The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Andrew Hale Leaves Heritage for Advancing American Freedom
"I can roll with policy changes, but what I can't roll with is a tolerance or an overlooking of antisemitism or any form of bigotry."
The exodus from the Heritage Foundation to Advancing American Freedom continues.
A senior Heritage Foundation staffer has been hired by Advancing American Freedom, joining more than 20 other former Heritage employees who have departed the conservative think tank for AAF over criticism of President Kevin Roberts' refusal to disavow Tucker Carlson for platforming neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes and Roberts' handling of the broader fallout. . . .
"I can roll with policy changes, but what I can't roll with is a tolerance or an overlooking of antisemitism or any form of bigotry," Hale told Jewish Insider in an interview. "I've worked for Democrats, Republicans, Labour and Conservative in the U.K., on both sides of the Atlantic. I can roll with policy changes. This is not about that. For me, I feel obligated because I have the freedom to do so and the means to do so. I'm calling out a problem that exists at Heritage and exists in the conservative movement, and we need to exorcize it in a way that the Left has not done well."
"As someone who used to work for the late holocaust [sic] survivor and human rights advocate Congressman Tom Lantos, I have zero tolerance for any form of bigotry, and I believe most of my fellow Americans feel the same," he added in a subsequent written statement. "As a student of history, I believe antisemitism has recently been normalized in some quarters on the right and we are right back in the 1930s – and everyone should be aware of where that led."
Hale explains that those who spoke out against Kevin Roberts faced internal retaliation:
Hale cited Roberts' unwillingness to take down a video posted to Heritage's social media accounts in late October lashing out at Carlson's critics, as well as what Hale described as retaliation against those who spoke out against antisemitism at an all-staff meeting in November amid controversy over the video, as reasons for his departure from the think tank.
At the staff meeting, Hale said, "I bit my tongue and I watched others stand up and challenge, and I witnessed those people suffer dearly for that."
"It was just like they were persona non grata after that," he added, "And then we had people go around the building saying afterwards that any sort of dissent of any kind will not be tolerated. Those people suffered retaliation. Then we were all threatened and warned never to do that."
"Afterwards, we were warned not to do that. And if we had a problem and there was a disagreement, we should leave," he continued. "That offending video that caused all this a couple months ago is still up, and the offending individual hasn't taken it down. … I just don't know how that video remains up when it has caused so much damage."
Hale also pointed out how Heritage changed after the departure of Ed Feulner, a point I made in my recent WSJ op-ed.
Hale says he believes the organization "went absolutely off the rails very quickly" following the death of Heritage founder Edwin Feulner last July. . . .
Hale argued that there was a difference between how Feulner and Roberts allowed their respective faiths to influence their roles leading Heritage.
"I never knew what Ed Feulner's religion was. I discovered what it was when he had his funeral at a Roman Catholic Church. I'm also a practicing Christian. I'm Anglican, and my faith is very important to me, but I don't wear it on my sleeve," Hale said. "When Ed Feulner was there, he really was about conservatism and he was very philosophical. I know his faith did inform his policies and how he conducted himself, but I find that when there are problems at Heritage and some other organizations, they're glossed over by simply people quoting a Bible verse or talking about how God told them to do this."
Read the entire piece.
I should note there was one reverse exodus.
On December 22, I reported that Cully Simson and Hans von Spakovsky departed from Heritage. On January 12, Hans joined Advancing American Freedom. But in a bit of a twist, on January 13, Cully returned to Heritage. Here is his announcement on X:
I am proud to return to The Heritage Foundation, the most influential organization with the biggest impact advancing conservative policy and legal reform. In a turbulent time in 2025, when important issues were complicated by hasty decisions taken by many, including me, I resigned my position at Heritage. With time and reflection over the holidays, I see very clearly now: Heritage is my home. I remain committed to the core principles and the principles that have made Heritage a leader in shaping law and policy. The focus now is strengthening Heritage as a powerhouse for scholarship and strategy, driving progress on election integrity, criminal justice, regulatory reform, and constitutional governance. Heritage's impact is unmatched, and I am honored to rejoin this mission and work alongside those dedicated to building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.
The Washington Times wrote about this "drama."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
"I can roll with policy changes, but what I can't roll with is a tolerance or an overlooking of antisemitism or any form of bigotry."
"Policy changes" is one hell of a way to describe far-right stormtroopers murdering people in the streets.
I know, right? I’m personally dumbfounded that all these folks opposing antisemitism are A-OK with an administration that explicitly invokes Nazi propaganda and normalizes neo-nazis.
The problem is that the alternative is pretty awful, and maybe worse on the antisemitism front.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what you think is a worse alternative? It seems to me that when you're talking Nazis you're pretty much at the worst of the worst.
Well, first of all, as long as communists are around, Nazis will never be more than second worst of the worst. Communists were about as genocidal, only with more staying power, so they racked up a much bigger butcher bill.
Second, Democrats have been crying wolf on the Republicans = Nazis front for approximately 80 years.
But is there something of a current resurgence of antisemitism on the right? Yeah, and I really hate it, and as the people deserting Heritage demonstrate, I'm not alone.
I figure the problem is that the generation who liberated the death camps is pretty much gone, and the generation raised by that generation, (Mine!) are dying out, so that basic moral revulsion for antisemitism that the Holocaust implanted in American society is fading.
So people aren't as religiously avoiding anything that would even look a little anti-semitic or Nazi-ish if you squinted as they used to. I do find that disturbing, not "edgy", as some morons like to call it.
At the same time, however, Democrats are horrifyingly comfortable with a whiff, or more than a whiff, of communism. You'll elect somebody like Mamdani, and make excuses for him talking about seizing the means of production, abolishing private property, talking lovingly about "the warmth of collectivism".
