This year, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board published a ridiculous reach piece about Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, who claimed Roberts had” steered the venerable think container away from some of its long-time conservative principles to judge Donald Trump, only to be demonized by the temperamental former leader he and his organization courted.”
The editors are referring to Heritage’s hefty document, which lists conservative policy recommendations for a potential incoming Republican administration, as the Trump campaign recently distanced itself from it ( Heritage publishes something like it every four years since 1981 ). Liberals and the internet have been attacking — and boldly lying about — Project 2025 currently in a desperate attempt to distract from the Biden-Harris government’s huge policy problems. Alas, the Trump plan chose to reject Project 2025 instead of blatantly refuting these accusations.
In justice, Project 2025 was not fully connected to the Trump campaign. Roberts himself stated that the document is intended to be a” stockpile of liberal policy recommendations that our leaders can pick and choose,” and that there will of course be disagreement and debate, which is a normal and healthy component of the political process.  ,
All of this serves as a warning to the WSJ editorial board about what happens to conservatives who” accused the democratic taste of the day.” What a smear that is ridiculous and stupid. Roberts has n’t abandoned his conservative principles. In contrast, he has stayed with them despite constant criticism and has saved the Heritage Foundation from obscurity.
When Roberts came in as president of the consider reservoir in 2021, Heritage was aimless, lawless, and losing control. It had longer been unresponsive to the problems and challenges of regular Americans, and it was advocating a business-as-usual approach to policy when it was obvious that the old GOP plan discussion had disintegrated, and for good reason.  ,
Roberts ‘ new direction for Heritage was entirely focused on making sure the think tank prioritized policies that would advance the interests of Americans over all else. To be sure, it was a shift for Heritage, but a necessary one. Detractors like the WSJ editorial board attempt to refute that change as populist pandering, but they must disregard how badly Heritage, along with the Republican establishment, had lost its way.
Trump played a key role in uncovering the dysfunction at the heart of the GOP, which was led by neoconservatives advocating for endless foreign embarrassments, complicated multilateral trade agreements that were harmful to American workers, and wide-open borders during the Bush and Obama administrations. On these and other important issues, rank-and-file Republicans had become totally alienated from their party’s leadership, whose priorities had little to do with what their voters actually wanted. Trump’s popularity at the time was attributable to his willingness to address these persistent issues and address the elephant in the room. Trump forced a reshuffle that Republican leaders had been working hard to avoid, from the border to the disastrous trade relationship with China.
Any casual observer of American politics is aware of all of this, just as any knowledgeable observer of Washington is aware that Heritage, a reputable think tank, was in bad shape before Roberts arrived.
What the editors of the WSJ , really , object to, and why they published a disingenuous hit piece on him and Heritage, is that Roberts is n’t an open-border neocon who is willing to sell out the American people for the military-industrial complex and big business. That’s why neocon hucksters like Marc Thiessen were , reveling in WSJ’s smearing of Roberts  , this week. For these people, anyone who opposes Ukraine funding, or even prioritizes border security over the funding of foreign wars, has to be sidelined and discredited. The WSJ has targeted it because Roberts ‘ leadership challenges the neocon agenda. It’s not more complicated than that.
If Roberts were to be accused of pursuing influence, you would expect him to alter his position on Project 2025 after the Trump campaign attacked him. But he’s not, and he wo n’t. Roberts is aware of the fundamental shifts taking place in American politics, in contrast to the WSJ editors. He belongs in the minority who is aware that regardless of whether Trump wins the White House in November, the GOP will never be overtaken by neoconservative, open-border elites, or by much in what The Wall Street Journal editors have to say about it.
