Fact check: Which Republicans have accused the Biden administration of phone tapping?

1. Dramatic Allegations: Senators Say FBI Targeted Conservative Groups — What They Claimed

Senator Chuck Grassley asserted that an FBI probe named Arctic Frost targeted 92 conservative groups and figures, including Turning Point USA and several GOP organizations, and suggested the probe served as a pretext to build cases tied to former President Trump; Senator Ron Johnson echoed concerns about alleged FBI weaponization and the operation’s sweep ^{[1] [2] [3]}. These public statements framed the activity as improper surveillance of political opponents. The sources date to mid- to late-September and early October 2025, situating the allegations within a recent timeline of congressional scrutiny and media attention ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Close Read: The Record Shows Targeting Claims, Not Phone Tapping Claims

A careful reading of the supplied documents finds repeated references to investigations and targeting but no explicit accusation of phone tapping, wiretaps, or cellular interception in the quoted analyses. Senator Grassley’s statement that senators were “spied on” appears in the dataset, yet the accompanying text does not explicitly allege telephone surveillance or intercepts; instead, it points to broad surveillance language and comparisons to Watergate ^[4]. Multiple pieces explicitly state they do not mention phone tapping, underscoring the gap between general surveillance accusations and a concrete claim of phone intercepts ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Arctic Frost: What the Republican Critics Say and How They Frame It

Republican critics framed Arctic Frost as an investigation that started narrowly and then expanded to include a sweeping roster of conservative-aligned organizations and elected officials, which supporters of the claim describe as evidence of politicized law enforcement ^[2]. The critics use charged language—weaponization, worse than Watergate—to signal both legal and political harm. The sources presenting these assertions are dated September 17–19, 2025, and were circulated across conservative and mainstream outlets, suggesting coordinated Republican messaging and rapid uptake in partisan media ecosystems ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. What the Sources Do Not Show: Missing Evidence of Tapping or Technical Intercepts

None of the provided materials include documentation such as FISA applications, court orders, intercept affidavits, or technical forensic reports that would substantiate a claim of phone tapping. The dataset’s secondary sources explicitly remark on the absence of phone-tap allegations in their texts, and other items focus on unrelated telecom threats or spyware incidents abroad ^{[5] [6] [7] [8] [9]}. This absence matters because wiretap claims would typically entail specific legal filings or public disclosures; their omission leaves the tapping allegation unsupported in the reviewed corpus ^{[4] [7]}.

5. Alternative Explanations and Motives: Political Messaging vs. Legal Findings

The materials permit two interpretive lines: one that Republican leaders are uncovering improper law-enforcement overreach and another that they are using charged surveillance language to mobilize political bases without yet producing legal proof of intercepts. Sources in the set show Republicans emphasizing breadth and impact, while other records note the lack of evidence for intercep­­ts; this pattern is consistent with a political-response dynamic where allegations outrun public, verifiable documentation ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}.

6. Corroboration Gaps: What Independent Reporting and Records Would Need to Show

To substantiate a phone-tapping claim, independent reporting would need to produce specific documentary evidence—court filings, declassified orders, or forensic telecom records—tying authorized or unauthorized wiretaps to the Biden administration or its agencies. The current dataset lacks any such corroboration and includes unrelated telecom-security reporting about swatting networks and overseas spyware that do not implicate the U.S. administration in phone intercepts ^{[8] [9] [7]}. The distinction between broad investigative targeting and technical phone interception is central to assessing the validity of the Republican charges.

7. Bottom Line: Who Made the Charge and What the Record Actually Supports

The reviewed sources identify Senator Chuck Grassley and Senator Ron Johnson as prominent Republicans alleging that the Biden-era FBI conducted expansive investigative sweeps against conservatives, but the records do not substantiate a specific accusation that the administration engaged in phone tapping. The evidence in hand supports claims of alleged targeting and political controversy over the Arctic Frost probe; it does not, however, provide the legal or technical documentation necessary to confirm wiretapping allegations ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

8. Recommended Next Steps for Verifying the Tapping Question

Verifiers should seek contemporaneous legal records, classified-order declassifications, or telecom-forensic analyses, and interview oversight officials and independent journalists who have examined Arctic Frost. Ask whether any FISA or Title III orders exist and whether oversight bodies (e.g., DOJ OIG, congressional committees) have reported findings. The current corpus underscores a critical gap between political accusation and demonstrable intercept evidence, and resolving that gap requires documentary proof beyond the public statements cited here ^{[4] [7]}.