Heritage Foundation’s Turmoil and Its Impact on the GOP

Overall, think tanks typically don’t attract much attention, except maybe in D.C.’s brunch spots. However, the recent upheaval at the Heritage Foundation seems to be a significant event that could influence the Republican Party’s future, especially after Trump’s presidency.

This disruption at Heritage, a prominent conservative think tank, kicked off on October 30. It all started when the institute’s president, Kevin Roberts, spoke in support of Tucker Carlson, who had previously hosted an interview with a young Holocaust denier.

Roberts stated, “The Heritage Foundation did not become an intellectual pillar of the conservative movement by canceling its own people’s work or policing the conscience of Christians, and we are not going to start doing that now.”

Fast forward nearly two months, and after Roberts issued an apology—immediately followed by a flurry of resignations—most of the legal and economic experts at Heritage decided to join former Vice President Mike Pence’s new group, the American Advancement of Freedom (AAF).

Now, a pressing question arises: Is Roberts’ controversial support of anti-Semites the main factor driving these departures, or just one of many reasons? There seems to be some uncertainty around it.

For instance, take Trump’s fondness for tariffs in international trade—this is typically at odds with the beliefs of conventional conservative economists. Yet, the Heritage Foundation had backed Trump’s policies during his time in office.

Additionally, it appears Heritage is aligning with Vice President J.D. Vance’s ambitions for the 2028 presidential election. I mean, Roberts’ original speech may have actually been intended as a nod to Vance, who is closely linked with Carlson and prioritizes issues like fighting globalism and saving struggling cities.

But here’s the catch: many veteran economists at Heritage favor globalism and are skeptical about the practicality of revitalizing “Nowhere, Ohio.” Their perspectives seem to be sidelined in the current political landscape.

This disconnect is also present in discussions about foreign and immigration policy. It seems like some conservatives with differing ideologies are realizing that catering to Trump isn’t yielding the desired results anymore, hence the shifting dynamics.

For instance, Pence took a stand after the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, which culminated in the establishment of the AAF, a group that is notably against tariffs.

As this internal battle for the Republican Party’s identity rages on, both Heritage and AAF are reshaping their roles and functions in interesting ways.

Traditionally, conservative think tanks were funded by wealthy donors who wanted to influence politics from behind the scenes. However, the current political climate seems to demand a more direct connection with voters, and think tanks are starting to adapt accordingly.

In fact, during the lead-up to the 2024 election, Heritage’s “Project 2025” received an unprecedented amount of public attention, showcasing the think tank’s shift toward a more populist and activist role.

Meanwhile, the AAF is attempting to get in on the action. Their approach, however, faces a challenge given that many conservative voters are currently enamored with populism, while the traditional tenets of the GOP might seem less appealing.

AAF might find a viable strategy in focusing on lowering prices by reducing tariffs. But even with Republicans in control, expressing concerns about rising prices could pose a risk to the party’s future prospects.

A crucial question lingers: What do American voters genuinely want? Is it affordable imports from China, or a thriving community where they can raise families? For the AAF to resonate, it needs to address both issues.

Vance, along with Heritage’s vision, advocates for reviving small industrial towns through tariffs and investments. Conversely, AAF seems to suggest these areas may continue to decline, pushing Americans to migrate toward opportunity-rich regions.

Although neither approach can guarantee success, the “Save Our Town” perspective appears to be gaining traction. If AAF hopes to shift this narrative, moral outrage won’t suffice. They’ll need to persuade voters that globalism has its merits and can be a path forward.