Nearly the entire legal and economic policy staff of the Heritage Foundation is departing the conservative think tank, and many will be taking up posts at Advancing American Freedom (AAF), a nonprofit founded in 2021 by former Vice President Mike Pence. The mass exodus represents a dramatic rebuke of Heritage President Kevin Roberts in the wake of his refusal to retract an October video defending Tucker Carlson for conducting a friendly interview with the antisemitic influencer Nick Fuentes.

"Why these people are coming our way is that Heritage and some other voices and commentators have embraced big-government populism and have been willing to tolerate antisemitism," Pence told The Wall Street Journal. 

More than 30 employees at the Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government, Ed Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Center for Data Analysis, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget have resigned or were fired in the last few days. Those departing include Amy Swearer, who told Roberts he had lost her confidence as a leader during an all-staff meeting in November that leaked to the press, and John Malcolm, a Heritage vice president and the foundation's top legal scholar, who was fired last Thursday after Roberts caught wind of the plan to leave for AAF, according to multiple sources. E.J. Antoni—who was briefly President Donald Trump's nominee for Commissioner of Labor Statistics—is staying on and will serve as acting director of several of the aforementioned teams.

The departures follow resignations by three Heritage Foundation trustees: Princeton professor Robby George, businessman Shane McCullar, and philanthropist Abby Spencer Moffat. Sources say Moffat, who serves as president and CEO of the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation, has also withdrawn millions of dollars in funding from Heritage—and that she's not the only one. (Some of that money may have been redirected to Pence's group; "AAF said it was able to raise more than $10 million in a few weeks to make the new hires," the Journal reports.) And last month an antisemitism task force cut ties with the think tank.

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman shares a letter he wrote to Roberts explaining his decision to step down as senior editor of the latest edition of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. "Your actions have made my continued affiliation with Heritage untenable," Blackman writes. "First, your comments were a huge unforced blunder, and gave aid and comfort to the rising tide of antisemitism on the right. Second, in the wake of your remarks, jurists, scholars, and advocates have made clear to me they can no longer associate with the Heritage Guide they contributed to. Third, and perhaps most tragically, your actions have weakened the ability of the storied Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies to promote the rule of law. My resignation is effective immediately."

The personnel changes are the latest of many recent incidents that together show serious instability on what is often called the New Right. Other examples include reformicon wonks like Henry Olsen and Oren Cass publishing blistering critiques of Roberts' judgment as a leader and Ben Shapiro unloading on Carlson, Fuentes, Megyn Kelly, and Candace Owens at last week's Turning Point USA confab.

The conservative movement has undergone something of a sea change over the last 12 months. Heading into 2025, the conventional wisdom was that the New Right and its muscular, grievance-fueled political approach were the GOP's future. A jubilant atmosphere surrounding Trump's second inauguration did little to foreshadow the cracks that have since broken open (although those with ears to hear were noticing tremors a year ago involving the Tech Right–New Right divide).

Today, the divisions on the right are not just between pro-Trump and anti-Trump conservatives (or pro-Trump conservatives and never-Trump former conservatives). There is now a schism within the MAGA coalition over how big the tent should be and what exactly it should stand for.

One of the key sources of disagreement has to do with whether "legacy" or "heritage" Americans—those who can trace their bloodlines to the land for many generations—have more of a claim to belonging and status than do relative newcomers and others without an Anglo-Protestant pedigree. Carlson and Fuentes have both pushed versions of that line, as have large numbers of "very online" young conservatives, particularly in recent weeks. 

But not everyone on the right is comfortable with such notions. Last month, while accepting an award at the American Enterprise Institute's annual gala, the Revolutionary War–era historian Gordon Wood pointedly rejected the idea that American nationhood is rooted in blood, soil, religion, or race. More recently, both Ben Shapiro ("we are, in fact, a creedal country, and there is no other definition of Americanism that tends to hold historical water") and Vivek Ramaswamy ("you are an American if you believe in the rule of law, in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, in colorblind meritocracy, in the U.S. Constitution, in the American dream, and if you are a citizen who swears exclusive allegiance to our nation") have echoed the same theme. 

