Washington Bureau Report
A new political firestorm is unfolding in Washington amid revelations that former President Donald Trump’s government-issued phone was reportedly seized as part of Operation Arctic Frost, a sweeping surveillance program authorized during the Biden administration.
The disclosure has raised alarm across the political spectrum — not only because of its implications for privacy and executive privilege but also because it suggests that the Justice Department may have extended its reach well beyond traditional investigative boundaries.
The controversy centers on Special Counsel Jack Smith, whose probe initially focused on election-related matters but has since evolved into what critics are calling an unprecedented political surveillance campaign targeting Trump and his allies.
From Election Inquiry to Surveillance Operation
When Operation Arctic Frost was first launched in early 2023, the Justice Department described it as a limited effort to investigate alleged interference surrounding the 2020 presidential election. However, newly released documents and congressional testimony suggest that its scope rapidly expanded to include warrants, data seizures, and electronic monitoring of individuals with ties to conservative political circles.
According to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), one of the few lawmakers with access to classified briefings on the matter, the operation quickly crossed ethical and constitutional lines.
“What began as a targeted investigation has turned into an overreaching surveillance dragnet,” Grassley said in a statement. “We’re talking about a program that gathered communications data from elected officials, journalists, and even former members of the executive branch. That’s not oversight — that’s abuse.”
Sources familiar with the Senate investigation told The Federal Ledger that a classified subpoena signed by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — the same judge now facing impeachment articles in Congress — authorized access to data belonging to several Republican lawmakers and former administration officials.
Among those targets, according to internal Justice Department memos, was the government-issued mobile device used by Donald Trump during his presidency.
Attorney General Pam Bondi Confirms Seizure
The most shocking development came Monday, when Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that the Biden administration had indeed handed over Trump’s official phone to the Special Counsel’s office in late 2023.
“This was not only irregular — it was unconstitutional,” Bondi said during a press briefing. “A former president’s communications are protected under executive privilege. The seizure of that phone without clear judicial authorization or congressional notification represents a violation of both precedent and propriety.”
Bondi added that her office is preparing a legal response and will seek the release of documentation explaining how the device was obtained and what data was accessed.
The Justice Department, in a brief statement, said the seizure was conducted “in accordance with established national security procedures” and declined to comment further on an “ongoing investigation.”
Constitutional Questions Mount
Legal experts say the revelation opens a Pandora’s box of constitutional concerns.
Dr. Angela Watkins, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia University, said that while law enforcement has some leeway in pursuing investigations, the surveillance of a former president’s communications represents “uncharted territory.”
“Even during Watergate, the line between law enforcement and political retaliation was fiercely debated,” Watkins said. “But the idea of one administration obtaining direct access to the communications of its predecessor is something that strikes at the heart of executive independence.”
Historically, presidential communications have been treated with extreme caution under the Presidential Records Act and related statutes. While those laws allow for the preservation of official materials, they also require judicial or congressional approval before access can be granted for investigative purposes.
If the Justice Department bypassed those procedures, analysts warn, the operation could represent one of the most significant breaches of executive privilege in modern history.
Bipartisan Shock — But Divided Reaction
While most Republican lawmakers expressed outrage over the seizure, some Democrats urged caution, emphasizing that details of the operation remain classified and that the Justice Department should be allowed to complete its work.
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said accusations of political targeting were premature.
“No one is above the law,” Goldman said. “If evidence exists that sensitive communications were used inappropriately or violated national security standards, it’s the Justice Department’s duty to investigate — regardless of who’s involved.”
Republicans, however, are calling for immediate hearings. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) announced plans to subpoena documents related to Arctic Frost as early as next week.
“This isn’t about national security — this is about political control,” Comer said in a Fox News interview. “The Biden administration weaponized federal power to spy on its predecessor. That’s something we associate with authoritarian regimes, not the United States of America.”
Operation ‘Arctic Frost’: What We Know
Sources close to the investigation describe Arctic Frost as a multi-agency data collection program authorized under the Department of Justice and coordinated with the FBI and NSA.
