Desk Notes | Did You Hear About Arctic Frost?

Arctic Frost, the permission slip for violence, how Sydney Sweeney beat the struggle session, and aliens

You guys! It’s the weekend and it’s fall and I want to do fall things. I have already told my husband it’s time to clean up the firepit and spend our evenings around the pit with a cocktail or a hot drink. Also, the fair is in town this weekend so there may also be a corn dog in my future.

But I also need to up date you on the gilding of the White House. Because, the gold continues to spread!

I have made jokes about Trump’s gold details spreading outside the Oval Office and potentially taking over the entire White House. It has escaped the White House! First it was the wall of presidents but now we have signage and more molding.

The cherry on top? It has also lead to some glorious memes and ridiculous “think” pieces.

I’ll take the sliders and half size taco salad.

So what do you think is going to get the gold treatment next?

In Desk Notes

Feature:

Operation Arctic Frost: The FBI Investigation Nobody’s Talking About - How the FBI swept up 160+ Republican organizations, seized Trump and Pence’s phones before Trump was even a suspect, collected senators’ metadata, and subpoenaed donor lists while the media looked the other way.

Also Featuring:

• Jay Jones and the Permission Slip for Violence: The Virginia AG who texted about putting “two bullets to the head” of a GOP colleague, why 60% of women voters backed him anyway, and how fear has become the ultimate moral Get Out of Jail Free card.

• What I’m Consuming: Check out the debate on feminism, it’s not what you think.

• The Sydney Sweeney Interview: A Masterclass in Not Taking the Bait: An interviewer trying to set Sweeney up to apologize for a jeans ad the internet called Nazi propaganda. Her non-response? Perfection.

• Aliens? Really?: Why a Manhattan-sized object near the sun is the last thing on my priority list when we can’t even keep the government functional. (Though I do love the Alien franchise—it’s complicated.)

Ok let’s get into it!

---

From the Archives

---

Did You Hear About Operation Arctic Frost?

You thought the fight was over in 2020. But while the cameras moved on, while legacy media obsessed over every Trump tweet and every Republican “threat to democracy,” something else was happening. Quietly. Systematically. Behind closed doors.

The FBI was sweeping up phone records and seizing devices. Collecting donor lists, bank records, and payroll information. Not just from alleged election conspirators, but from nearly 160 Republican organizations, activists, and even sitting senators. For many of these people and groups, this wasn’t about investigating a crime. This was about putting an entire political network under suspicion.

Meet Operation Arctic Frost.

What Arctic Frost Actually Was

On April 13, 2022, the FBI launched what would become one of the most sweeping investigations into Republican political activity in modern history. Officially, it was framed as an inquiry into the 2020 election alternate electors. But whistleblower documents released by Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson tell a very different story.

Within weeks of opening, Arctic Frost metastasized. The FBI acquired the government cell phones of Donald Trump and Mike Pence before Trump was even formally a subject of the investigation. They fanned out across the country conducting over 40 interviews in June 2022 alone, spending more than $16,000 in taxpayer money to build their case.

They didn’t stop with campaign officials or alternate electors. They went after Republican nonprofits like Turning Point USA and the Conservative Partnership Institute. They subpoenaed bank records from Bank of America. They pulled payroll data from ADP. They even demanded communications between Republican consulting firms and media outlets like CBS, Fox News, and Sinclair. That’s right—they went after source communications.

And get this: They obtained phone metadata from eight senators and one House member. A hardline to Ted Cruz’s office. Location data. Call duration. Who they were calling during January 4-7, 2021.

AT&T pushed back and told Jack Smith to pound sand. Verizon rolled over and complied.

The Man Behind the Curtain

Here’s what makes this even more disturbing. The investigation was driven by Timothy Thibault, an Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the FBI’s Washington Field Office—a guy with documented anti-Trump bias. According to whistleblower documents, Thibault violated FBI protocol by essentially self-approving his own investigation, in direct violation of the “No Self-Approval Rule” in the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide.

