By: Fern Sidman – Jewish Voice News

A political firestorm erupted this week after The Wall Street Journal issued a blistering editorial condemning the Heritage Foundation and its president, Kevin Roberts, for what it described as “moral cowardice” in the face of rising antisemitism on the right. The editorial, titled “The New Right’s New Antisemites,” accused Roberts—long regarded as a powerful intellectual force in Washington—of coddling bigotry and legitimizing extremist voices under the guise of opposing “cancel culture.”

As Newsmax reported on Monday, the Journal’s editorial marked one of the sharpest rebukes yet from a mainstream conservative institution toward the ideological insurgency reshaping the American right. What began as an internal philosophical dispute has now escalated into a full-blown identity crisis—one pitting the traditional moral foundations of the conservative movement against a new breed of populist provocateurs increasingly tolerant of antisemitic rhetoric and conspiratorial thinking.

At the center of the storm stands Roberts, a man once lauded for revitalizing Heritage’s political relevance but now accused by critics, including prominent Jewish leaders and conservative intellectuals, of betraying the movement’s moral compass.

According to the information provided in the Newsmax report, the controversy began after Roberts released a video defending former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who invited white nationalist Nick Fuentes onto his podcast for what observers described as a disturbingly genial discussion.

Fuentes—an avowed admirer of Adolf Hitler—used the platform to vilify “organized Jewry” and “Zionist Jews,” rhetoric that the Journal said “echoed the darkest propaganda of the 20th century.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center, cited by Newsmax, reiterated its long-held position that Fuentes is a “well-known white supremacist, Holocaust denier, and virulent antisemite.”

Fuentes’ on-air remarks, as quoted in Newsmax, were grotesque even by extremist standards: “I piss on your Talmud. Jews get the f*** out of America,” Fuentes declared, later questioning whether 6 million Jews could have been killed in the Holocaust—mocking the death toll as mathematically implausible.

Yet Roberts, rather than unequivocally condemning the interview, framed the ensuing backlash as an attack on Christian freedom of conscience, accusing a “venomous coalition” of attempting to “cancel” Carlson and Fuentes.

“I disagree with—and even abhor—things that Nick Fuentes says,” Roberts said in his defense, “but canceling him is not the answer either.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial called this a “false equivalence,” a cowardly attempt to recategorize moral failure as philosophical nuance. “This is not a free-speech issue,” the Journal wrote. “It is a moral one.”

The paper warned that Roberts’ framing of antisemitism as a matter of “free expression” mirrors the same relativism conservatives long condemned on the left. “His attempt to blur the line between debate and hate,” the WSJ said, “is a dereliction of leadership and a stain on the conservative conscience.”

As Newsmax reported in its own coverage, the fallout was immediate and profound. Within conservative circles, Heritage’s silence was met with disbelief. Donors, congressional allies, and longtime fellows began to express unease over Roberts’ response, seeing it as evidence of a deeper rot in the institutional right—one willing to tolerate extremism as long as it targets the left.

“Kevin Roberts’ failure to draw a red line on antisemitism has left the Heritage Foundation morally adrift,” one senior conservative policy analyst told Newsmax. “Heritage was built on the principle that virtue and liberty are inseparable. You can’t champion America’s founding ideals while entertaining people who admire Hitler.”

The Newsmax report observed that the controversy also highlights an uncomfortable convergence between populist conservatism and internet subcultures that openly traffic in antisemitic memes, conspiracy theories, and “white replacement” rhetoric. This radical fringe, once ostracized by the GOP mainstream, now finds validation in influencers like Carlson and Fuentes—and, by extension, in institutions that refuse to call them out.

The Wall Street Journal, as noted in the Newsmax report, documented in disturbing detail the interaction between Carlson and Fuentes. In their recorded conversation, Fuentes denounced Jewish influence in politics and media, claiming that “Zionist Jews” are “the enemy of America.” Carlson, far from objecting, responded by saying he “disliked Christian Zionists more than anybody.”

Following the broadcast, Fuentes escalated his attacks, targeting Jewish conservatives by name. “Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Josh Hammer—none of them are real Americans,” Fuentes sneered. “They should get the f*** out of America and go to Israel.”

Newsmax reported that this rhetoric triggered outrage across the political spectrum, but what shocked many was Roberts’ refusal to denounce it unequivocally. Instead, he accused the media of hypocrisy and deflected criticism toward “the left,” insisting conservatives should not “attack our friends on the right.”

The WSJ called this logic “a disastrous abdication of principle,” warning that the ‘no enemies to the right’ doctrine—the idea that internal criticism only weakens conservatives—would “cost Republicans elections and endanger the country.”

Prominent Jewish organizations, alarmed by Roberts’ defense of Carlson and tolerance of Fuentes’ hate speech, swiftly condemned Heritage’s stance.

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), told Newsmax that Roberts’ behavior “disgraces the conservative movement.”

“Kevin Roberts’ defense of Tucker Carlson’s decision to mainstream a Hitler admirer is indefensible,” Klein said. “This is not ‘cancel culture.’ This is moral clarity.”

Klein urged the Heritage Foundation’s board to take “decisive action” to preserve the organization’s credibility, warning that silence would signal complicity. “The Heritage Foundation must choose whether it stands with America’s founding values—or with those who admire Adolf Hitler,” Klein said.