According to leaked memos reviewed by The Federal Ledger, the operation’s stated purpose was to trace digital communications “linked to ongoing election-related threats.” However, internal reports indicate that its targets expanded to include members of Congress, political donors, journalists, and think tanks perceived as sympathetic to Trump’s policies.
The operation allegedly relied on nondisclosure orders — secret court directives preventing private companies from revealing that federal agencies had requested access to data.
That aspect of Arctic Frost is now the subject of a separate congressional investigation, after several telecommunications companies acknowledged receiving sealed orders from the DOJ between 2023 and 2024.
Impeachment Moves and Legal Fallout
The Arctic Frost revelations have already set off a chain reaction in Washington. On Monday, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) introduced articles of impeachment against Judge James Boasberg, who authorized the subpoenas that enabled the surveillance effort.
Gill accused Boasberg of “abuse of power” and “betrayal of the public trust,” arguing that his actions allowed the Biden administration to engage in “domestic political espionage.”
Meanwhile, several former Justice Department officials have reportedly been subpoenaed by congressional investigators seeking to determine how far up the authorization chain the decisions went.
The Broader Political Impact
The Arctic Frost scandal comes amid an already volatile political climate, with the government partially shut down over disputes about spending and surveillance reform. For many observers, the timing is no coincidence.
“The government shutdown has exposed deep institutional mistrust,” said Mark Feldman, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. “And now we have revelations that the Justice Department may have engaged in domestic spying. The optics are devastating — not just for the administration, but for the public’s faith in democratic accountability.”
Trump’s legal team has not commented on whether the seized phone contained classified or personal data, but sources close to the former president said they are considering legal action to compel its return.
For now, the controversy shows no sign of slowing. Lawmakers are preparing for a new round of hearings that could reveal even more about the inner workings of Arctic Frost — and whether the U.S. government’s surveillance powers have crossed a line that can’t be easily redrawn.
“This is bigger than Trump or Biden,” Grassley said. “It’s about whether the intelligence powers of this country are being used to protect liberty — or to destroy it.”
A high-ranking Los Angeles politician is facing a growing scandal that could have significant implications for his career and the city’s political landscape. Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price has been hit with additional charges of embezzling public funds and engaging in corrupt practices designed to benefit his family financially.The charges, filed by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, shed light on a troubling pattern of self-dealing that has plagued the career of the Ninth District representative, who has been in office since 2013.Price, a longtime Democratic politician, is accused of using his position to secure multimillion-dollar contracts for entities associated with his wife, Delbra Pettice Richardson, and for directing public funds to various projects that directly benefited his personal financial interests.
The accusations stem from an investigation that revealed Price’s wife’s business, Del Richardson & Associates, was paid over $800,000 by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and LA Metro, while Price was simultaneously voting to approve significant contracts for these agencies.The Los Angeles District Attorney, Nathan Hochman, was clear in his condemnation of Price’s actions. “Embezzling public funds and awarding contracts for your own financial gain is the antithesis of public service,” Hochman remarked.“Our communities expect and deserve better from their public officials.” Hochman’s statement underscores the seriousness of the charges, especially given that Price is an elected official entrusted with making decisions that impact millions of Los Angeles residents.Price, who had previously pleaded not guilty to five counts of embezzlement filed in 2023, is now facing two additional public corruption charges that were brought after further investigation revealed troubling financial dealings. These charges are the latest in a series of legal battles that have rocked Price’s career and reputation.