Thibault handpicked his team. He drafted the opening documents himself. He pushed it through. And when he finally got approval? He emailed the prosecutor: “I’m looking forward to seeing this case progress. The case will be prioritized over all others in the Branch. Thank you for your patience, it frankly took too long for us to open this.”

Frankly took too long to open an investigation into the former president and his entire political network.

And who signed off on this? Attorney General Merrick Garland. Deputy AG Lisa Monaco. FBI Director Christopher Wray. All three put their signatures on the authorization in April 2022. Then, in November 2022, they handed it all over to Jack Smith, who used it as the foundation for his January 6th prosecution of Trump.

Why You Haven’t Heard About This

As of late October, there was literally nothing about Arctic Frost on ABC, CBS, NBC, Univision, or Telemundo’s national newscasts. Nothing on the morning shows. The only coverage some outlets bothered with? Online fact-checking of Republican senators who said their phones were “tapped”—rushing to clarify that no, technically it was just metadata collection, not actual wiretapping. As if that makes it better.

Compare this to Russia Gate. Three years of endless coverage about Trump-Russia collusion that ultimately went nowhere. CNN ran with it nonstop. MSNBC made it their identity. Every anonymous source, every leaked memo, every baseless speculation got wall-to-wall coverage.

But an actual, documented investigation where the FBI seized Trump’s phone before he was a suspect? Where they collected metadata on sitting senators? Where they subpoenaed donor lists and bank records from 160+ Republican organizations?

Ignored.

If the roles were reversed, if a Trump FBI had collected Nancy Pelosi’s phone records, if they’d subpoenaed ActBlue’s donor data, we’d never hear the end of it. This would be the only story in America. There would be primetime specials. Documentary series. Congressional hearings that CNN would carry live every single day.

But since it was done to Republicans? The media memory-holed it.

The Right’s Own Distraction

And look, I’m not letting our side off the hook either. While this bombshell was dropping, what was the right-wing internet losing its mind over? Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes drama. Endless infighting. Virtually nothing about the FBI systematically investigating the entire Republican political infrastructure? Come on!

This is the kind of story that should unite the right. FBI overreach. Surveillance of political speech and association. Core civil liberties issues. But people are exhausted. We’ve been through Russia Gate, impeachment theater, January 6th committee melodrama. It all starts to sound like noise after a while. Even I initially missed it and I am online ALL THE TIME!

And that’s exactly what they’re counting on. That you’ll be too tired, too cynical, too distracted to care.

Why This Actually Matters

This isn’t just about Trump. This isn’t even just about 2020. This is about precedent.

If the FBI can open a full-field criminal investigation into an entire political movement based on flimsy predication, if they can surveil donors and activists and journalists’ sources with impunity, if they can do all of this with the attorney general’s signature and face zero accountability—what’s to stop them from doing it again?

What’s to stop the next Democratic administration from deciding that opposition to their climate agenda is a conspiracy? That skepticism of ESG mandates is coordinated fraud? That questioning vaccine policy is domestic terrorism?

They collected metadata. They tracked locations. They built maps of who was talking to whom, who was funding what, who was organizing where. All of it perfectly legal under current surveillance authorities. All of it approved at the highest levels.

The donors who gave $50 to Turning Point USA had no idea the FBI would subpoena their bank records. The activists who attended a rally had no idea their location data would be analyzed. The journalists who talked to Republican consultants had no idea their source communications would be swept up.

And they’ll do it again. Because they can. Because they already did. Because there are no guardrails.

What Happens Now

Here’s what we still don’t know: Did they access actual content of communications, or just metadata? How many organizations were ultimately caught up in this dragnet—reports say 160+, but are there more? What role did the Biden White House play? Who added Trump as a formal subject to the investigation, and when?

Director Kash Patel is working with Grassley and Johnson to release more documents. He’s already fired agents involved in Arctic Frost and shut down the Washington Field Office unit that ran it. Good. But that’s not enough.

We need a new Church Committee. We need sworn testimony from everyone involved. We need to see the unredacted files. We need to know precisely how deep this went and who authorized every step.

