A majority of voters say they support impeaching James Boasberg, the federal judge linked to the Biden administration’s “Arctic Frost” investigation, which reportedly involved surveillance of Republican
According to a Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey, 67% of likely U.S. voters view “Arctic Frost” as a serious scandal, with 43% describing it as “very serious.”
Meanwhile, 26% of respondents said they do not consider the controversy serious, including 12% who said it is “not at all” serious, Just the News reported.
The survey comes amid a GOP-led effort to make Boasberg the first impeached judge since 2010. A total of 15 federal judges have been impeached by the House, but only eight were removed by the Senate.
Republican lawmakers in the House want to move against Boasberg after revelations that he and Judge Beryl Howell issued non-disclosure orders shielding nearly 200 subpoenas targeting Republican organizations, officials, and donors under former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by the Biden Justice Department.
Last week, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) said he is drafting articles of impeachment against Boasberg. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) also signaled his intent to pursue impeachment. It is not yet clear whether Howell will also face similar action, The National Pulse
The outlet added that Smith issued 197 subpoenas affecting more than 430 Republican groups and individuals as part of what is being described as the “Arctic Frost” probe. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called the investigation a “fishing expedition” targeting the Republican political apparatus.
Among the subpoenas were requests for telecom companies to hand over cell data from about a dozen Republican lawmakers. The disclosure orders signed by Boasberg and Howell prevented the companies from notifying the affected members.
“Radical activist judge James Boasberg continues to weaponize his judicial authority and target his political opponents,” Gill said in a statement. “Judge Boasberg facilitated 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.”
Boasberg, appointed by former President Barack Obama, serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. He has faced criticism in the past for rulings that affected Trump administration policies.
According to reports, the subpoenas targeted political vendors and financial institutions linked to Trump-aligned PACs, suggesting that Smith’s office sought to trace potential monetary connections between consulting firms, advisors, and nonprofits. The goal appeared to be establishing grounds for possible RICO charges if prosecutors had secured a conviction against Trump.
In March, Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona introduced a resolution to remove Judge Boasberg from office under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution — an approach that would bypass impeachment and the two-thirds vote required in the Senate, JustTheNews
Biggs said federal judges “serve during good behavior” and argued that Congress has the authority to remove those who fail to meet that standard.
“Most Americans believe that there is lifetime tenure for a federal judge. That unless impeached, a federal judge can serve until death,” Biggs told Just the News. “But lifetime tenure is not guaranteed, nor mentioned, in the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 permits a federal judge to serve only ‘during good behavior.’”
Boasberg had previously blocked President Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport illegal immigrants alleged to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. He ordered government planes en route to El Salvador carrying the alleged gang members to return to the United States.
Biggs said such actions exceeded judicial authority and interfered with presidential powers over foreign policy and national security.
“Maybe firing such a judge could be the answer,” Biggs said. “It would certainly be specific deterrence that would prevent that type of misconduct from such a judge. And it would provide general deterrence in that all other federal judges would think more about applying the law to the case rather than attempting to twist the law so that the judge can attack a political adversary.”
members of Congress.
CNN’s “Inside Politics,” host Dana Bash pushed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries aggressively on the ongoing government shutdown and questioned his party’s role in resolving the impasse.
Bash repeatedly challenged Jeffries’s narrative that Democrats were ready to negotiate, suggesting instead that the real paralysis lay within Democratic leadership’s own demands.
At one point, Bash pressed Jeffries: “You say you want to talk, but Speaker Johnson apparently hasn’t been given permission to meet with you — have you tried knocking on his door, walking down the hall?”
Jeffries responded that Republicans had cut off communication, arguing that informal meetings would not be fruitful without willingness on the part of congressional leadership.
But Bash would not let the exchange end there.
She pressed whether the Democratic proposal — which included extending Affordable Care Act subsidies and reversing GOP healthcare cuts — was negotiable, or whether it was a nonstarter.
Jeffries maintained that Democrats remained open to bipartisan solutions but insisted Republicans had gone “radio silent.”
The tension escalated when Bash framed a question in a blunt, almost confrontational tone: “You could probably take a few steps… have you tried that?”
At several junctures, Bash’s questioning seemed designed to corner Jeffries into accountability, undermining his attempt to shift blame entirely to Republicans.
She also raised the inconsistency of Jeffries’s position, pointing out that what he called “negotiable” may not actually be open to compromise if Democrats hold firm on all their demands.
Jeffries attempted to shift the blame back, saying Republicans had repeatedly tried to repeal the ACA and were unwilling to extend subsidies without structural changes.
Bash followed up by asking whether he would support a one-year extension of those subsidies if Republicans would allow it.
Jeffries demurred, saying he was not ready to accept that narrow fix without broader action.
Through the interview, Bash adopted a skeptical posture toward Jeffries’s narrative — something that conservatives seized on as evidence that even legacy media are now pushing back harder on Democratic talking points.
Conservatives applauded Bash’s refusal to act as a passive conduit for official messaging. One commentator called the moment a turning point in media deference.
Social media users echoed the sentiment: “Even leftist CNN’s Bash shuts down Jeffries’ shutdown whine — caught off guard with brutal challenge.”
The exchange also undercut Jeffries’s argument that Democrats were trying to negotiate in good faith.
Bash sought to expose whether those overtures were real or rhetorical cover.
From a conservative vantage, this marked a welcome line of questioning from mainstream media — one that forces Democratic leaders to defend their posture rather than allowing them to dominate the narrative unchallenged.
The interview ended without a clear breakthrough, but the dynamic was telling: more pressure on Jeffries, less room for him to stick to the standard talking points.
In the coming days, this exchange may be referenced by Republicans as evidence that Democratic leaders aren’t being upfront about what they’re willing or unwilling to give up in negotiations.