The Heritage Foundation, long regarded as a pillar of principled American conservatism—emphasizing limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and constitutional fidelity—has undergone a noticeable shift under President Kevin Roberts. Even for those of us with more libertarian leanings, who value the "high ground" of classical liberal ideas like personal freedom, economic liberty, and restraint in state power, this evolution feels like watching a once-steady ship pull up anchor and drift toward uncharted ‘populist’ waters. And that shift seems to be continuing on steadily.
A recent editorial in Chronicles magazine, titled "Heritage Is Better-Off With Kevin Roberts—and Without the Malcontents," captures this change in stark terms. The piece defends Roberts' leadership by arguing that the Foundation should prioritize conserving Western civilization's deeper cultural and faith-based heritage—things like classical education, Christianity, and non-utilitarian values such as friendship—over what it dismisses as mere "tools" like free enterprise, limited government, or constitutional documents. The author portrays departing staff and fellows (the "malcontents") as overly focused on economic and legalistic priorities, reducing them to caricatures rushing to save a "toolbox" from a burning estate while ignoring irreplaceable family heirlooms.
This framing is just plain silly. It highlights a pivot away from Heritage's traditional strengths: rigorous policy analysis rooted in empirical economics, constitutional scholarship, and pro-market advocacy. Instead, under Roberts, the organization has leaned into a more nationalist, postliberal, and needlessly combative stance. This includes associations that have sparked controversy, such as Roberts' initial defense (later ‘apologized’ for) of Tucker Carlson's friendly interview with Nick Fuentes, a figure known for antisemitic views. That episode triggered resignations from prominent scholars, board members, and even an antisemitism task force, with critics accusing the Foundation of tolerating or platforming extremism and drifting from moral clarity.
The exodus has been significant: dozens of staff from legal, economic, and data teams have left, many joining groups like Mike Pence's Advancing American Freedom. Resignations from trustees and fellows cited a "drift from the principles that once defined its leadership," a loss of credibility, and failures to confront harmful ideas head-on. Even hires, like figures with anti-feminist or Christian nationalist leanings, have drawn criticism for signaling a departure from inclusive, liberty-focused conservatism.
As a libertarian-leaning observer, I find this disappointing not because change is inherently bad, but because Heritage's historical role was to anchor the right in ideas that promote freedom and restrain power—principles that benefit everyone, regardless of cultural battles. When an institution once synonymous with Reagan-era conservatism now frames economic liberty and constitutionalism as mere tools, while posturing toward a more identitarian vision, it risks alienating those who saw it as a bulwark against both left-wing statism and right-wing populism run amok.
The Chronicles piece, reposted approvingly by Heritage spokesperson Genevieve Wood, suggests this shift is intentional and positive—shedding "malcontents" to embrace a bolder direction. But for many, it looks like abandoning the high ground for something narrower and more divisive. Conservatism, at its best, marries cultural preservation with individual rights and market dynamism. Heritage's current path risks sacrificing the latter in pursuit of the former, leaving a void for principled, liberty-oriented voices. It ignores the fact that the former was only made possible by the latter–as well as that worthless ‘ordinance of secession’ and the ‘list of old laws.’
In the end, institutions evolve, but when they pull up anchor from their foundational moorings, it's worth asking: Toward what shore are they sailing? For libertarians and classical conservatives alike, the answer matters deeply. It sure looks like they’re losing an ally in the ongoing battle to preserve those shared ideals.