And we need consequences. Real ones. Not just early retirement with full pensions. People who weaponized federal law enforcement against American citizens for their political beliefs need to face justice.

The American people deserve better than an FBI that treats half the country like enemy combatants. We deserve better than an attorney general who signs off on fishing expeditions into political organizations. We deserve better than a media that ignores the biggest law enforcement scandal of the Biden presidency because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as Grassley said. So let’s get all of it out in the open. Every document. Every signature. Every decision.

Because if we don’t? If we let this slide because we’re tired, because we’re distracted, because it feels like just more noise?

Then they’ll do it again. Because they’ve already done it once and next time, they’ll be even bolder.

Quote

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

-C.S. Lewis

The Politics of Fear: How the Left’s “Good Women” Excuse Bad Behavior

Let’s discuss Jay Jones. The new Democrat Virginia AG, who back in 2022 decided the best way to process his political frustrations was to text a Republican colleague about wanting to put “two bullets to the head” of then-House Speaker Todd Gilbert. Oh, and he also shared some lovely thoughts about how Gilbert’s children should die in their mother’s arms.

The scandal broke weeks after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was gunned down at a college campus in Utah, sparking an online response of progressives celebrating. Not in whispers, but in viral posts racking up millions of views. Brandy Bryant, a trans comedian with 21,000 X followers, quipped “Breaking: Charlie Kirk loses gun debate,” pulling in 12 million views. Another user’s clip of someone laughing about the shooting got nearly a million. The message was clear enough: He had it coming.

And here’s the thing about Jones—the media coverage was, to put it mildly, gentle. “Regrettable,” they said. “Embarrassing,” others noted. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger calling it a “poor choice” and never asked Jones to drop out. I don’t think I have to mention to you the response if a conservative had done the same.

Jones apologized. Multiple times, after initially avoiding the issue. But, this isn’t about one guy’s violent fantasies. It’s about the moral ecosystem that makes those fantasies feel permissible in the first place.

The Permission Slip

And still 60% of the women voted for Jay Jones and now comprise a majority of the Democratic electorate, with data from Pew Research and Gallup showing that over half of Democratic identifiers or leaners are women. Women also are significantly more likely than men to identify as Democrats.

They’re not just voters—they’re the party’s moral center, its online army, its activist core. And increasingly, that influence comes with an unspoken permission slip: If we’re protecting democracy, if we’re defending women’s rights, if we’re stopping fascism... then harshness and even violence isn’t just acceptable. It’s righteous.

Look at the polling. Multiple reputable surveys since 2020 show a small but non-trivial minority of Americans, around 18% in PRRI’s 2021 study, say political violence can be justified in some cases. Among Democrats, that number sits around 8-10%. Research from Kalmoe and Mason puts support for partisan violence between 5-15%, depending on the scenario.

Now here’s the inference nobody wants to talk about but everyone knows is true: Because Democrats are majority female, a substantial share of those left-leaning respondents who express tolerance for violence are women. Not saying they’d commit it themselves—most wouldn’t. But they’ll rationalize it. Defend it. Frame it as self-defense against an existential threat.

This isn’t about cruelty. It’s about fear weaponized as moral authority. When you genuinely believe the other side wants to erase your rights, ban your healthcare, install a theocracy—well, suddenly “two bullets to the head” doesn’t sound quite so shocking. It sounds like desperation. And desperation, in the right rhetorical packaging, can pass for courage.

The Media’s Complicity

The mainstream press framed Jones’s comments as a lapse in judgment, not a disqualifying character reveal. Meanwhile, any Republican who slips up gets the full “threat to democracy” treatment.

A September 2025 YouGov poll found that 63% of Americans believe harsh political rhetoric is fueling violence. Fair enough. But notice who gets to define “harsh.” Progressive rhetoric cloaked in “safety” and “protection” language gets a pass, even when it’s dripping with hostility. The same emotional vocabulary that justifies deplatforming and censorship now softens violence. “We’re just defending ourselves” has become the ultimate moral Get Out of Jail Free card.

