Tom Homan is seen as a no-nonsense, tough-as-nails leader when it comes to securing the U.S. border. As a former Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homan has earned a reputation as a staunch defender of American sovereignty and a firm believer in enforcing the law without compromise. His stance on immigration is clear: the U.S. must take a hardline approach to protect its borders, uphold the rule of law, and put the interests of American citizens first.

For conservatives, Homan’s leadership is the antidote to the perceived leniency of previous administrations, especially those that prioritized "catch-and-release" policies or sought to reduce penalties for illegal immigration. Homan has consistently called for a return to strong enforcement measures, including the swift detention and deportation of illegal immigrants, and has been vocal about the need to eliminate sanctuary cities that shield criminals from federal law enforcement. He views these policies as a direct threat to public safety and national security.

Homan's tough stance also extends to illegal border crossings. He believes that amnesty or “soft” approaches like open borders only encourage more illegal immigration and undermine the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. Conservatives see him as someone who will push for policies that prioritize national security—such as building the border wall, expanding resources for Border Patrol agents, and holding businesses accountable for hiring undocumented workers.

Additionally, Homan is often seen as a champion of law enforcement. He argues that those who enter the U.S. illegally or overstay their visas should face consequences, and he believes that a secure border is key to stopping human trafficking, drug smuggling, and gang violence, which disproportionately impact American communities. To conservatives, Homan’s no-compromise position represents a stark contrast to the more lenient immigration policies proposed by progressives, and his leadership is viewed as a critical step in restoring order to the immigration system.

In short, from a conservative perspective, Tom Homan is a tough, pragmatic enforcer who will do whatever it takes to secure the border and defend American citizens from the dangers of illegal immigration. His approach is seen as one that prioritizes the rule of law, national security, and the safety of U.S. citizens, making him a strong advocate for a more stringent, common-sense approach to immigration policy.

The conservative disbelief in the Russian collusion narrative stems from a mix of skepticism about the origins and motivations behind the investigation, as well as concerns over its political implications. Many conservatives view the entire Russian collusion theory—largely popularized by the Mueller investigation—as an attempt by political elites, particularly those in the Democratic Party, to undermine the legitimacy of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election victory.

From the conservative perspective, there is a deep mistrust of how the investigation was initiated, especially regarding the role of intelligence agencies and the FBI. Many argue that the evidence for Russian interference was overblown or misinterpreted and that the investigation was politically motivated, with little regard for actual wrongdoing by Trump or his campaign. Some conservatives believe the probe was a form of "soft coup," intended to delegitimize Trump's presidency and sow division within the country.

Conservatives also emphasize the lack of direct evidence that Trump or his campaign directly colluded with the Russian government. While Russian interference in the election (through hacking, disinformation, and social media manipulation) is acknowledged, conservatives often argue that this does not equate to collusion, nor does it prove that Trump had any knowledge of, or involvement in, the interference efforts.

Moreover, many conservative figures point to what they perceive as double standards in how the investigation was handled—highlighting what they see as insufficient scrutiny of Democratic Party figures, like Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier, which was used as a basis for some of the initial investigative efforts.

In sum, conservative disbelief in the Russian collusion narrative is driven by a combination of mistrust in the investigation's integrity, a belief in political bias, and an overarching view that the narrative was used to discredit Trump and distract from other political issues.