That's the sort of thing that, by all rights, ought to excite just as much revulsion as a whiff of Nazism, but strangely doesn't.
I think that's because Stalin was our "enemy of our enemy" pseudo-ally in WWII, so we weren't nearly as vigilant about rooting out every domestic hit of communism as we were in going after our own fascists. Though by rights we should have been just as vigilant about purging one set of monsters as the other.
But, however it happened, Democrats are basking in "the warmth of collectivism", and cozying up to genocidal Islamic Jihadis, so however revolting I find what is going on on the right, the left revolts me more.
It is the Left that now commonly calls Jews a bunch of genocidal baby killers, and demands that Jews be kicked out of Israel. The right-wing has been mild in comparison.
Once you start pretending "communism" = "socialism" and that democratic socialism/social democracy (see: Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, etc) are just like authoritarian socialism (see: Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba) then equating universal healthcare programs to Stalin becomes second hand.
Come see the straw man waving a dead herring!
Once you're calling for seizing the means of production and abolishing private property, there isn't whole lot of risk that people are pretending that you're a communist, when you're 'really a socialist'.
If you set the bar for calling somebody a communist as low as the bar currently is for calling someone a "fascist", there are a hell of a lot of communists about.
Once you're calling for seizing the means of production and abolishing private property, there isn't whole lot of risk that people are pretending that you're a communist, when you're 'really a socialist'.
You do realize, Brett, that these are very far - light-years away - from normal Democratic policies? Or maybe you unable to distinguish individuals, and see only a great undifferentiated mass, such that all universally agree.
You should also understand that the mayoral election in NYC was a mess, and that Mamdani faced what turned out to be very flawed opponents.
You do realize, Bernard, don't you, that neo-Nazis are a tiny fraction of the GOP, too?
"You should also understand that the mayoral election in NYC was a mess, and that Mamdani faced what turned out to be very flawed opponents."
An excuse you'd never accept for electing a Nazi.
Here's the bottom line: You've got no standing to complain about Nazis if you tolerate communists.
Well maybe, and just hear me out, we don’t give this administration its own gestapo with “complete federal immunity.”
Nor do Democrats emblazon Nazi slogans on their podium when they speak.
Nor is there a Tucker Carlson equivalent on the left, with an audience in the millions.
As for Mamdani, well, I hate a lot of his policy ideas, but when it comes to matters of law enforcement, and respecting laws and individual rights in general, he's less of a Stalinist than Trump.
That said, Brett, I am (seriously) glad you recognize and hate the resurgence of right-wing antisemitism. I hope your attitude spreads more widely.
Thanks. Like I said, my father fought in WWII, I think my generation were raised to have a visceral hatred of antisemitism by people who knew where it could lead. K-12 didn't skimp on teaching the Holocaust in the 60's and 70's, it was still a somewhat fresh memory. Even in college a fair number of the teachers were WWII veterans.
The last echoes of the horror of the Holocaust are fading, history books do not have the same impact as first hand witness. I think that's why antisemitism is making a resurgence across the political spectrum, not just on the right. No matter how much you argue that it's possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Jew, the reality is that most anti-Zionism is a cover for antisemitism, often of the genocidal sort.
"Nor do Democrats emblazon Nazi slogans on their podium when they speak."
That's about as much of a defense of Democrats as saying "Nor do Republicans emblazon Communist slogans on their podium when they speak."
My point above is that while Fascism and Communism might be different evils, they are not significantly different in terms of the degree of their evil. You can't say Democrats are better than Republicans because at least they're not increasingly tolerant of fascism, when the Democrats are instead increasingly tolerant of communism.
I'll ask again, who's funding Mike Pence's AAF? Back when he was still a somebody, Pence was essentially a Koch employee. Koch still backing him?
Does this help any? It does not appear that they are primarily Koch funded.
Seems pretty straight forward in funding.
No, that lists only 10% of the funding. It does not tell us whether Jews are funding the raid on Heritage employees.
While I did not often agree with Heritage, expect being there framework for a healthcare mandate, I could respect their opinion reflecting conservative values. There is nothing conservative about supporting antisemitism.
Heritage does not support antisemitism. Unless you take the broad definition that makes most non-Jews (and many Jews) antisemites.
They may not technically support antisemitism, but they're curiously unmotivated to oppose it, and that's bad enough.
Heritage denounced Fuentes and antisemitism. What more do you want?
Maybe being a bit less footsy with Carlson? Man, did that guy ever go off the deep end fast.
The main thing Carlson has done, to infuriate the Jews, was to denounce the Gaza War as genocide. On that issue, he gets far more agreement on the Left, than on the Right. And he gets agreement from supposedly neutral sources, like Wikipedia.
It is interesting that Blackman and the other anti-Heritage Jews do not mention that. Instead they focus on a trivial interview with Fuentes.
Indeed, supposedly, and he gets agreement from the left because, as I said above, the left has become cozy with genocidal Islamic Jihadis.
"Anti-Semitism, being an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous remnant of cannibalism. ... Communists cannot fail to be irreconcilable and sworn enemies of anti-Semitism".
I guess Stalin wasn't an anti-Semite either.
There is nothing conservative about supporting antisemitism.
I disagree.
Moved comment
Jews are celebrating a takeover of the conservative movement. Congratulations. That is the story here.
Note that the main complaint here is that Heritage did not take down a video that refused to denounce a friend for interviewing someone with disagreeable politics.
The movement or a few eGOP think tanks? I'm not seeing how this is the win the Israel first people think it is.
Roger S strikes me, as many anti-Semites strike me, as someone whose main objection to the Nazis is that they lost.
He strikes me as a typically totally stupid antisemitic asshole - a pathetic excuse for a human being.