Newly released documents suggest the FBI, under the Biden administration, may have cast a surveillance net over more than 160 Republicans in a sweeping investigation dubbed Arctic Frost.
The New York Post reported that this probe, detailed in files from the House Judiciary Committee, focused on alleged 2020 election interference and pulled in high-profile Trump allies alongside numerous conservative groups.
Let’s rewind to the origins: the investigation kicked off with a memo in April 2022, signed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
It targeted a wide array of conservatives, apparently aiming to uncover any efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.
Among the big names caught in this dragnet are White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, US Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro. That’s not just a handful of folks—it’s a veritable who’s who of Trump administration figures.
The scope wasn’t limited to individuals; over 90 conservative organizations, including Turning Point USA, led by Charlie Kirk, found themselves under the FBI’s microscope. If this doesn’t raise questions about selective targeting, what does?
By June 2022, internal emails show Arctic Frost investigators weren’t playing small ball—they sought to expense $16,600 for travel to conduct over 40 interviews, serve subpoenas, and execute cellular device search warrants. That’s a lot of taxpayer dollars for what some might call a political fishing expedition.
The documents, though heavily redacted across 198 pages, reveal the FBI used agents from multiple field offices, stretching from Seattle to New York, to dig into their subjects.
Some requests even included plans to “surreptitiously record” interviews, which sounds more like a spy novel than a transparent investigation.
Then there’s the eyebrow-raising email from a Seattle-based FBI agent to the Washington Field Office, alleging that Ed Corrigan, president of the Conservative Partnership Institute, “secretly controls the freedom caucus and has plans that are not good for the FBI.”
The same email claims Corrigan “hates the FBI, who he refers to as spooks,” per a redacted source.
Now, let’s pause—wild claims like being “pro-Putin” or plotting “civil war training” sound like something out of a conspiracy thriller, not a sober federal probe. Without hard evidence, this kind of rhetoric risks painting legitimate political dissent as treasonous.
Fast forward to November 2022, when the Arctic Frost investigation was handed over to Special Counsel Jack Smith after Trump announced his next presidential bid. Smith didn’t hold back, later charging Trump with mishandling national security documents and attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
Smith’s reach extended further, obtaining metadata from the phones of eight Republican senators and a GOP House member to track their communications. If that doesn’t make one wonder about privacy overreach, perhaps nothing will.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has been vocal about getting to the bottom of this, stating, “What we’ve learned is it was much broader, much more expansive, than we ever thought,” in a conversation with Fox News host Sean Hannity. That’s a polite way of saying this probe might have gone off the rails.
Jordan’s not stopping at soundbites; he’s pushing for Smith to testify before the committee in a closed-door deposition. The goal? To ask tough questions about whether this was a politically motivated operation against Trump and other conservatives.
The sheer scale of Arctic Frost, spanning multiple field offices and targeting both individuals and groups, suggests a level of scrutiny that could chill political expression. When metadata from elected officials’ phones is fair game, one has to ask where the line is drawn.