By Kevin Price.
Recently, I reached out to an old friend of mine over the strange behavior I was witnessing at the Heritage Foundation, one of the country’s most influential conservative think tanks. It is particularly influential in the Trump Administration and was intimately involved in Project 2025. That controversial agenda has been strongly embraced by Trump, and he has implemented dozens of their recommendations in just a few months (by executive orders).
I worked for the National Center for Public Policy Research (a very close Heritage ally) in the 1980s and was regularly listed in Heritage’s Annual Guide to Public Policy Experts. Our offices were literally housed in Heritage at the time, and a Senior Vice President of Heritage was the Chairman of the National Center. Like I said, very close.
When I was there, Heritage was well known as adamantly free trade. It had unwavering opposition to tariffs. Until this week, Heritage had positioned itself as a reluctant tariff apologist. As long as tariffs were rhetorical and not real, they could support it as a “negotiating tactic.” All that changed this past week when the tariffs became real. Now, according to insiders, Heritage is facing an internal crisis as it struggles to reconcile economic principles with political realities. Behind closed doors, a fierce battle is unfolding between its economists and leadership over how to navigate Donald Trump’s continued embrace of protectionism. Heritage was shocked that the tariffs were not just talk.
My longtime friend, who is a senior economist within the organization, speaking anonymously, described the situation as a “civil war.” He noted that every economist in the think tank remains steadfastly opposed to tariffs, viewing them as fundamentally damaging to the economy. Yet, leadership has been walking a tightrope, reluctant to alienate Trump, whose influence over the Republican Party (and the conservative movement) remains dominant. She described the shock among Heritage economists when they discovered that he actually intended to implement them. The condemnation of tariffs is one of the few bipartisan issues out there. Only the smallest of constituencies support them—largely limited to labor unions. That’s because everyone suffers from them historically, including labor unions.
For years, Heritage comforted itself with the belief that Trump’s tariffs were merely a bargaining chip—a temporary means to an end. However, that illusion was shattered on what Trump has frequently proclaimed as “Liberation Day,” the moment when he fully embraced tariffs as a defining aspect of his economic agenda rather than a short-term negotiation tool.
That realization left the think tank in disarray. Leadership, desperate to maintain favor with Trump and his allies, has carefully avoided taking a strong stance. Instead, they have opted for rhetorical gymnastics, insisting that tariffs should be seen as a tool rather than a policy shift. Internally, however, the frustration among economists has reached a breaking point. All the economists, I have been told, project the fear of incrimination by association. They can oppose it all they want, but these economists fear being seen complicit by being a part of it as it moves from rhetoric to reality.
According to the economist, Heritage has no real strategy for handling this contradiction. Opposing Trump outright is politically untenable, but supporting tariffs would betray the principles that have defined the think tank from its very beginning. As a result, leadership has largely resorted to avoidance, hoping to sidestep the issue without drawing attention.
This struggle mirrors a broader identity crisis within the conservative movement. Free trade was once a core conservative value, yet Trump’s rise has upended that orthodoxy. Institutions like Heritage are left trying to straddle the line, unwilling to embrace tariffs yet unable to push back against them without jeopardizing political standing.
As America moves towards the 2026 midterm elections, the pressure will only intensify. The economist admitted that, for now, the only option seems to be silence—dodging the issue and hoping it doesn’t become a public battle. But with Trump’s grip on the party remaining strong, the question looms: How long can free-market conservatives continue this balancing act before they are forced to choose between principle and political survival? The media has already chimed in on what is being described as “hypocrisy” by one of the country’s largest conservative think tanks. In addition to principles, there is often survival. How will Heritage and other conservative think tanks survive if they continue to hitch themselves to Trump’s trade policies? The history of such policies is ruinous, without exception. Can Heritage survive such financially and by reputation? That seems doubtful.
Kevin Price is Editor in Chief of US Daily Review and Host of the Nationally Syndicated Price of Business Show.
The photo is a product of inspiration and technology. Not an actual photo. Nobody depicted in this picture, except for Trump, are based on real people.
0
0
