The FBI memo that initiated the Biden-era Arctic Frost investigation into President Donald Trump and hundreds of his allies over their activities related to January 6 lacked substantial evidence and clear legal justification, according to several former prosecutors and FBI agents who reviewed the newly released document and identified multiple deficiencies.The investigation, code-named Arctic Frost, was initially led by an FBI supervisor who had expressed anti-Trump sentiments and was later taken over by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The probe treated the effort by Trump’s allies to submit alternate electors to Congress during the 2020 election certification as a potential criminal conspiracy — despite similar actions in two prior instances of U.S. history not resulting in prosecution, Just the News reported.
According to the newly released materials, the FBI memo that launched the investigation in spring 2022 — around the same time Trump announced his bid for the presidency — relied heavily on interview clips from CNN as primary evidence “suggesting” Trump’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy, the outlet added.
Arctic Frost investigation was legally flawed and reflected the same politicization and investigative overreach seen in the 2016 Russia collusion probe, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said Wednesday that he believes the FBI memo authorizing the Arctic Frost investigation was legally flawed and reflected the same politicization and investigative overreach seen in the 2016 Russia collusion probe, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”
Jordan obtained the document from current FBI Director Kash Patel and told Just the News that both investigations targeted Trump based on weak evidence and partisan motives before ultimately being discredited.
“Sure looks that way. … and it looks like this was just the same old weaponization, same old political focus, focus on politics, going after your political enemies,” Jordan said during a wide-ranging interview on the Just the News, No Noise TV show.
“Same mindset that said we’re going to put the dossier in the intelligence community assessment, even though we know the dossier is garbage, we know there’s no underlying intelligence support,” he continued.
“That same mindset that was there in 2016 is the mindset we see now in 2022 with Arctic Frost, and then as it transformed into Jack Smith, special counsel, later in 2022—same mindset. So yeah, that’s what it sure looks like,” he added.
Smith has denied any wrongdoing and said he intends to present his side of the story. Jordan has invited Smith to testify before the committee, warning that he will issue a subpoena if Smith declines to appear voluntarily.
Documents released in recent weeks by Patel indicate that the Arctic Frost investigation was approved at the highest levels of the Biden administration, including by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Christopher Wray, with assistance from a lawyer in the White House.
The inquiry centered on efforts by Republican officials in several states to submit alternate slates of electors ahead of Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021.
The probe was later transferred from the FBI to Smith’s office, which issued subpoenas to hundreds of Trump allies.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Wednesday released 197 subpoenas that Smith and his Justice Department team issued “as part of the indiscriminate election case against President Trump,” identifying more than 400 Republican groups and individuals whose information was sought.
Separately, the House Judiciary Committee disclosed that more than 160 Republicans — including many closely tied to Trump — were flagged for possible investigation under the Arctic Frost operation.
The opening electronic communication (EC) that launched what became a broad investigation into Trump associates was written and approved in April 2022 under the title “Requests Opening of New Investigation – Arctic Frost.”
The probe, designated as a “Sensitive Investigative Matter” (SIM), was authorized by then–Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault — who later left the FBI after his anti-Trump social media posts came to light — along with other senior bureau officials, including Steve D’Antuono, then the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and Paul Abbate, who was serving as the FBI’s Deputy Director at the time
Jim Jordan’s “Born in the USA” Bill Could Redefine Who’s Allowed to Run the Country — Supporters Say It’s About Patriotism. Critics Say It’s About Power.In a bold new proposal that’s already shaking political circles, Rep. Jim Jordan is calling for a constitutional shift: Only those born on U.S. soil would be eligible for America’s highest offices — including Congress and the presidency. The bill has sparked fierce reactions. Some call it a necessary stand for national sovereignty. Others fear it opens the door to a more exclusionary politics. But one thing’s clear: Jordan just took the debate over identity, loyalty, and leadership to a whole new level. Could this rewrite the rules of democracy — or just the headlines?
Jim Jordan’s “Born American Act” Sparks National Debate Over Eligibility, Identity, and American Values
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a move that has electrified political discourse, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced the “Born American Act,” a bill that would dramatically tighten eligibility for the nation’s highest offices. Under the proposal, only individuals born on U.S. soil to at least one American citizen parent would qualify for the presidency, vice presidency, or seats in Congress. Naturalized citizens, even those with decades of public service, would be barred.
At a press conference on Capitol Hill, Jordan framed the measure as a safeguard of national heritage. “Our leaders should have roots that run deep into the soil of this country,” he declared. “They should understand—not just intellectually, but instinctively—what it means to live and breathe American freedom.” The congressman emphasized that the bill is not intended as exclusion, but as a measure to preserve the founding spirit and ensure leaders are grounded in the nation’s culture and constitutional traditions.
However, legal experts and civil rights advocates were quick to challenge the proposal. Constitutional scholar Professor Linda Chavez of Georgetown University noted that while Congress has authority over eligibility for its own seats, changing presidential qualifications would require a constitutional amendment—an arduous process requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states. “In its current form, the bill has no path forward for the presidency,” Chavez said. “Its political symbolism, though, will resonate.”
The backlash was immediate and forceful. Civil rights groups denounced the measure as discriminatory and anti-immigrant, while Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), himself the son of Mexican immigrants, called it “a betrayal of everything this nation stands for.” Padilla continued, “We are a country built by immigrants, defended by immigrants, and renewed by immigrants. To suggest only those born here can lead is not patriotism—it’s fear.” The American Civil Liberties Union echoed the sentiment, labeling the bill “a dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to create two classes of citizenship.”
Political analysts suggest the bill is as much performative as practical. Dr. Nathan Klein of the Brookings Institution described it as “performative nationalism.” “Jordan knows it won’t pass in this Congress,” Klein said. “The point is to frame the debate, to force Democrats to take a position that can be portrayed politically as weak on immigration or soft on American identity.”
Jordan’s rhetoric underscored this narrative. Linking national pride, citizenship, and heritage, he argued, “We’re losing sight of who we are. This bill is a reminder that being an American is more than paperwork—it’s heritage, it’s sacrifice, it’s home.”
The timing of the announcement adds complexity. The U.S. now has over 45 million foreign-born residents—the highest in history—with many naturalized citizens serving in the military, holding public office, and contributing significantly to the economy. Critics warn that the bill could deepen existing divisions in an already polarized political climate. “This is not just about eligibility,” said Maria Gomez, director of the National Coalition for Immigrant Rights. “It’s about who counts as fully American.”
Even historians weighed in. “If Alexander Hamilton were alive today,” one scholar quipped, “he’d be disqualified under this bill.” Others noted that the conversation raises enduring questions about American identity, loyalty, and belonging—topics that have persisted since the nation’s founding.
Jordan’s proposal has ignited partisan debate and intense media scrutiny. Supporters frame it as a protective measure for the nation’s constitutional heritage, while detractors see it as a symbolic message designed to energize the Republican base. Social media platforms erupted with commentary, memes, and debates dissecting both the policy and the cultural implications.
Despite the attention, the bill’s path forward appears limited. Democrats control the Senate, and any legislation is likely to face a presidential veto. Yet the symbolic impact may ripple through the 2026 election cycle, influencing campaign messaging, voter mobilization, and the framing of debates around immigration and citizenship.