In a move that is already sending shockwaves through Washington, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) has officially filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of authorizing unconstitutional surveillance of lawmakers and private citizens under the Biden administration’s controversial “Operation Arctic Frost.”
The explosive filing, submitted Monday afternoon, marks one of the most aggressive efforts yet by House Republicans to confront what they call the “weaponization of the judiciary” against conservatives. It also represents a dramatic escalation in the widening fallout from Arctic Frost — a secretive federal program that has dominated headlines for weeks since revelations surfaced that the Department of Justice allegedly spied on Republican members of Congress and political donors.
The Case Against Boasberg
At the center of the storm is Chief Judge James Boasberg, a longtime figure within the federal judiciary and former head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). According to documents obtained by House investigators, Boasberg was the judge who signed off on multiple subpoenas and surveillance warrants allowing Special Counsel Jack Smith and the FBI to gather communications and metadata from sitting members of Congress — all without their knowledge.
“Chief Judge Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis,” Rep. Gill told Fox News Digital in a statement announcing the impeachment effort. “He has shamelessly weaponized his power against political opponents, including Republican members of Congress who were faithfully serving the American people within their jurisdiction.”
Gill, a first-term Republican from Texas and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, described Boasberg’s actions as “a breathtaking abuse of authority.”
“Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal,” Gill added. “He equipped the Biden Department of Justice 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 to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The single article of impeachment, obtained by Fox News, charges Boasberg with one count of “abuse of power.” The text alleges that the judge knowingly approved surveillance measures that violated constitutional protections afforded to legislators under Article I, Section 6 — the clause that guarantees members of Congress immunity for actions taken in the course of their legislative duties.
Inside “Operation Arctic Frost”
First uncovered by whistleblower disclosures and later confirmed by congressional investigators, Operation Arctic Frost was a covert surveillance initiative launched under the Biden Justice Department. Officially, it was described as a “national security operation” targeting foreign influence and cyber espionage. But internal memos and subpoena records suggest it expanded far beyond its stated purpose.
Investigators now believe Arctic Frost authorized the collection of private emails, encrypted messages, and call data from at least eight Republican lawmakers, several congressional staffers, and a handful of conservative political consultants.
The operation reportedly began in late 2023 — three days after former President Donald Trump announced his reelection campaign — and continued well into 2024. Critics have compared it to previous political spying scandals such as Watergate and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which probed Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Boasberg’s role, as outlined in the impeachment resolution, was pivotal. As the presiding judge over the requests from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office, he allegedly “granted frivolous nondisclosure orders” that blocked service providers from informing targeted individuals their data was being accessed.
“These nondisclosure orders covered Members of Congress who were acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges,” the impeachment text reads. “By authorizing and concealing these actions, Chief Judge Boasberg ignored his constitutional duty to uphold the separation of powers and protect the legislative branch from executive overreach.”
Republican Lawmakers Rally Behind Gill
Following the announcement, a growing number of House Republicans voiced support for Gill’s impeachment motion.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) called Boasberg’s conduct “the most blatant judicial overstep in modern times,” while Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) said she would co-sponsor the resolution. “This isn’t about politics — it’s about the Constitution,” Luna said in a statement. “No judge should be allowed to secretly spy on elected officials under the guise of national security.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declined to comment directly on whether he would schedule a floor vote, but sources close to GOP leadership indicated that discussions are already underway within the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees.
Privately, some Republicans see the impeachment as both a matter of accountability and a political necessity. “You can’t talk about draining the swamp if you ignore corruption in black robes,” one senior aide told reporters.
Democrats Cry Foul
Democrats, however, have dismissed the impeachment effort as a partisan stunt designed to deflect from ongoing investigations into Trump’s legal battles.
“This is a reckless and dangerous abuse of congressional power,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. “Judge Boasberg is a respected jurist who followed the law and authorized routine subpoenas based on credible evidence. This impeachment effort is pure political theater.”
Legal analysts have echoed similar concerns, noting that impeachment of a sitting federal judge is exceedingly rare. Under Article II of the Constitution, a judge may only be removed for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” In modern history, only 15 federal judges have been impeached, and just eight were convicted and removed.
“While the optics are serious, proving abuse of power will be a steep hill to climb,” said Dr. Karen Holloway, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. “Unless clear evidence emerges that Judge Boasberg knowingly violated constitutional protections, this is more likely to be a symbolic measure than a successful prosecution.”
White House Responds
The White House reacted swiftly to the impeachment filing, defending both the Justice Department and Judge Boasberg.
“This administration respects the independence of the judiciary and categorically rejects these baseless political attacks,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during Tuesday’s briefing. “Operation Arctic Frost was a lawful, targeted counterintelligence program designed to protect national security — not a political spying operation.”
Jean-Pierre declined to answer whether President Biden had been briefed on the Arctic Frost surveillance authorizations.
What Comes Next
Under House rules, the impeachment resolution will now be referred to the Judiciary Committee, which will determine whether to advance it for a full House vote. Should it pass the House, it would then move to the Senate, where a two-thirds majority would be required for conviction — an outcome considered unlikely given the chamber’s narrow Democratic control.
Still, Republicans argue that even introducing the articles serves a larger purpose: putting the judiciary and executive branch on notice that overreach will not go unchallenged.
“Whether or not the Senate convicts him, the message is clear,” Rep. Gill said. “Judges are not above the law, and the American people deserve transparency about how their government uses its power.”
The Broader Implications
The impeachment fight over Judge Boasberg is likely to intensify partisan divisions already deepened by the Arctic Frost scandal. For conservatives, it represents a long-overdue reckoning with what they see as systemic bias in federal institutions. For Democrats, it’s another attempt to weaponize oversight to shield Trump and undermine the courts.
Either way, the episode underscores a larger reality: America’s institutions — from the judiciary to the intelligence community — are once again at the center of a fierce political battle over who holds power, and how far that power can go.