The Heritage Foundation’s Crisis Is Bigger Than One Think Tank
When a major conservative institution publicly wrestles with antisemitism and extremism, that is not “inside baseball.” It’s a mirror.
That’s what Wall Street Journal editor at large Gerard Baker argues in his recent column, “Vance, Heritage and the Case for Conservative ‘Infighting.’” He says the turmoil inside the Heritage Foundation over its embrace of Tucker Carlson—even after Carlson’s warm treatment of white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes—is not a distraction. It is, in his words, “the struggle of good against evil.”
What Happened at Heritage?
The immediate trigger was Carlson’s decision to host Nick Fuentes—an open Holocaust denier who has praised Hitler and pushed virulent antisemitic rhetoric—on his show.
When many conservatives (including Jewish conservatives) pushed back, Heritage president Kevin Roberts released a video defending Carlson as a “close friend” and attacking critics as a “venomous coalition” within the movement.
That statement set off a firestorm:
Multiple members of Heritage’s National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism resigned in protest, saying they could not be associated with a think tank defending someone who platformed Fuentes.
Senior fellows and outside allies also stepped down, warning that normalizing Carlson’s stance toward Fuentes crosses a moral line.
Under intense pressure, Roberts later apologized and tried to clarify his position, saying he had made “a mistake” and explicitly condemning Fuentes’ antisemitism and Holocaust denial—while still attempting to preserve his relationship with Carlson.
So this isn’t just a Twitter spat. It’s a full-blown institutional crisis over what kind of ideas—and what kind of hatreds—conservatism is willing to tolerate near its center of gravity.
Baker’s Argument: Why “Infighting” Matters
Into that moment steps Baker, pushing back against the “no drama” line coming from some conservative leaders, including Vice President JD Vance, who has shrugged off fights like this as unhelpful “infighting.”
Baker’s case, in simple terms:
Extremists aren’t just noisy cousins: The blend of ultranationalism, conspiracy thinking, and open hostility to Jews and other minorities coming from figures like Fuentes—and sometimes echoed or indulged by bigger media personalities—poses a real danger, not only to Jews but to the future of the conservative movement itself.
Right-wing populism opened the door: Populism has given ordinary people a voice against elite consensus, but it has also “democratized” access for toxic ideologies that once lived on the fringes.
Drawing lines is not a distraction: Treating this as petty squabbling misses the point. The question of whether mainstream institutions will distance themselves from those who praise Hitler or deny the Holocaust is not a side issue—it’s a first-order moral question.
In other words: if you won’t fight here, what will you fight for?
Why Jewish Leaders Are Alarmed
Baker is not alone in sounding the alarm.
Jewish leaders who have worked closely with Heritage on antisemitism efforts have publicly broken ties:
Mark Goldfeder, a prominent Jewish lawyer and CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, resigned from Heritage’s antisemitism task force, saying Roberts’ words defending Carlson—and attacking those who objected—made continued participation impossible.
Rabbi Yaakov Menken and other Jewish leaders have framed Heritage’s refusal (or hesitation) to clearly break with Carlson over Fuentes as a moral collapse, warning that normalizing Jew-hatred is historically a prelude to self-destruction for any civilization that tolerates it.
Their concern is not only political. It’s existential and historical. They see in this moment eerie echoes of other eras when “respectable” institutions decided that dabbling in antisemitism was tolerable as long as it energized the base.
The Deeper Question: What Kind of Movement Do You Want?
You don’t have to agree with Baker on every policy point to see the depth of the question he’s raising.
Any movement—left, right, religious, secular—faces moments like this:
Do we treat corrosive hatred as a negotiable “edge” that energizes certain supporters?
Or do we treat it as a line in the sand, even if that costs us friends, donors, or short-term influence?
For conservatives who care about the rule of law, human dignity, and ordered liberty, Baker is essentially arguing that tolerating Fuentes-style antisemitism is not just morally wrong; it is strategically suicidal. It hands the moral high ground—and eventually the center of public opinion—to those who can credibly say, “You harbored this.”
You don’t have to be a policy wonk or a Heritage donor to have skin in this game.
If you care about:
The safety of Jewish communities in America and around the world,
The health of democratic debate, or
The integrity of Christian or conservative witness in the public square,
then what happens when a flagship institution flirts with—or refuses to clearly reject—Holocaust denial and Jew-hatred matters to you.
Because once a movement decides that “our guy” can get away with anything as long as he’s on “our side,” it has already surrendered its moral authority. That’s not just bad politics. It’s a betrayal of the very values many people believe they are fighting for.
Hard Conversations Are Not Optional
Baker’s final point is uncomfortable but necessary: telling ourselves that “infighting is stupid” can become an excuse to avoid the hardest, most important conversations—especially when those conversations force us to confront people we once admired.
He’s arguing that, in this moment, not fighting—not drawing lines—would be the greater failure.
You can disagree with his tone or specific prescriptions. But the question he poses hangs in the air:
When we see open praise for Holocaust deniers and hatred aimed at Jews, will we treat it as just another opinion in the marketplace—or as a moral emergency that demands clarity, even at a cost?
That isn’t just a question for Heritage. It’s a question for every institution, every church, every media outlet, every movement that claims to stand for truth and human dignity.
