A quiet tremor ran through the conservative landscape as Robert P. George, a highly respected Princeton professor and Heritage Foundation board member, resigned. His departure wasn’t a disagreement over policy, but a stark protest against the defense of an interview – an interview that opened a dangerous door.
The catalyst was Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts’s staunch support of Tucker Carlson’s decision to platform Nick Fuentes, a figure widely recognized as a white nationalist. Fuentes, in the interview, openly expressed deeply troubling views, characterizing Jewish people as “a stateless people” and questioning their ability to assimilate. This wasn’t simply a controversial guest; it was a validation of hateful ideology.
Roberts initially doubled down, declaring he wouldn’t yield to a “venomous coalition” attempting to “cancel” Carlson. This sparked immediate and intense internal backlash. Fellow Amy Swearer publicly condemned Roberts’s “stunning lack of both courage and judgment,” voicing concerns shared by many within the organization who felt Carlson had “flirted” with a neo-Nazi.
George’s resignation hinged on a full retraction of Roberts’s initial defense. While Roberts later issued an apology, it fell short of George’s demand. The impasse revealed a fundamental disagreement about the boundaries of acceptable discourse and the responsibility of a leading conservative think tank.
The fallout extended far beyond George. A wave of resignations followed, including key members of the foundation’s Antisemitism Task Force – individuals dedicated to combating hate. Director Mark Goldfeder bluntly stated he could not “serve under someone who thinks Nazis are worth debating.” Others echoed this sentiment, expressing a deep mistrust in the foundation’s leadership.
The concerns weren’t merely about the interview itself, but about Roberts’s motivation. Critics pointed to his stated desire to attract the “groyper” movement – a far-right, white nationalist online community – into the conservative fold. This raised the chilling question of whether ideological purity was being sacrificed for political gain.
Prominent scholars also severed ties. Economist Stephen Moore, a former Trump advisor, and Chris DeMuth, a long-time conservative policy architect, both resigned, leaving intellectual gaps within the organization. Adam Mossoff, a law professor, delivered a particularly scathing critique, accusing Heritage of aligning itself with the fringes of the Fuentes-created movement.
Even Ryan Neuhaus, Roberts’s former chief of staff, initially reassigned after publicly supporting his boss, ultimately resigned. The internal turmoil painted a picture of an organization deeply fractured by a single, controversial decision.
The controversy reached beyond Heritage’s walls. Former President Donald Trump weighed in, defending Carlson’s right to choose his guests, stating, “You can’t tell him who to interview.” He claimed limited knowledge of Fuentes, despite having hosted him at Mar-a-Lago at the invitation of Kanye West.
The resignations weren’t simply about political correctness; they were about principle. Robert P. George, in a powerful statement, affirmed his unwavering belief in the founding vision of equal rights for all. He warned that abandoning this principle would be “signing the death certificate of republican government and ordered liberty.”
The events at the Heritage Foundation served as a stark reminder of the fragility of conservative ideals in the face of extremism. It highlighted the difficult choices facing institutions grappling with the rise of hateful ideologies and the responsibility to define the boundaries of acceptable debate.
The exodus from Heritage wasn’t a quiet departure; it was a resounding statement. It was a refusal to compromise on fundamental values, a rejection of normalization, and a desperate plea to safeguard the principles upon which a just society is built.