Jones stayed in the race. Spanberger didn’t pull her endorsement. President Trump called him a “radical left lunatic,” which, let’s be honest, wasn’t wrong, but Democratic leadership mostly circled the wagons. The message? We’ll condemn this in theory, but we’re not actually going to do anything about it.

The Bigger Picture

The pre-2023 benchmarks told us this was coming. PRRI’s 2021 survey showed 18% overall willing to say violence might be necessary. Democracy Fund’s 2020 research flagged “small but concerning minorities.” Stanford-MIT experts warned about normalization risk. We saw the trendlines. And they were ignored.

Post-Charlie Kirk, the 2025 YouGov data shows 87% of Americans call political violence a problem, but younger and very-liberal respondents are still more likely to say it can sometimes be justified. That’s the crack in the consensus. And when you combine even a small tolerant minority with cultural power, norms shift fast.

Here’s my concern, it’s not the size of the minority that’s dangerous. It’s who backs them. When that minority has institutional cover, media protection, and moral authority wrapped in the language of fear and safety, that’s when things metastasize.

Bottom Line

Violence doesn’t always start with a fist. Sometimes it starts with a feeling. Misplaced fear, particularly among those convinced they’re protecting others, now functions as a moral loophole. The left’s female-driven moral authority can either discipline or excuse aggression. Right now? It’s excusing it.

Jay Jones fantasized about shooting a Republican colleague in the head, and his party shrugged. Charlie Kirk got gunned down, and parts of the online left threw a party. And we’re supposed to pretend these aren’t connected.

So here’s my question for you: What happens when empathy becomes the shield for cruelty? When protection becomes permission? When the politics of fear replaces the politics of persuasion?

Because that’s the conversation the Left is not willing to address. And until we do, expect more Jay Joneses. Expect more excuses. Expect the permission structure to keep expanding until someone finally has the guts to say: This isn’t defense. It’s aggression. And fear doesn’t make it righteous.

It just makes it dangerous.

---

What I Consumed

• Zohran Mamdani and The Truth About Democratic Socialism - Kaizen Asiedu

• A very interesting watch: In a previous Desk Notes edition I shared this essay which has lead to this debate. Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace? - Interesting Times

• Victor Davis Hanson: The New Antisemitism

• Why Doesn’t Anyone Trust the Media? - Harper’s Magazine

---

The Sydney Sweeney Interview: A Masterclass in Not Taking the Bait

There is a short clip of Sydney Sweeney’s recent GQ interview making the rounds this week that perfectly captures something I’ve been thinking about for a while—the old playbook is played out, the question “Is it dead?” remains.

I am sure you are aware of the setup. There’s this American Eagle ad. It plays on “genes” and “jeans.” Some people were offended. Some people even cried “Nazi!” The president weighed in on Truth Social. And now here comes the interviewer, camera rolling, ready to extract a viral controversial moment.

Here’s the cha-cha. Can you believe people are upset? Wasn’t that presidential support wild? Are you worried about backlash? And then, the big finish—”I just wanted to give you an opportunity” to address the criticism about white people joking about genetic superiority in this climate.

Excuse me Ma’am is this a “gentle” struggle session? Notice the interviewer is polite, even complimentary. But every question is an invitation to step into the controversy, to apologize, to denounce, to engage with the discourse.

---

---

And Sydney? She just... doesn’t.

She likes jeans. She’s filming 16-hour days. She doesn’t have her phone on set. She hopes people will be open to powerful stories. And finally, “when I have an issue that I want to speak about…people will hear.”

That’s it. That’s the whole thing.

No political positioning. No struggle to prove she’s one of the good ones. And, most importantly, no apology. Just a working actress who made an ad about denim and would really like to get back to work.

What struck me wasn’t just that Sydney refused to play along—it’s that she didn’t seem to feel obligated to play along. There was no defensiveness, no elaborate explanation about intent, no careful parsing of language to satisfy the online mob. Just a shrug and a redirect.

The interviewer even acknowledges it midway through: “I know how you’re gonna answer this, but I’m gonna ask anyway.” She can see it’s not working. But she keeps trying, because this is what interviews are supposed to be now, right? Is she just being a journalist or is she digging for viral moments. Gotchas. Confessions.

