a Dallas-Fort Worth Fox affiliate. Mbuyi reportedly drove a U-Haul truck to the parking lot, got out, and began unloading on Thatukila’s vehicle.

First responders reportedly found the two victims still inside the mother’s car. One of the victims was pronounced dead at the scene, while the other was transported to a local hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. Mbuyi was found dead nearby from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The young victim was later identified as a kindergarten student at Cheney Hills Elementary School, prompting an outpouring of grief across the community.

“We are devastated by the loss of one of our students and heartbroken that this tragedy occurred in our community,” the school’s principal, Cheryl Waddell, wrote in a message to parents, per the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “The loss of a student is always difficult and filled with a variety of emotions. Our teachers and staff will work with our students and families as we navigate this emotional time together.”

In the aftermath of the killings, friends and community members have reportedly created a memorial near the scene, leaving flowers and stuffed animals in honor of the victims.

Police have since indicated they will not be releasing additional details.

“Out of respect for the family and friends affected by this tragedy, the Haltom City Police Department will not be releasing any further information related to this incident,” the department said, adding the decision is intended to give loved ones “the space and privacy needed to grieve and begin the process of healing.”