“This is a civilizing moment for this republic,” Heritage Society President Kevin Roberts said.Illustrations by Ben Hickey
For more than fifty years, The Heritage Foundation has been a major force in American politics, setting the ideological course for the conservative movement. It also played a key role in the creation of Project 2025, a set of policy recommendations for the second Trump administration’s agenda. However, over the past year, the organization has experienced some very public internal conflicts. in a New articles in this week’s issueEmma Greene goes inside the Heritage Foundation, where her reporting provides a snapshot of the simmering tensions within the institution, including the rise of competing factions and the fallout from Tucker Carlson’s controversial interview with white nationalist anchor Nick Fuentes. This morning, Greene and I sat down to discuss her reporting.
Our interview has been edited and condensed.
How would you describe the competing sides within the foundation?
There is one side, and that is the MAGA camp. This is populism, cultural conservatism, in line with some sort of nationalist resurgence agenda. There are also people, what you might call foreign policy hawks, who are part of what some call “MIGA” (“Make Israel Great Again”), a term used online by critics of Israel and Republicans close to Israel. There’s also the so-called “liberal opposition,” or liberal conservatives, who are old-school liberals but maybe with a bit of a socially conservative bent.
The power of these three camps in the Republican coalition has been changing, raising many questions about the old consensus.
Why Tucker Carlson’s Interview Nick Fuentes Causing such chaos within Heritage?
Many online figures in the conservative movement have great affection for more mainstream conservatives like Tucker Carlson, providing a platform for those who hold these views. Heritage’s involvement was almost accidental. They had an advertising deal with Carlson, but they forgot to take down the old promo page for him. When the interview came out and became controversial, someone at Heritage said, “Oh, I have to take this down.” The Internet freaked out. Suddenly, a story about podcasting became a story about legacy. The incident became a petri dish for all the tensions within the Republican Party: Whose ideas are acceptable?
As you were reporting, could you sense a palpable tension in the building?
I don’t think Heritage would deny that they’ve had internal discord over the past year, especially with the whole thing blowing up online. There is a sense of lack of collegiality. People feel they cannot trust their colleagues. They feel betrayed by the organization.
Is there anything in your report that surprised you?
One thing that’s clear to me is how much of this is media coverage. Heritage is a think tank, but the media environment is fundamentally reshaping the way older institutions operate and their relevance. White papers do not necessarily have the same relevance in the policy environment as they did in the past. There’s been a lot of discussion about whether Heritage should have a stable of content creators like on YouTube or TikTok – as a way to compete with right-wing influencers.
Can the organization be relevant to young conservatives in a post-Trump world?
I just don’t think it’s possible to wipe a legacy off the map. First, they have so much money. Second, they have this legacy status—their influence on the conservative movement is so great that it’s almost impossible to believe that the legacy’s influence will ever completely disappear. To me, the bigger question is: Can young conservatives with a different vision for the future of conservatism succeed in taking control of the movement? If so, what role will heritage play in nurturing them and becoming their home base?
“Pug” by Peter Decerf.