illegal in the United States:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
GUIDANCE REGARDING THE
USE OF RACE BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
June 2003

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In his February 27, 2001, Address to a Joint Session of Congress, President George W.
Bush declared that racial profiling is "wrong and we will end it in America." He directed
the Attorney General to review the use by Federal law enforcement authorities of race as
a factor in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement investigative
procedures. The Attorney General, in turn, instructed the Civil Rights Division to develop
guidance for Federal officials to ensure an end to racial profiling in law enforcement. . . .

(Snip). . .

• In investigating or preventing threats to national security or other
catastrophic events (including the performance of duties related to air
transportation security), or in enforcing laws protecting the integrity
of the Nation's borders, Federal law enforcement officers may not
consider race or ethnicity except to the extent permitted by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.
Any questions arising under these standards should be directed to the Department of
Justice.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
"[T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations
such as race." Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996). Thus, for example, the
decision of federal prosecutors "whether to prosecute may not be based on 'an
unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.'" (4) United
States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456
(1962)). The same is true of Federal law enforcement officers. Federal courts repeatedly
have held that any general policy of "utiliz[ing] impermissible racial classifications in
determining whom to stop, detain, and search" would violate the Equal Protection Clause.

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/training/xus/crcl/racelawofficers/Common/pdf/doj_profiling_guidance.pdf

As to Tom Homan -

I have been trying to find the Fox Interview in which he stated whatever it is he stated. I have been unable to find it and to be quick frank, its taking up too much of my personal time. I did find this:





Tom Homan: "You know they don't need probable cause to briefly detain and question somebody, they just need reasonable suspicion and that's based on many articulable facts."

and

"Let me be clear. Physical description can not be the sole factor to give you reasonable suspicion. As I said in the interview its articulable facts with an S."

So what is reasonable suspicion and articulable facts?

"Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause which holds a higher threshold/criteria. Reasonable suspicion is not simply a hunch. You need more than that to meet the criteria for reasonable suspicion which is: "Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that falls between mere speculation or hunch and probable cause, which is a higher standard. It is a subjective assessment made by law enforcement officers that is based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts. These facts may lead an officer to suspect that an individual is, has been, or is about to be involved in criminal activity."

https://www.hesterlawgroup.com/blog/2023/october/what-is-reasonable-suspicion-/

What are 'articulable facts'? They are facts that can be articulated/verbally explained, from which a reasonable person would draw the conclusion that a crime has been, is, or is about to be committed. They are not a hunch, or an intuitive feeling. It is not based solely on racial profiling.

Now of course, whether Homan practices what he preaches is another matter. The point is, however, that racial profiling is not sufficient to detain someone briefly for questioning, nor is it even legal.