Other Jewish leaders, cited in the Newsmax report, echoed the sentiment. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center described Roberts’ remarks as “deeply irresponsible.” “Defending free speech does not mean defending the right to normalize antisemitism,” Cooper said. “When hatred goes unchallenged, it metastasizes.”

Inside Heritage, the controversy has exposed simmering tensions between the foundation’s traditional conservative base and the younger, more populist faction Roberts has sought to court since assuming leadership in 2021.

Newsmax reported that Ryan Neuhaus, Roberts’ chief of staff and a vocal advocate for outreach to the online “new right,” was quietly reassigned after the backlash intensified. Sources within Heritage told Newsmax that the move reflected an effort to stem donor panic without acknowledging fault.

Yet critics inside the organization remain unconvinced. One former Heritage fellow, speaking to Newsmax on background, said Roberts’ reaction “revealed his true instincts—to excuse, not confront.” The fellow added, “He’s close to Tucker Carlson personally and has steered Heritage funds toward Carlson’s podcast. This isn’t just bad optics—it’s institutional capture.”

According to the information contained in the Newsmax report, the controversy has shaken Heritage’s standing among major donors and conservative leaders, many of whom view the organization as an indispensable pillar of American policy thought.

“This isn’t about a single statement—it’s about moral leadership,” said a senior Republican strategist. “If Heritage can’t draw the line at antisemitism, it forfeits the moral authority it’s spent fifty years building.”

Both The Wall Street Journal and Newsmax agree that the uproar has forced the conservative movement into a period of self-examination reminiscent of earlier ideological reckonings.

The WSJ invoked the memory of William F. Buckley Jr., who famously excommunicated the John Birch Society in the 1960s for peddling conspiratorial extremism. “Builders of the conservative movement like Heritage’s Ed Feulner knew that tolerating hate would destroy it from within,” the Journal wrote.

By contrast, Roberts’ leadership, the Newsmax report noted, reflects a willingness to gamble with that legacy. Under his watch, Heritage has increasingly aligned with populist figures who see moral restraint as weakness and who treat outrage as strategy.

“This is how movements lose their soul,” conservative commentator Noah Rothman told Newsmax. “If you can’t draw a moral distinction between free expression and outright hatred, you’re not defending liberty—you’re desecrating it.”

While the Newsmax report emphasized that antisemitism is not confined to one political party, it underscored that the right’s recent tolerance for antisemitic voices poses a unique threat because it corrodes the moral foundation of a movement historically aligned with Judeo-Christian ethics.

In recent years, antisemitic attacks have surged nationwide, and polls show a troubling rise in Holocaust denial among younger demographics. Both far-left and far-right movements have contributed to the trend: campus radicals chant for Israel’s destruction while internet extremists circulate neo-Nazi propaganda under nationalist branding.

But as Newsmax reported, the moral abdication by high-profile conservatives—who refuse to rebuke antisemitism for fear of alienating a “new base”—is particularly corrosive. “It’s one thing to have haters on the fringes,” a Jewish community leader told the outlet. “It’s another when respected institutions start offering them legitimacy.”

By week’s end, pressure on Roberts intensified. Multiple advocacy groups—including the ZOA, the American Jewish Committee, and several Heritage alumni—called for his resignation.

“He has shown he cannot distinguish between debate and hate,” Morton Klein told Newsmax. “It’s not censorship to reject evil. It’s civilization.”

Even some within the Heritage board reportedly began discussing contingency plans to safeguard the foundation’s reputation should Roberts refuse to step aside. Newsmax sources described a growing consensus that Roberts’ leadership has become a liability, with donors withholding contributions pending the outcome.

Meanwhile, Roberts attempted damage control, issuing a second statement professing his “abhorrence of antisemitism” and insisting his original video had been “mischaracterized.” But as The Wall Street Journal observed—and Newsmax echoed—his words rang hollow.

“His second statement was a clarification, not a correction,” the WSJ wrote. “What was missing was moral conviction.”

As the Newsmax report noted, the Heritage controversy is emblematic of a broader reckoning confronting American conservatism in the post-Trump era: whether it remains a movement rooted in principles or devolves into a tribal coalition defined by rage, grievance, and opportunism.

Tucker Carlson, once Fox News’ most-watched anchor, now operates outside mainstream constraints, courting audiences that flirt with extremism. Fuentes, once a fringe provocateur, thrives in the social media ecosystem that rewards outrage over reason.

And now, by defending such figures, Roberts risks transforming the Heritage Foundation—from a beacon of conservative scholarship into a shield for reactionary populism.

As Newsmax put it in its analysis: “The right cannot defend civilization by abandoning civility, nor preserve the West by mimicking its worst enemies. To stand silent before antisemitism is to surrender the moral ground that gives conservatism its meaning.”

The Wall Street Journal, in its final paragraph—echoed widely by Newsmax and other outlets—delivered a chilling warning:

“If conservatives and Republicans don’t call out this poison in their own ranks before it corrupts more young minds, the right and America are entering dangerous territory.”

For decades, the Heritage Foundation stood as the intellectual guardian of America’s conservative conscience, shaping policies grounded in faith, liberty, and moral clarity. Now, its leadership faces an existential test: whether to remain that guardian—or to become another casualty of a culture war that no longer distinguishes between conviction and complicity.