Inside “Arctic Frost”: The Controversial FBI Probe That Targeted Trump’s Inner Circle

A newly released memo has raised serious questions about the origins of the Biden-era FBI investigation known as “Arctic Frost,” an operation that focused on former President Donald Trump and hundreds of his allies over their actions following the 2020 election.

According to legal experts and former FBI officials who reviewed the document, the memo that initiated the investigation lacked solid evidence and clear legal justification — sparking fresh debate over whether federal law enforcement has once again been weaponized for political purposes.

A Familiar Pattern Emerges

The FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation began in the spring of 2022, around the same time Trump announced his return to the political arena. The operation was initially supervised by an FBI official who had previously expressed anti-Trump sentiments before later being transferred to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office.

The probe focused on the efforts by Trump’s legal team and several Republican electors to submit alternate electoral certificates to Congress in the aftermath of the disputed 2020 election results — a move the FBI characterized as a potential criminal conspiracy.

However, historical records show that similar actions had occurred twice before in U.S. history — once in 1876 and again in 1960 — without criminal prosecution, leading some observers to argue that the Arctic Frost inquiry was driven by politics rather than precedent.

Weak Evidence, Strong Reactions

The most controversial revelation concerns the source material used to justify the investigation. The memo reportedly relied heavily on televised interviews aired by CNN — clips that “suggested” Trump’s involvement but offered no concrete proof.

Former prosecutors reviewing the document said that depending on media commentary as primary evidence for launching a federal investigation was “deeply irregular” and possibly violated internal FBI standards requiring verified intelligence or sworn statements.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan called the findings “disturbing” and likened the Arctic Frost probe to the now-discredited Crossfire Hurricane investigation from 2016 — the FBI’s earlier attempt to link Trump’s campaign to Russian interference.

“Same playbook, same motives,” Jordan said during an appearance on Just the News, No Noise TV. “They took weak evidence, political motivation, and turned it into a federal probe against a presidential candidate. It’s the same pattern we saw with the dossier in 2016.”

Jordan said the new information proves that the Bureau’s leadership once again prioritized politics over due process.

Approvals at the Highest Levels

Newly declassified documents show that the Arctic Frost investigation was greenlit at the top of the Biden administration. Approval came from Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Christopher Wray — reportedly with input from a senior lawyer inside the White House.

The official order opening the case — titled “Request to Open New Investigation – Arctic Frost” — was approved in April 2022. It was marked as a “Sensitive Investigative Matter,” a classification reserved for politically charged cases requiring special authorization.

The memo was signed by then–Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault, who later left the Bureau after his politically charged social media posts were exposed. It also carried the approval of senior officials Steve D’Antuono, head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and Paul Abbate, the Bureau’s Deputy Director.

An Expanding Net

Once the investigation was underway, its scope widened rapidly. Congressional documents released this month show that Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team issued nearly 200 subpoenas tied to the case, targeting over 400 Republican organizations, donors, and political operatives.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has led oversight efforts into the Justice Department, described the operation as “indiscriminate and politically motivated.”

At the same time, the House Judiciary Committee disclosed internal communications revealing that more than 160 Republican figures — many closely associated with Trump — were flagged for possible investigation under Arctic Frost.

“The pattern is unmistakable,” Grassley said. “This was not a narrow, evidence-based investigation. It was a dragnet.”

Denials and Defiance

Special Counsel Jack Smith has denied any wrongdoing, insisting his team has followed the law and intends to defend its actions publicly. Smith has been invited to testify before the House Judiciary Committee to address concerns about the investigation’s origins. Chairman Jordan has warned that if Smith refuses, a subpoena will follow.

Meanwhile, FBI Director Wray has maintained that the Bureau acts independently and “without political influence.” Yet critics remain unconvinced, arguing that the timing of the Arctic Frost probe — launched just as Trump’s campaign ramped up — suggests otherwise.

A Crisis of Trust

For many former agents, the controversy reflects a deeper institutional problem. “When the Bureau starts investigations based on news clips instead of verified intelligence, it loses its credibility,” said a retired senior FBI official who reviewed the memo. “That’s not law enforcement — that’s politics.”

The Arctic Frost memo, once hidden from public view, now stands as another flashpoint in the growing debate over the FBI’s role in domestic politics. Whether it was a legitimate national security effort or a politically motivated strike remains uncertain.

What is clear, however, is that the battle over trust in federal institutions — and the legacy of the Trump investigations — is far from over.