Republican Congressman Brandon Gill has filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of enabling Operation Arctic Frost and authorizing subpoenas that let the special counsel probe private communications of Republican lawmakers. The move centers on alleged nondisclosure orders and what critics call an overreach that pierced congressional protections. This article lays out the charges, the key quotes from Rep. Gill and the impeachment text, the underlying evidence that surfaced, and why House Republicans see this as a constitutional fight.
Gill’s filing points directly at the judge who signed off on the subpoenas that opened the door for the special counsel to gather lawmakers’ phone records. In members’ view, granting those orders crossed a bright line between investigation and interference with legislative duties. The complaint frames the issue as not just a judicial error but a threat to separation of powers.
“Chief Judge Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis. He is shamelessly weaponizing his power against his political opponents, including Republican members of Congress who are faithfully serving the American people within their jurisdiction,” Rep. Gill told Fox News Digital. “Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel. I am proud to once again introduce articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The articles of impeachment filed by Rep. Gill list a single charge: abuse of power. House Republicans argue that the charge fits because the judge allegedly authorized secrecy orders that reached into the legislative branch. That one-count approach is meant to be narrow and focused, tying the alleged misconduct to a clear constitutional harm.
“Ignoring his responsibility to wield the power of his office in a constitutional manner, Chief Judge Boasberg granted Special Counsel John L. Smith authorization to issue frivolous nondisclosure orders in furtherance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation project codenamed ARCTIC FROST,” the text read. “These nondisclosure orders covered Members of Congress who were acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 is at the heart of the argument: it protects members of Congress from being questioned or silenced for legislative acts and speech. Republicans say those protections were violated when gag orders told carriers not to inform affected lawmakers about subpoenas. If the orders covered legislative activity, the critics say the judge should never have allowed them.
Evidence that fed the impeachment effort came into public view when Senator Chuck Grassley released Arctic Frost documents last month. The disclosures included subpoenas for phone records tied to 10 senators and one House member, plus nondisclosure directives sent to major carriers. The records also revealed gag orders directed at Verizon and AT&T instructing them not to notify lawmakers; Verizon complied, AT&T did not.
It remains unclear what materials Judge Boasberg reviewed before signing the orders, and that ambiguity fuels the accusations. Republicans argue the judge either missed the constitutional implications or knowingly allowed an overreach. Either possibility, in Gill’s view, demands accountability through impeachment.
The political stakes are high because the case touches the justice system’s independence and Congress’s ability to do its job. For many Republicans, this is less about one judge and more about a pattern: aggressive investigative tactics, expansive secrecy, and agencies that answer to the executive branch. The impeachment filing is their mechanism to push back and force answers on the record.
Legal and political observers expect a fight over procedure and precedent. Impeachment of a judge is rare, and securing two-thirds of a Senate vote is even rarer, but House action would at minimum bring the matter into the open. Republicans are signaling they will use the congressional process to test judicial accountability and protective shields around lawmakers.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
What happens next will depend on how the House votes to advance the articles and how the Senate responds to a judicial impeachment. Republicans have framed this as a constitutional intervention, insisting that unchecked judicial decisions that touch on legislative privilege cannot stand unchallenged. The coming weeks will show whether the impeachment effort forces new scrutiny of the judicial role in politically sensitive investigations.
