The Groyper Takeover of the GOP

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts’ initial defense of Tucker Carlson’s interview with the raging antisemite Nick Fuentes has now ignited an open revolt at the venerable right-wing think tank, the WaPo reports.

While Roberts has backed away some from his initial full-throated defense of Carlson, his apology didn’t keep a staff meeting at Heritage on Wednesday from turning into a shitshow. Some of the highlights from the WaPo:

• “Legal fellow Amy Swearer during the meeting called Roberts’s handling of the controversy ‘a master class in cowardice that ran cover for the most unhinged dregs of the far right’ and described a loss of confidence in his leadership.”
• “Asked later in the meeting about his use of the term ‘globalists’ — a common dog whistle for a conspiratorial view of world ‘Jewry’ — Roberts said he didn’t mean to imply criticism of anyone of any particular faith.”
• When Roberts’ speechwriter complained that countering the accusations of antisemitism might mean he would be required to attend a Shabbat dinner and violate his own faith, another Heritage executive shot back, “I’m deeply sorry that you could not see that as a generous offer but rather a personal attack on you.”

At least five members of Heritage’s antisemitism task force have resigned in protest, including lawyer Ian Speir, who emailed the WaPo:

When Kevin Roberts repeatedly defended Tucker Carlson after his kid-glove treatment of Nick Fuentes, I lost faith that Heritage is the right institution to lead this important fight. We cannot let this malevolent evil make further inroads into our politics and civil discourse. It will literally destroy us.”

At one level, it’s entertaining to watch conservatives squirm over the Groyperism of their party — although they’ve been very slow in responding to what has been obvious for years.

“The distance between Fuentes and the mainstream Republican Party isn’t really that large,” Richard Hanania told the NYT, whose description of him is itself instructive: “a conservative writer who once posted under a pseudonym in white supremacist forums. (He has since denounced his past writings.)”

Back at Heritage, Roberts threw his own chief of staff under the bus for writing the speech that got Roberts in so much hot water:

On Monday, Roberts reassigned his chief of staff, Ryan Neuhaus, to a lower-ranking role. By Tuesday, Neuhaus was no longer employed by Heritage. On Wednesday, Roberts called him a “good man” who “made a mistake,” and said he was largely responsible for drafting Roberts’s controversial remarks.

The kicker was this line: “Two people close to Neuhaus said he views his departure as an attempt to appease Jewish Republicans.”

Good Read

WaPo: The secretive donor circle that lifted JD Vance is now rewriting MAGA’s future

Bad Day for Trump Tariffs at SCOTUS

You could feel the legal community breathe a sigh of relief that even the Roberts Court couldn’t bring itself to embrace President Trump’s tariffs. His wildly expansive view of presidential power at the expense of Congress was a bridge too far in oral arguments yesterday. How many justices will rule against Trump and how they get there remain open questions, but the alternative — a ruling in Trump’s favor — would have resulted in nearly boundless executive power and collapsed the already teetering constitutional order:

• TPM’s Layla A. Jones: Liberal Justices Cheekily Use Conservatives’ Favorite Legal Theories to Push for a Ruling Against Trump On Tariffs
• WSJ: A Justice-by-Justice Breakdown on Trump’s Tariffs
• Politico: 5 takeaways from the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Trump’s tariffs case

Trump: ‘They’ll Most Likely Never Obtain Power’

Trump: "They're gonna make DC a state and they're gonna make Puerto Rico a state. So now they pick up two states, four senators. They're gonna pick up electoral votes. It's gonna be a very, very bad situation. Now, if we do what I'm saying, they'll most likely never obtain power."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-11-05T13:43:43.699Z

Early Theories of the Election

It will take some time to analyze Tuesday’s election results — and early takes are often wrong — but among the many analyses floating around in the ether, these three caught my eye:

• Pollsters struggled to identify the expected electorate — the partisan makeup of who would actually vote. Angela Kuefler, the pollster for the Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger campaigns, told the WSJ that the most accurate partisan mix turned out to be the 2017 election, first year of Trump’s first term. “Polls that used the 2017 electorate as a guide produced a 12- or 13-point Sherrill victory, which tracked the actual outcome,” the paper reported.
• Democrats succeeded at winning over “a modest but meaningful sliver” of Trump supporters, Nate Cohn reports. “[T]he available data generally suggests that Democratic gains were driven slightly more by flipping Mr. Trump’s supporters than by benefiting from a superior turnout,” according to Cohn’s analysis of the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey.
• Perhaps the internecine argument over whether to attack Trump or focus on kitchen tables issues is a false dichotomy, Greg Sargent writes: “The Democratic Party’s blowout wins on Tuesday night underscore a fundamental reality about the Donald Trump era: Anti-Trump politics is affordability politics, and affordability politics is anti-Trump politics.”

Judge Scolds Comey Prosecutors

In an early procedural hearing in the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick deplored the government’s “indict first and investigate second” approach.

A frustrated Fitzpatrick said the prosecution was not a “traditional case” and that “the procedural posture of this case is highly unusual.”

Fitzpatrick largely sided with Comey, ordering prosecutors to turn over by today “all grand jury transcripts and materials from the current prosecution as well as evidence that FBI agents seized during a prior leak investigation in 2019 and 2020,” NBC News reported.

Quote of the Day

“Obviously some of these conditions are, in my word, disgusting. To have to sleep on the floor next to an overflowed toilet, that’s obviously unconstitutional.”–U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman of Chicago, who ordered the federal government to provide bedding, hygiene supplies, daily showers, clean toilets and three meals a day at the ICE facility Broadview

For Your Radar …

In the case of Chanthila Souvannarath, who was deported to Laos last month despite a federal court order barring his deportation, U.S. District Judge Shelly D. Dick of Baton Rouge has allowed limited written discovery into the circumstances of the deportation.

It’s “clear that there are factual questions about the timing and circumstances of the alleged violation of this Court’s TRO,” Dick said in her latest ruling. The Trump administration claims it didn’t receive the court order until after Souvannarath had already been deported.

In echoes of the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Trump administration is arguing, among other things, that Dick lacks jurisdiction because Souvannarath was removed from her judicial district to Alexandria, Louisiana, while the case was pending and because she can’t compel the government of Laos to return him.

Venezuela Watch

The Trump DOJ is working on a legal justification for targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as part of a military operation, the WSJ reports.

Someone Should Ask the Groper-in-Chief About This

Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum is pressing charges after being groped on the street while walking from the National Palace to the Education Ministry: “If this is done to the president, what is going to happen to all of the young women in our country?”

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!