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 members of Congress.
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 reported.
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.
New Breakthrough In Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Case Sends Shockwave Through DCRead More
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 reported.
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.”
A little girl raised her hand, fingers spread wide—but it was more than a wave. It was a silent plea for help, a signal only a trained observer could understand. Officer Daniel Reyes
The cereal aisle was quiet. Officer Reyes was completing a routine patrol, part of a new community outreach program. He expected an uneventful shift. But then he saw her. A young girl, about six, stood beside a tall man in a gray shirt. Nothing seemed unusual until she made direct eye contact and raised her hand. She held up five fingers, then tucked her thumb into her palm and curled her fingers over it.
Daniel recognized the signal. It’s a distress sign, widely publicized in safety campaigns for situations when someone can’t speak. Daniel’s focus sharpened. The man appeared unaware. “Sir,” Daniel called, “just a moment, please.” The man turned, a casual smile on his face. “Yes, officer?” The girl’s hand dropped. Her expression changed; her lips pressed tight, her eyes uncertain. “Is everything alright with your daughter?” Daniel asked. “Sure,” the man said lightly. “We’re just picking up groceries.”
Daniel stepped closer. “What’s her name?” The man hesitated before replying, “Emma.” But the girl shook her head. Daniel crouched. “What’s your name, sweetie?” The girl glanced at the man, hesitating. Daniel noticed her tight grip on the man’s hand and a slight flinch. “Let go of her, sir,” Daniel said, his voice firm. The man’s smile vanished. “You’re making this…” “Now,” Daniel stated. Shoppers turned to watch. The girl suddenly shouted, “Help me!” The man immediately bolted. Daniel shouted for backup and pursued him through the aisles. Displays toppled and the air filled with noise. The suspect pushed through a back exit and sprinted toward a chain-link fence. Daniel told him to stop, but the man climbed over and vanished into an alley.
Back inside, store staff had secured the girl. The manager knelt beside her. “Her name’s Lily. She says she’s been missing for two days.” Daniel told her quietly, “That signal you used—it was smart. It helped us find you.” She whispered, “He told me no one would believe me.” Daniel shook his head. “He was wrong.” Later, officers reviewed security footage from the alley. They spotted the man and something falling from his pocket: a torn piece of paper with a motel logo and a room number. Daniel alerted his team. Within hours, they were outside a rundown motel just outside of town. They kicked in the door to Room 12. The man from the store was inside, stuffing a bag with cash and documents. Officers quickly took him into custody. “You’re not going anywhere,” Daniel told him. A search uncovered items that suggested more children might be in danger, and the investigation immediately widened.
Two days later, Lily reunited with her mother. The room went silent as they embraced. It turned out the man had been on law enforcement’s radar before. But this time, they had enough evidence to act fast. Teams began searching for other children who might be connected. A week later, Daniel visited Lily at a quiet playground. She sat with a new stuffed bear from the department, her mother nearby. “You helped save more than just yourself, Lily,” he said, kneeling beside her. She gave a small smile. “He said no one would believe me.” Daniel placed a small silver pin in her hand. “This is for people who show real courage. And you earned it.