The initial charges, filed in 2023, included five felony counts of embezzlement, three counts of perjury, and two counts of conflict of interest. These charges stemmed from Price’s involvement with Del Richardson & Associates, a company entirely owned by his wife.Between 2019 and 2021, Price’s wife received more than $150,000 in payments from developers before Price voted to approve their projects, raising serious questions about whether Price was using his political influence for personal gain.In addition to these payments, Price is accused of embezzling approximately $33,800 in city funds to pay for medical benefits for Richardson, who was falsely claimed to be his wife during a period when he was still legally married to Lynn Suzette Price.The misuse of public funds for personal expenses further compounds the severity of the charges against him.However, the most damaging allegations involve the payments made to Del Richardson & Associates by HACLA and LA Metro. Between October 2019 and June 2020, HACLA reportedly paid Price’s wife’s business more than $600,000.During that period, Price voted to approve a $35 million federal grant and supported a $252 million state grant application for HACLA, despite his staff raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.Similarly, between October 2020 and October 2021, LA Metro paid Del Richardson & Associates around $219,500. During this time, Price introduced and voted in favor of a $30 million allocation for LA Metro, again after his staff flagged the conflict of interest.Prosecutors allege that Price’s actions were part of a broader scheme to funnel public funds into projects and businesses connected to him and his family, potentially violating numerous laws and ethical standards.
The charges against Price have drawn widespread attention, as they highlight a disturbing pattern of corruption and self-dealing among public officials.Price has served as the Los Angeles City Councilmember for the Ninth District since 2013, a position that grants him significant influence over city projects and budgets.As a member of the City Council, Price is prohibited from having a financial interest in any project that comes before the body. This conflict of interest rule is designed to ensure that elected officials do not use their positions for personal gain, and the allegations against Price suggest that he may have flagrantly violated this fundamental ethical principle.Beyond his personal financial dealings, Price is also accused of using his influence to steer city resources toward projects with financial ties to himself and his family.For instance, Price is accused of directing more than $2 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds and city lease agreements to a nonprofit organization called Home at Last.This organization was a tenant of the Urban Healthcare Project, where Price served as CEO at the time. The funds, which were meant to support homelessness initiatives, were allegedly misused to benefit Price’s business interests.These actions, if proven true, represent a gross abuse of power and a betrayal of the public trust.The investigation into Price’s activities has been ongoing for months, and the District Attorney’s Office has emphasized its commitment to holding public officials accountable for any unlawful conduct.
The new charges come after a comprehensive investigation by the Public Integrity Division, which uncovered the financial transactions between Price’s wife’s business and key city agencies. The DA’s office has made it clear that corruption at any level of government will not be tolerated in Los Angeles County.In addition to the legal challenges facing Price, the scandal has sparked a wider conversation about corruption and ethical misconduct within the Democratic Party.Price’s case is just one example of the growing number of Democrats embroiled in legal battles over corruption allegations. Across the country, several prominent Democratic lawmakers are facing criminal charges or investigations related to fraud, embezzlement, and other forms of corruption.For example, grand juries in Virginia and Maryland are currently considering criminal indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Senator Adam Schiff.Both politicians are accused of falsifying property records in order to secure preferential loan conditions. These allegations, which are being investigated by Special Attorney Ed Martin, have raised serious concerns about the integrity of high-ranking Democratic officials.If convicted, James and Schiff could face lengthy prison sentences for mortgage fraud, bank fraud, and wire fraud.The ongoing investigations into Price and other high-profile Democrats have put the party’s leadership under increased scrutiny. Many observers are questioning the effectiveness of the party’s efforts to address corruption within its ranks, especially given the high-profile nature of the charges.As the legal cases against Price and others unfold, it remains to be seen how the Democratic Party will respond to the growing scandal and what consequences these allegations will have for the political careers of those involved.
For now, Curren Price faces a challenging road ahead as he defends himself against serious charges of corruption and embezzlement. The outcome of his case could have lasting implications not only for his political future but also for the credibility of the Los Angeles City Council and the broader Democratic Party.The growing number of corruption cases involving public officials has underscored the need for greater accountability and transparency in government, particularly at the local and state levels.In the coming months, as the legal process plays out, Price and other embattled Democrats will likely continue to face intense public and political pressure.Whether these scandals will lead to significant reforms within the party or tarnish the reputation of its leaders remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the public is demanding greater accountability from those entrusted with the power to govern and make decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans.