Republicans Aim To Impeach Federal Judge Over Secret Subpoenas Targeting GOP Officials
Republican lawmakers are preparing to impeach U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg after revelations that he and Judge Beryl Howell approved a series of sealed orders shielding nearly 200 subpoenas issued by former Special Counsel Jack Smith — most of them aimed squarely at Republican lawmakers, donors, and organizations.
Representative Brandon Gill (R-TX) announced Thursday night that he is drafting articles of impeachment against Boasberg, while Representative Byron Donalds (R-FL) signaled he may join the effort. According to The National Pulse, it remains unclear whether Judge Howell will face similar proceedings.
The report revealed that Smith issued 197 subpoenas under the code name “Arctic Frost”, sweeping up the communications, donor data, and internal records of more than 430 Republican individuals and groups. The scope of the operation — approved and shielded by Boasberg and Howell — has been described by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) as a “fishing expedition” into the Republican Party itself.
Among the subpoenas were demands for telecom companies to turn over cell phone data from a dozen sitting GOP lawmakers. The non-disclosure orders, signed by Boasberg and Howell, barred those companies from informing the lawmakers that they were being surveilled.
“Radical activist judge James Boasberg continues to weaponize his judicial authority and target his political opponents,” said Rep. Gill. “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, an Obama appointee and current chief judge of the D.C. District Court, has a long record of rulings viewed as hostile to President Donald J. Trump’s administration and allies.
According to reports, Smith’s team used the subpoenas to target political vendors, financial institutions, and consulting firms tied to Trump-aligned political action committees. Analysts believe prosecutors were attempting to build a RICO-style case against Trump — tracing financial links that could later serve as the foundation for sweeping conspiracy charges.
Earlier this year, Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) proposed an alternative path to remove Boasberg, citing Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal judges “serve during good behavior.” Biggs argues that this clause allows Congress to remove a judge without going through the Senate impeachment process.
“Most Americans believe that there is lifetime tenure for a federal judge… But lifetime tenure is not guaranteed, nor mentioned, in the Constitution,” Biggs told Just The News. “Article III, Section 1 permits a federal judge to serve only ‘during good behavior.’”
Boasberg has faced controversy before. In 2024, he blocked the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants suspected of belonging to the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, invoking limits on executive authority under the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg’s ruling even ordered government planes mid-flight to return the gang members to the U.S.
Biggs argued such rulings represent a dangerous breach of judicial power.
“Maybe firing such a judge could be the answer,” Biggs said. “It would certainly deter that type of misconduct from such a judge — and it would remind others to apply the law rather than twist it to attack political adversaries.”
Biggs’ resolution accuses Boasberg of “knowingly interfering with the President’s execution of foreign policy” and abusing his authority to undermine national security.
“The Constitution grants the President broad and expansive powers over foreign policy and national security,” the resolution declares. “Judge Boasberg’s actions directly infringed upon those powers by ordering the return of members of a designated foreign terrorist organization to the United States.”
With mounting evidence that federal courts have been leveraged for political ends, conservatives say Boasberg’s removal is a first step toward restoring balance and accountability to a judiciary they see as increasingly politicized and unaccountable.