This article originally appeared at the Gateway Pundit’s Fact Check Bureau, TGPFactCheck.com
- DailyKos intentionally misrepresents Tom Homan’s statements, stripping away critical context to portray him as racist.
- The left-leaning writer misinterprets relevant laws, confusing ‘probable cause’ with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ the latter being the appropriate standard for police detentions.
- Media outlets are attempting to frame Homan as a racist despite his statements aligning with current legal protocols.
OUR RATING: Journalistic Malpractice. Even Salon.com is embarrassed.
Indicted Outlet: Emily Cahn Singer | Daily Kos | Link | Archive | July 11, 2025
Opposition to the Trump administration often hinges on misleading narratives and blatant falsehoods. It’s as if some left-leaning individuals, in their pursuit of truth, have misplaced their compasses, opting for tactical obfuscation instead.
There’s no reasonable interpretation of the way Emily Cahn Singer distorted Tom Homan’s comments. A side-by-side comparison reveals a troubling pattern of journalistic malpractice.
Major Violations:
- Dishonest representation of claims
- Decontextualization of statements
- Significant misrepresentation of source material
- Manipulative editing techniques
- Character assassination
- Misrepresentation of facts
Singer’s piece, titled “Trump’s racist ‘border czar’ admits ICE is breaking the law,” hinges on a fleeting remark Homan made on Fox News.
The 1:26 video clip in question can be found here:
In the clip, Homan articulates:
HOMAN: “Look, people need to understand ICE officers and border patrol, they don’t need ‘probable cause’ to walk up to somebody and briefly detain and question them. They just need the ‘totality of the circumstances’ right, they just go through their observation, you know, get ‘articulable facts’ based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions, like if a uniformed border patrol agent walks up to them at, for instance, a Home Depot, and they got all these articulable facts, plus a person walks away or runs away. Agents are trained on what they need to temporarily detain and question somebody. It’s not ‘probable cause,’ it’s ‘reasonable suspicion.’ We’re trained on that. And every agent, every six months, gets Fourth Amendment training over and over again. These officers are really good at what they do, and if this judge makes a decision that contradicts what these officers have been trained on, then they’re going to shut down operations. I think that’s, that’s their end game. They want ICE to stop doing this, but if they base it on the rule of law, they’ll find out border patrol and ICE are operating exactly as the law allows.”
In contrast, here is how the Daily Kos misquotes Homan:
“People need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol, they don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them,” Homan said on Fox News, adding that he says ICE agents can detain people “based on … their physical appearance.”
For reference, here’s a screengrab from within the article in case they attempt to revise it:
The ellipsis used here conveniently removes vital context from Homan’s original statement.
To clarify, let’s revisit Homan’s full statement, highlighting how the Daily Kos quoted him:
HOMAN: “Look, people need to understand ICE officers and border patrol, they don’t need ‘probable cause’ to walk up to somebody and briefly detain and question them. They just need the ‘totality of the circumstances’ right, they just go through their observation, you know, get ‘articulable facts’ based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions, like if a uniformed border patrol agent walks up to them at, for instance, a Home Depot, and they got all these articulable facts, plus a person walks away or runs away. Agents are trained on what they need to temporarily detain and question them. It’s not ‘probable cause,’ it’s ‘reasonable suspicion.’ We’re trained on that. And every agent, every six months, gets Fourth Amendment training over and over again. These officers are really good at what they do, and if this judge is going to make a decision that’s against what these officers have been trained to follow, then they’re going to shut down operations. I think that’s, that’s their end game. They want ICE to stop doing this, but if they base it on the rule of law, they’ll find out border patrol and ICE are doing exactly what they’re doing in accordance with the law.”
When you juxtapose the accurate quote with the one used by the Daily Kos, it showcases an example of decontextualization and major misrepresentation of source material.
The crux of Homan’s argument reflects the correct legal standards for law enforcement in the U.S.
