Catholic Scholar Resigns from Heritage as Debate Over Antisemitism Intensifies
Prominent Catholic legal scholar Robert P. George has stepped down from the board of the Heritage Foundation, citing an irreconcilable disagreement with the organization’s president regarding a widely criticized interview featuring white supremacist Nick Fuentes. The controversy emerged after media personality Tucker Carlson hosted Fuentes in a conversation that repeated antisemitic tropes, prompting swift responses from Jewish organizations, Catholic commentators and political leaders. George, a longtime advocate for religious liberty and human dignity, stated that remaining on the board would contradict his belief that conservative institutions must clearly reject ideologies rooted in racial hostility and religious prejudice. The tension unfolded shortly after Vatican commemorations marking the sixtieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate, which reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s categorical rejection of antisemitism and underscored the theological importance of its relationship with the Jewish people. George emphasized that racism, white supremacy and any doctrine contrary to human dignity are incompatible with the principles of both Christianity and the conservative intellectual tradition. His resignation follows other departures from Heritage initiatives aimed at confronting antisemitism, signaling deeper fractures within conservative circles on how to respond to extremist rhetoric.
Reactions to Carlson’s interview displayed a spectrum of responses among conservative leaders, with some officials distancing themselves from the commentary and others defending Carlson on the grounds of open dialogue. Heritage president Kevin Roberts initially released a video describing Carlson as a friend of the institution and denouncing what he called coordinated attacks against him. Although Roberts later apologized for aspects of his message, he declined to issue a full retraction, leading George to conclude that the disagreement could not be resolved. Jewish advocacy groups associated with Heritage’s Project Esther also raised concerns about the interview’s content, citing repeated references to conspiratorial notions that have historically fueled hostility toward Jewish communities. Analysts note that this dispute reflects broader debates within the conservative movement about how to define the boundaries of acceptable discourse, particularly when public figures invoke religious language while promoting views that contradict long established moral teachings. The episode has revived questions about the moral responsibility of institutions that shape political culture and the importance of setting clear standards on matters involving human dignity and civic cohesion.
George’s final statement reflected both disappointment and hope, acknowledging his respect for Roberts while urging the institution to remain firmly anchored in principles derived from the Judeo Christian tradition. He highlighted that the foundational belief in the dignity of every human person, created in the image of God, must serve as the guiding standard for policy research, civic education and public advocacy. This conviction, he argued, is essential to preserving a democratic society capable of sustaining ordered liberty. His reflections point to a wider concern that moral clarity can erode when political expediency overshadows ethical commitments. Many observers view the controversy as a reminder of the responsibility held by influential organizations to confront ideologies that undermine human equality. George expressed confidence that Heritage could reclaim its foundational mission, provided it upholds its historic commitment to defending the inherent rights of all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity or religious background, strengthening the moral foundation upon which its work has traditionally stood.
