A newly surfaced memo has reignited a long-simmering debate over the use of federal law enforcement power in political investigations, raising serious concerns about whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI under the Biden administration crossed ethical and constitutional lines.
The document — obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–IA) — reportedly reveals that high-ranking officials within the Justice Department authorized a secret surveillance program targeting communications from multiple Republican members of Congress during a classified investigation known as Operation Arctic Frost.
The revelation has sparked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed accusations of political bias within federal agencies that are supposed to remain independent and apolitical.
Operation Arctic Frost: A Quiet Investigation With Big Implications
Operation Arctic Frost, according to internal summaries reviewed by congressional investigators, began under Special Counsel Jack Smith and was described as a probe into alleged efforts by political figures to undermine the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
However, sources familiar with the matter told Grassley’s office that the investigation lacked a clear legal basis. “It appears that federal officials were using the tools of national security for partisan purposes,” one staff member said.
Documents indicate that the FBI obtained broad surveillance authority to monitor digital and telephonic communications of several sitting lawmakers, including members who were not accused of any wrongdoing.
Among those allegedly caught in the sweep were Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R–MO), both outspoken critics of the Biden administration. While neither lawmaker has confirmed being directly targeted, Cruz’s office said he was aware of “unusual activity” related to communications during the early months of 2023.
Authorization From the Top
What makes the story particularly explosive is the chain of approval. The memo obtained by Grassley reportedly bears the signatures of Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray, suggesting the operation was not the work of overzealous subordinates, but a decision made at the highest levels of government.
Grassley, who has long served as a watchdog over federal law enforcement, described the document as “deeply troubling” and demanded answers from both agencies.
“If accurate, this memo confirms that the FBI and DOJ authorized surveillance of sitting members of Congress without legitimate cause,” Grassley said in a statement. “Such an act would represent a shocking abuse of power and a violation of the public trust.”
While the Justice Department has declined to comment on ongoing oversight inquiries, officials speaking on background claimed that all actions taken were “lawful and consistent with internal protocols.” Still, the secrecy surrounding the operation — and its apparent focus on political figures — has fueled suspicion.
Echoes of Past Controversies
The allegations immediately drew comparisons to previous politically charged investigations, such as the “Crossfire Hurricane” probe into former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, which was later found by federal inspectors to have contained multiple errors and lacked sufficient justification for surveillance.
Critics argue that the pattern is unmistakable: each time Republicans gain political traction, intelligence and law enforcement resources appear to be redirected against them.
“This isn’t an isolated incident — it’s a culture,” said former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in a Fox News interview. “When senior officials begin treating political opposition as a threat to national security, democracy itself is in danger.”
The suggestion that Biden administration officials may have authorized the monitoring of Republican lawmakers without concrete evidence has only intensified those concerns.
No Clear Predicate
Perhaps most alarming to congressional investigators is the apparent lack of a predicate — the legal or factual foundation required to justify opening such an intrusive probe.
“There was no credible evidence of wrongdoing by these senators,” one senior aide to Grassley said. “This was a fishing expedition from the start — an effort to find something, anything, that could be spun into a narrative of criminal conspiracy.”
Indeed, even Sen. Ted Cruz, who objected to portions of the 2020 electoral certification process but ultimately accepted the results, was reportedly included in the scope of the surveillance. “If the FBI was monitoring communications of lawmakers like Cruz, that’s an unprecedented intrusion into legislative independence,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a legal analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
Such surveillance would raise potential violations of the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which protects members of Congress from executive branch interference in their official duties.
White House Knowledge in Question
Another question now dominating Washington: what did President Joe Biden know about Operation Arctic Frost — and when?
While the memo obtained by Grassley does not explicitly name the president, the authorization process for surveillance of elected officials would almost certainly require White House notification, according to former intelligence officers.
“It’s inconceivable that the president was unaware,” said James Woolsey, former CIA director under President Clinton. “Any surveillance involving members of Congress would go through several layers of review, and the executive office would have to be informed.”
If true, that would place the decision squarely within the Biden administration’s responsibility — reinforcing claims that political opponents were deliberately targeted.
Calls for Oversight and Accountability
In response to the revelation, Grassley and several Republican colleagues are calling for immediate hearings and a full release of the underlying documents.
Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) said in a statement that the memo, if authenticated, proves “the weaponization of the federal government against its own citizens has gone too far.”
“This is about transparency and accountability,” Paul added. “If the DOJ can spy on members of Congress, they can spy on anyone.”
Democrats, meanwhile, have largely downplayed the claims, accusing Republicans of misrepresenting internal security procedures for political gain. Sen. Dick Durbin (D–IL) called the controversy “another round of conspiracy politics” and urged patience while internal reviews continue.
Still, even some moderate Democrats privately acknowledge the optics are bad. “If true, this is a nightmare scenario,” one Senate staffer admitted off record. “It feeds right into the perception that federal law enforcement has become a political tool.”
A Crisis of Trust
The memo’s disclosure adds another layer to a growing crisis of confidence between Americans and their government institutions. Public trust in the FBI and DOJ has plummeted in recent years, particularly among conservatives, as repeated revelations of bias and mismanagement have surfaced.
Political historian Douglas Brinkley notes that these moments, regardless of outcome, leave lasting scars.
“When the perception takes hold that justice is applied unevenly — that some people are investigated because of who they are, not what they’ve done — it’s almost impossible to restore public faith,” he said.
The Road Ahead
As Grassley’s office continues to push for transparency, the DOJ and FBI face a familiar dilemma: how to defend classified procedures without deepening the perception of secrecy and partisanship.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold closed-door briefings later this month, with subpoenas on the table if agencies refuse to cooperate.
Meanwhile, Operation Arctic Frost has been quietly shelved, according to a source familiar with the matter — though no public explanation has been given.
For critics, that silence speaks volumes.
“If there’s nothing to hide,” said Sen. Grassley, “then why is everything classified?”