For clarity, let’s define “probable cause”: [1]
Although the Fourth Amendment states that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,” it does not specify what “probable cause” actually means. The Supreme Court has clarified the meaning on various occasions, acknowledging that probable cause is an imprecise and context-dependent concept. In Illinois v. Gates, the Court endorsed a flexible interpretation, viewing probable cause as a “practical, non-technical” standard reliant on the “factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men […] act.” [fn] See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983).[/fn] Courts often adopt a broader view of probable cause when the alleged offenses are serious.
While this definition may appear vague, it is crucial to understand that it serves as the standard for police arrests. Legal standards are essential in assessing whether law enforcement had adequate reasoning to arrest an individual.
This differs from the standard for police to approach someone merely to ask questions, known as “reasonable suspicion.”
The definition of “reasonable suspicion” is: [2]
Reasonable suspicion is a standard employed in criminal procedure. It determines the legality of a police officer’s decision to perform a search. When an officer stops someone to search, courts require either a search warrant, probable cause to search, or reasonable suspicion. The hierarchy of authority for an officer to conduct a search is search warrant, probable cause, followed by reasonable suspicion.
These two legal standards are at the heart of Homan’s discussion in the news clip.
A landmark court case relevant to this discussion is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), which originally established the concept of reasonable suspicion. [4]
While media narratives frequently fixate on “probable cause,” the stricter standard for making arrests, Homan emphasizes that law enforcement’s ability to engage in preliminary questioning is grounded in the “reasonable suspicion” standard.
Homan elucidates a range of behaviors that might justify “reasonable suspicion,” which include:
- Observations made by ICE agents
- Suspicious locations
- Occupations commonly associated with higher illegal immigrant populations
- Physical appearance similar to typical undocumented immigrants
- Suspicious actions, such as fleeing from an approaching ICE agent
This delineation accurately reflects the legal standard. Homan also reiterates the importance of the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ a phrase rooted in legal precedent. Law enforcement is permitted to exercise common sense as long as they can articulate their reasoning effectively.
While Homan’s delivery may be a bit jumbled and grammatically imperfect, his legal analysis is fundamentally sound.
In her article, Singer at DailyKos banks on her audience’s lack of context or understanding of the relevant law, opting for a narrative that misquotes Homan to paint him as a racist—an accusation lacking any foundation.
It’s essential to differentiate between the legal standard for stopping someone to converse and that for making an arrest, as they are distinctly different.
Homan focuses on the standards his agents apply when initiating conversations with individuals, seeking to assess potential law violations.
The more recognized “probable cause” standard contrasts sharply with “reasonable suspicion,” which is less widely understood. This selective quoting of Homan serves to bolster a predetermined narrative.
Law enforcement appropriately utilizes various observable signals, as Homan outlined, to justify initial stops that do not escalate to arrests.
Since 1975, it has been established that a stop cannot solely be predicated on a person’s perceived ethnicity, as ruled in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). [5] While law enforcement can employ a combination of factors to establish ‘reasonable suspicion,’ race alone cannot serve as the sole determinant. Homan’s references to multiple “articulable facts” align with this precedent.
Homan is not concocting new legal standards; he is merely applying the law accurately. With decades in law enforcement, it’s unsurprising that Homan correctly cites established legal precedents. The notion that he would publicly assert a policy of racial profiling is utterly preposterous.
This entire discourse reveals the absurdity of the left-wing media manipulation masquerading as journalism.
In summary, Emily Cahn Singer at Daily Kos has committed grave journalistic errors by:
- Misquoting Homan from the outset
- Misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting relevant legal standards
- Removing critical context from Homan’s comments
- Utilizing a selective misquote to frame Homan as a racist, which is unfounded
Ultimately, this reflects DailyKos’s true agenda: to label Homan as a racist, engaging in a smear campaign rather than fostering honest discourse.
By analyzing the selective nature of the quotes used, the underlying motives become glaringly apparent.
OUR RATING: Journalistic Malpractice. Even Salon.com is embarrassed.
Bibliography:
1 ] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
2 ] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion
3 ] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/17/us/politics/trump-border-czar-thomas-homan.html
4 ] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/
5 ] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/
