The Biden Justice Department’s Arctic Frost operation looks less like law enforcement and more like a political dragnet aimed at conservatives, with sworn disclosures showing mass subpoenas for phone and financial records. Republicans are calling out the players involved, including Special Counsel Jack Smith, former Attorney General Merrick Garland, and a judge whose orders concealed the requests for months. The revelations touch senators, conservative groups, and influential activists, sparking calls for accountability and possible impeachment inquiries. This piece lays out what emerged from whistleblower disclosures and why it matters for civil liberties and the rule of law.
The disclosure that Arctic Frost involved hundreds of subpoenas to businesses and individuals tied to Republican politics is shocking but not surprising to those watching DOJ overreach. Reports show roughly 197 subpoenas issued to 34 individuals and 163 businesses, seeking records and communications tied to more than 430 people and organizations. Conservative institutions, including the late Charlie Kirk’s organization, were swept into the net, and senators learned their phone metadata had been targeted. From a Republican perspective, this looks like weaponized justice used for political ends rather than neutral law enforcement.
In a press conference alongside other GOP senators, Grassley announced that he was making public the 197 subpoenas issued by Smith as part of the Arctic Frost probe, which became “the vehicle by which FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus.”
“I’ve obtained through legally protected whistleblower disclosures,” Grassley said. “197 subpoenas were issued by Jack Smith and his team. These subpoenas were issued to 34 individuals and 163 businesses, including financial institutions.
“The subpoena requested records and communications related to over 430 individual and organizations — all of them appear to be aimed at Republicans,” the Iowa Republican added, noting requests sent to the late conservative icon Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA and the Republican Attorneys General Association.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), one of the nine Republicans whose phone metadata was sought, said “Arctic Frost is Joe Biden’s Watergate.”
“Merrick Garland was a fundamentally corrupt attorney general. Jack Smith was a fundamentally corrupt prosecutor. This was a political enemies list from the beginning,” he told reporters, brandishing the court order that demanded AT&T hand over his cell records to the feds.
The order was signed by US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg and barred the cell carrier from letting Cruz know about the request “for at least one year,” he said.
[…]
Garland, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray all authorized the investigation, according to other files released by Grassley.
Those details change the debate from partisan sour grapes to constitutional concern. Court orders that conceal government requests for long stretches and compelling carriers to hand over metadata raise Fourth Amendment alarms, especially when the targets include political opponents. If the DOJ used a national security label or special counsel apparatus as a cover to gather politically useful information, that is a dangerous precedent. Republicans argue that accountability must follow, including scrutiny of the judges and officials who signed off on these efforts.
Senators on the receiving end of subpoenas say they were neither notified nor given a timely chance to challenge the seizures, a practice the GOP finds unacceptable. The involvement of a chief district judge who approved non-disclosure for at least a year has drawn particular ire and calls for impeachment discussions. For a party that prizes due process and constitutional guardrails, the optics are terrible: political figures and civic organizations saw their records requested without ordinary transparency. That loss of trust in institutions fuels calls for reform and oversight.
Beyond legal steps, Republicans see a political dimension: weaponized investigations chill civic participation and chill donors, activists, and organizations. When phone logs, banking details, and communications can be swept up under the guise of a probe, ordinary citizens worry that political activity will bring unwarranted scrutiny. Conservatives argue that this dynamic favors incumbent power and discourages robust opposition, which is dangerous for a healthy republic. That argument has energized lawmakers to push for legislative fixes and aggressive oversight hearings.
The response from GOP leaders has been vocal and unified: demand documents, subpoena officials, and pursue impeachment where appropriate. Grassley and other Republicans emphasize the role whistleblowers played in exposing the breadth of the operation, and they are using those disclosures to build a public record. Pressure is mounting on the DOJ chain of command and the court system to explain the legal basis for the seizures and the secrecy orders. Republicans intend to keep this in the spotlight until answers and consequences follow.
At its core, this controversy pits claims of national security necessity against basic civil liberties and political fairness. Republicans maintain that no administration should have the unchecked ability to assemble a political enemies list and then use federal investigative tools to target it. The stakes go beyond one election or one party: the rule of law and the privacy of political association are on the line. Expect continued partisan clashes and, from the GOP side, a sustained push for transparency and accountability in the wake of Arctic Frost.