Except here’s the irony—the interviewer accidentally demonstrated that we’re watching a paradigm shift in real time. The requirement to engage with every manufactured controversy, to grovel before every activist journalist, to treat every ad like a referendum on your soul? It’s dissolving.

Sydney Sweeney just showed everyone that you can smile, stay professional, keep it short, and walk away without the ceiling caving in.

Now if she could do this all while being properly clothed that would be awesome.

---

ICYMI

---

Aliens? Really?

My husband sent me an article this week about a Manhattan-sized object near the sun doing weird space things. It’s called 3I/ATLAS, and apparently it’s speeding up when it shouldn’t and turning blue as it gets closer to the sun. Harvard’s Avi Loeb thinks it might be an alien craft with an “internal engine.” Most scientists say it’s just a comet with outgassing issues. You know, normal space stuff.

And because I clicked on one article, the algorithm for 24 hours decided this was going to be my new obsession. Drowning my feed in “IS THIS THE PROOF??” content.

Here’s my take: ...and?

Fine, it’s objectively interesting. But we have so much insanity happening here on Earth that alien life forms are dead last on my priority list. And if we’re following any standard sci-fi plot (disease, resource consumption, enslavement, domination), we’re probably toast anyway. The peaceful alien encounter is the rarest storyline.

Ironically you would might think I would be invested in this NY borough in the sky, considering I genuinely love the entire Alien franchise. And Predator. But, wildly I’m not a sci-fi person. I think those movies are the exception because they hit more for the nostalgia of that cinema era than the actual extraterrestrial horror.

Regardless, right now. I’m way more concerned about getting the government functional again. Could you imagine an actual alien invasion happening and we’re still stuck in shutdown mode?

“Sorry, humanity, can’t coordinate a defense response—we’re still mad at Trump.”

Priorities.

Looking Ahead

The Shutdown Saga (Day 38): We’re officially in the longest shutdown on record. Republicans keep proposing piecemeal funding for essentials, air traffic control, SNAP, military pay. Democrats keep saying no, emboldened by this week’s election wins. Why? ACA subsidies expiring end of 2025 (that they themselves sunset in 2022). Sen. Chris Murphy said the quiet part loud: “It would be very strange if...we surrendered without getting anything.” Translation: They think they’re winning politically, so buckle up. This bleeds into the holidays. Trump’s already floating ending the filibuster—nuclear option territory.

2026 Midterms Alert: Trump won’t be on the ballot. Republicans are pivoting hard to bread-and-butter issues (crime, education, economy) to keep voters engaged especially young male voters. It looks like the culture wars for the Democrats have been put on ice. Now it’s socialism vs. capitalism. The question: Which party will win the affordability narrative—the #1 issue for Gen Z turnout?

SCOTUS vs. Tariffs: Oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump went surprisingly skeptical, even Trump appointees were pushing back. This caused markets to rally immediately (S&P 500 up 0.37%). I’ve never loved these tariffs, and honestly? A SCOTUS smackdown might be the gift the admin needs to pivot without looking weak. Ruling could drop December or June 2026. To be honest the sooner the better. Either way, businesses need stability.

US-China: Handshake or Head Fake? Trump and Xi met Oct. 30 in South Korea. Tariffs dropped from 57% to 47%. China agreed to ease rare earth restrictions. Sounds great...except we’ve been here before and the Nov. 10 deadline looming. Will the agreement framework hold and an agreement signed? If it holds, holiday markets get a boost. If not, back to market swings and investor uncertainty. Cautiously optimistic, heavily skeptical.

Alright! That is all I’ve got for this edition of Desk Notes. Have a good weekend, go to church if that’s your thing, try not to doom-scroll too hard, and remember—real life happens at home, not on your screen.

xoxo,
Meseidy

P.S. Enjoying these weekly deep dives? Hit reply and let me know what other absurd moments I should be tracking. I love to hear from you! Also remember to talk among yourselves in the comments.