Although some of the emerging critics of Carlson's wing of the movement support deregulation and free trade, this is not merely an ideological proxy battle over the role that libertarian economics should play in the Post-Trump GOP. Ramaswamy's op-ed calls for the creation of a new multibillion-dollar entitlement, while Cass has made his bones imploring Republicans to reject what he derisively calls "market fundamentalism." Yet both men have broken with many erstwhile MAGA allies over the movement's identitarian turn.

After Carlson interviewed Fuentes in October, Bulwark journalist Will Sommer wrote that the American right "has no immune system against hatemongers and grifters." But that no longer seems correct. The immune response over the last two months has been ferocious. 

It may not be enough to overcome the Black Death of bigotry and conspiracism that has festered in the conservative movement for the better part of the last decade. And it's fair to note the many ways in which figures like Shapiro (who chose to employ Owens at The Daily Wire despite her long history of disturbing comments) and Ramaswamy helped create the problems they're now decrying. But it's a relief to know there are, in the end, limits to what a prominent swath of the conservative movement will stand for. 

"Heritage has always welcomed debate, but alignment on mission and loyalty to the institution are non-negotiable," reads an emailed statement from the think tank, the full text of which was published this morning at National Review. Unfortunately for Roberts—but perhaps fortunately for the health of American politics—many of his own people seem to feel a loyalty to something higher than the ideas and ethos with which he has aligned that institution.

The post Heritage Foundation Undergoes Mass Staff Exodus as Cracks Open on the New Right appeared first on Reason.com.

E xiled Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy posted a question this morning: “What did Cambodia gain after Hun Sen released the Hun Sen–Paetongtarn audio clip?”

​A source of mine in Cambodia, who asked not to be named, told me a few days ago that Hun Sen expected that after Paetongtarn was removed from the prime minister’s post, Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha would replace her, because Hun Sen has a good relationship with Prayut. But in the end, the situation flipped — the main opposition People’s Party unexpectedly handed the position to Anutin, who took a very hardline stance against Cambodia instead.

​Meanwhile, the Thai military seized the opportunity to expand its role and rebrand itself as a protector of ‘national sovereignty’, instead of a coup-prone army led by rogue generals fond of military adventures in politics. The Thai army relentlessly attacked and pressured Cambodia during this second war until Cambodia appealed to the international community, accusing Thailand of being the “aggressor”.

​Anutin then racked up waves of ultra-nationalist popularity.

It must be noted that many Thais were taught from childhood at school about Westen imperial powers taking away lands under Siamese control over a century which includes today’s Cambodia and they were delighted to see Anutin saying no to US President Donald Trump’s presure to quickly return to a ceasefire.

However, yesterday afternoon Anutin had to publicly deny for the second time that he was exploiting the situation and engaging in what might best be described as a ‘war for votes’, stating: “[The war] has nothing to do with the election.”

​As for Sam Rainsy’s question, it is clear that Hun Sen betrayed the Shinawatra family (though it remains unclear if the Shinawatra family quietly betrayed the Hun family first) by releasing the clip. At the time, he even boasted that there would be a change of Thailand’s prime minister in the near future.

Today, deep down, Hun Sen may actually regret having sabotaged Paetongtarn; as the English proverb goes: “Beware of what you wish for.”

​P.S. Anutin told the media yesterday that most of the [disputed areas] have been “reclaimed.”

The post What Did Anutin, Hun Sen and the Thai Army Gain From This Needless War? appeared first on Khaosod English.

Peter Arnett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who spent decades dodging bullets and bombs to bring the world eyewitness accounts of war from the rice paddies of Vietnam to the deserts of Iraq, has died. He was 91.

12/21/2025

Dear Dr. Roberts,

It is with deep regret that I must resign my position as Senior Editor of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Indeed, I could not have even conceived of such an action only a few months ago when we launched the third edition of the guide. On Constitution Day, I proudly stood at the Heritage Foundation as we released this book to the world. But your actions have made my continued affiliation with Heritage untenable. First, your comments were a huge unforced blunder, and gave aid and comfort to the rising tide of antisemitism on the right. Second, in the wake of your remarks, jurists, scholars, and advocates have made clear to me they can no longer associate with the Heritage Guide they contributed to. Third, and perhaps most tragically, your actions have weakened the ability of the storied Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies to promote the rule of law. My resignation is effective immediately.

