For decades, the inner workings of Washington D.C. think tanks remained largely unnoticed by the wider world. But a recent series of events at the Heritage Foundation is shattering that quietude, potentially reshaping the future of the Republican Party in a post-Trump era.
The current turmoil began with a single speech. Heritage President Kevin Roberts publicly defended Tucker Carlson’s decision to interview a controversial figure known for Holocaust denial. Roberts asserted that the foundation wouldn’t “cancel our own people” or “police the consciences of Christians,” sparking immediate backlash.
An initial wave of resignations followed, even after Roberts issued an apology. However, the situation escalated dramatically when nearly an entire division of Heritage’s legal and economic experts departed for Advancing American Freedom (AAF), an organization founded by former Vice President Mike Pence.
The central question isn’t simply about Roberts’ controversial statement. Doubts linger about whether the mass exodus is solely fueled by moral outrage, or if deeper ideological fissures are at play. The situation reveals a fundamental conflict within the conservative movement.
Consider the issue of tariffs. President Trump’s embrace of protectionist trade policies directly contradicted the long-held beliefs of many conservative economists at Heritage. Yet, the think tank largely remained silent in opposition, effectively aligning with the administration’s agenda.
Now, Heritage appears to be increasingly focused on supporting the 2028 presidential ambitions of Vice President JD Vance. Roberts’ initial statement may have been strategically timed, catering to Vance’s close relationship with Carlson and his focus on revitalizing struggling industrial towns.
This shift, however, alienates many of Heritage’s seasoned economists who fundamentally believe in the benefits of globalism and view efforts to “save” declining towns as unrealistic. They now find themselves without a voice within either Heritage or a potential Trump administration.
Similar tensions exist regarding foreign policy and immigration. A cynical perspective suggests the Heritage departures represent conservatives distancing themselves from Trump’s ideology, using the current controversy as a convenient exit strategy.
This mirrors Pence’s own actions following the January 6th Capitol riot, which led to the creation of AAF – an organization staunchly opposed to tariffs. The unfolding drama is a clear struggle for the soul of the Republican Party and the conservative movement as a whole.
Both Heritage and AAF are redefining the role of a think tank. Traditionally, these institutions operated behind the scenes, providing policy recommendations while remaining largely invisible to the public. Wealthy donors funded both the politicians and the policy experts.
But that model is crumbling. Voters are now demanding more direct engagement, forcing think tanks to actively court public opinion. Heritage’s “Project 2025” during the 2024 election cycle – a highly publicized policy blueprint – was unprecedented in its visibility.
Heritage is now embracing populism and activism, exemplified by the hiring of Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty. This represents a move away from purely academic policy analysis and towards more direct political engagement. AAF is beginning to follow suit.
AAF even responded to the influx of Heritage staffers with a satirical social media post, comparing the situation to a dominant college football team recruiting top players. This suggests that more than just moral objections are driving the defections.
AAF faces a significant challenge: populism resonates with voters, while globalism – and many other tenets of the pre-Trump GOP – do not. To gain traction, AAF must offer a compelling alternative vision.
Focusing on lowering prices through tariff reduction offers a potential path forward. However, a conservative think tank advocating for lower prices while the GOP controls the White House and Congress could create political difficulties, especially during midterm elections.
Vance and, increasingly, Heritage envision a revival of small industrial towns through tariffs and foreign investment. AAF, conversely, suggests allowing those towns to decline while encouraging Americans to seek opportunities elsewhere. Both visions are uncertain, but the “save our towns” approach currently holds the upper hand.
For AAF to shift the narrative, it needs more than just moral outrage. It must convincingly demonstrate that globalism wasn’t inherently flawed and that a return to those policies is in the best interest of the American people.
