When Conservative Leaders Lose Their Way

The Heritage Foundation has been a pillar of conservative thought for nearly five decades. Its scholars have shaped policy, defended freedom, and provided the intellectual ammunition for countless conservative victories. I’ve long admired their work and continue to support many of their initiatives, including important elements of Project 2025.

That’s precisely why Kevin Roberts’ recent video defense of Tucker Carlson is so deeply troubling. It doesn’t represent the best of Heritage—it represents a dangerous departure from the moral clarity that institution has historically embodied.

Roberts defended Carlson’s friendly, two-hour interview with Nick Fuentes, America’s most prominent Holocaust denier. In doing so, he crossed a line that should never be crossed, no matter one’s views on foreign policy, Israel, or any other legitimate policy debate.

Let me be absolutely clear: Vigorous debate about Israel is not only acceptable—it’s essential. I’ve spent decades engaging with thoughtful critics who question Israeli policies, the extent of American aid, or the strategic value of the alliance. Some of my most productive discussions have been with those who fundamentally disagree with my positions. Roberts himself is entirely within bounds to argue that American support for any ally should be conditional on American interests.

But there’s a canyon-wide difference between policy criticism and platforming someone who denies the Holocaust occurred, celebrates Hitler’s birthday, and believes Jews are conspiring to destroy America.

Nick Fuentes isn’t a foreign policy realist or a fiscal hawk questioning aid packages. He’s a white nationalist who admires Adolf Hitler and spreads conspiracy theories about Jewish control. During his interview with Carlson, he claimed Ben Shapiro tried to destroy him for asking “reasonable questions.” He told Carlson he admires Stalin. He portrayed himself as a victim while building a movement that actively harasses Jewish conservatives.

Carlson didn’t challenge any of this. He nodded along, providing a massive platform for these views to be laundered as legitimate political discourse.

When Roberts declares that Carlson is “a close friend of The Heritage Foundation” who “always will be,” and argues that “canceling him is not the answer,” he fundamentally misunderstands what’s at stake.

This isn’t about cancellation or limiting free speech. It’s about maintaining the most basic standards of decency. We don’t invite Klansmen to conservative conferences in the name of “robust debate.” We don’t give friendly platforms to those who deny the murder of six million Jews. These aren’t policy positions—they’re moral abominations.

Roberts states: “I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says.” If that’s true, why defend those who mainstream him? Why characterize legitimate outrage at platforming a Holocaust denier as a “venomous coalition” serving “someone else’s agenda”?

Most disturbingly, Roberts argues that conservatives should be “focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.” Since when are Holocaust deniers “friends on the right”? This “no enemies to the right” philosophy represents a catastrophic moral failure that would make William F. Buckley—who famously purged the John Birch Society from the conservative movement—turn in his grave.

Roberts is free to debate Israel policy, question foreign aid, or advocate for a more transactional foreign policy. These are legitimate positions worthy of serious discussion. But when he uses his platform as Heritage’s president to defend the mainstreaming of neo-Nazis, he damages not just his own reputation but the credibility of the entire conservative movement.

He gives the left ammunition to paint all conservatives as tolerant of fascism. He alienates Jewish conservatives who have been vital to building our movement. He signals to young conservatives that Holocaust denial is just another viewpoint in the marketplace of ideas.

This is particularly tragic because Heritage has so many brilliant scholars doing crucial work on everything from regulatory reform to national security. They deserve leadership that can distinguish between legitimate policy disagreements and the mainstreaming of genocidal hatred.

The Heritage Foundation is bigger than any one president. Its legacy of principled conservatism stretches back to Edwin Feulner, who built it into a powerhouse, and forward to the scholars who continue producing vital research today. The institution itself remains essential to the conservative movement.

But Kevin Roberts has failed a basic test of leadership. By defending the platforming of Nick Fuentes, he’s chosen online populism over moral principle. He’s decided that maintaining Tucker Carlson’s friendship matters more than maintaining the standards that separate conservatism from its worst fringes.

Roberts owes the conservative movement—and The Heritage Foundation itself—a clear retraction and apology. Not for his views on Israel or foreign policy, which are legitimate subjects for debate, but for defending those who mainstream Holocaust denial and white nationalism.

Until he provides that clarity, he’s damaged not just his own credibility but cast a shadow over an institution that deserves better leadership. Heritage’s board, scholars, and supporters should demand better. The conservative movement certainly does.

There are many hills worth dying on in politics. Defending the mainstreaming of Holocaust deniers isn’t one of them. Kevin Roberts should know the difference. The fact that he doesn’t is a tragedy for him and a challenge for an institution that has given so much to the conservative cause.