For the past decade, I have cherished my close ties with The Heritage Foundation. I received several awards from Heritage, including the inaugural Edwin Meese Originalism Award. Every year, I lecture at the Heritage Clerkship Academy. I published a Heritage whitepaper on fighting antisemitism. And the crowning achievement of my professional career has been my service as the senior editor of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, which was published only three months ago. I devoted four years of my life to this definitive treatment of the Constitution. More importantly, John and I recruited more than 150 jurists, scholars, and advocates to participate in this generational project. As a testament to the value of this enterprise, Justice Samuel Alito graciously wrote the preface. All of this work was possible thanks to the sterling reputation of the Meese Center. Attorney General Edwin Meese is the cornerstone of the conservative legal movement. My co-editor John Malcolm is a brilliant scholar and bold leader who has guided the Meese Center to great heights. And the staff of the Meese Center provided the careful attention and insightful edits to make the Guide possible.

Yet, Heritage came to a crashing halt after your infamous video. Your initial remarks were indefensible. Your apology was underwhelming. And the lack of any meaningful followup over the past three months has been telling. For reasons only you know, you aligned the Heritage Foundation with the rising tide of antisemitism on the right. As Senator Ted Cruz observed, "this poison of antisemitism on the right . . . is spreading with young people." I agree with Ben Shapiro: "If Heritage Foundation wishes to retain its status as a leading thought institution in the conservative movement, it must act as ideological border control." Antisemitism is always the canary in the coalmine. History teaches us that any society that fails to protect its Jewish people is destined for despair.

I am not alone in recognizing how you wounded Heritage's moral standing. For more than a year, the Meese Center was planning a massive book signing at the Federalist Society National Convention. Heritage generously donated nearly 1,500 copies of the Guide, and everyone in attendance would have received a free copy. We arranged for nearly one-hundred contributors to autograph the book. Regrettably, your ill-timed remarks came only a few days before the Convention began. In short order, contributors told us that they could no longer autograph a book they already contributed to. The Heritage brand, once iconic, instantly became toxic. We made the difficult decision to cancel the book signing. This was a point of personal sadness, as John and I were so eager to celebrate the launch of this important work with the conservative legal movement. 

The fallout is even greater. Judges who have spoken at Heritage told me they would no longer affiliate with Heritage, and would no longer recommend their clerks attend the Clerkship Academy. Scholars who won prizes from Heritage told me they would no longer contribute to any Heritage publications. Public interest litigators have tweeted that they will no longer attend the Legal Strategy Forum.

The Heritage Foundation is greater than any single President. But one President has done what was once unthinkable. The Meese Center cannot survive under Heritage's current leadership, and the damage to the Meese Center brand has been irreparable. My only hope is that the important scholarship in the Heritage Guide can continue to be studied.

Sincerely,

Josh Blackman

Former Senior Editor

Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The post My Resignation From The Heritage Foundation appeared first on Reason.com.

Anthropic let its Claude AI run a vending machine in the Wall Street Journal newsroom for three weeks as part of an internal stress test called Project Vend, and the experiment ended in financial ruin after journalists systematically manipulated the bot into giving away its entire inventory for free. The AI, nicknamed Claudius, was programmed to order inventory, set prices, and respond to customer requests via Slack. It had a $1,000 starting balance and autonomy to make individual purchases up to $80. Within days, WSJ reporters had convinced it to declare an "Ultra-Capitalist Free-for-All" that dropped all prices to zero. The bot also approved purchases of a PlayStation 5, a live betta fish, and bottles of Manischewitz wine -- all subsequently given away. The business ended more than $1,000 in the red. Anthropic introduced a second version featuring a separate "CEO" bot named Seymour Cash to supervise Claudius. Reporters staged a fake boardroom coup using fabricated PDF documents, and both AI agents accepted the forged corporate governance materials as legitimate. Logan Graham, head of Anthropic's Frontier Red Team, said the chaos represented a road map for improvement rather than failure.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BYD is taking a page from the Airbnb playbook by launching a home charger sharing system that lets EV owners open up their personal charging equipment to other BYD drivers — and get paid for the convenience.

more…