Heritage VP of Development Clarifies That “Declaration of Independence and Constitution are Foundational to American Exceptionalism”

The February 2026 edition of Chronicles Magazine has an article by John Howting titled “Heritage Is Better-Off With Kevin Roberts—and Without the Malcontents.” In case you had to guess, I am one of those malcontents. I was inclined to ignore this contribution, until I saw that Genevieve Wood, the Vice President of Development at the Heritage Foundation, tweeted a link to the article. Still, I thought it better to just let the issue go. That was, until Wood felt compelled to issue a clarification:

For those on this platform who don’t know me, I want to be clear – I believe the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are foundational to American exceptionalism. I should have stated that before posting the article below which could suggest otherwise. Consider this a clarification and my bad.

Whenever I hear the phrase “My bad,” I think of Cher Horowitz from Clueless. Maybe not the best pop culture reference for this post.

Now, I think I have to explain why an article about me required a Heritage VP to reaffirm a commitment to the Declaration and the Constitution.

Let’s start with the original article. And for those of you who aren’t familiar with Chronicles Magazine, Pat Buchanan called it “The toughest, best-written, and most insightful journal in America.” And if you are not familiar with John Howting, in November, he described Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes as a “conversation with a fellow native-born American about what is in America’s national interests.”

The article begins by noting that, according to Heritage, thirty employees left the organization. (I think the number is higher, but I’ll table that count for now.)

As each malcontent slowly slithers out the door—once every couple of weeks, it seems, in order to strategically drag the drama out for as long as possible—they decry Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts for abandoning conservative principles.

And who are the only two “malcontents” mentioned by name that “slither[ed] out the door”? Josh Blackman and Adam Mossoff. And wouldn’t you know it, we are both Jewish and Zionists. People who keep insisting that they are not anti-semitic have this knack of fixating on Jews, often with reptilian language. I wonder if you have to slither into a venomous coalition? Let’s just chalk it up to another cosmic coincidence.

Howting quotes from my Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Consider Josh Blackman, former editor of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, who resigned in late December. He writes in The Wall Street Journal that during Roberts’ tenure, Heritage drifted from its conservative principles: “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

Where did I get these five planks from? I didn’t make them up. They are the five planks of Heritage’s mission statement.

Heritage’s mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

My op-ed even links to the mission statement:

For more than half a century, the Heritage Foundation’s work has rested on five ideological pillars listed in its mission statement: “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

Yet, Howting somehow takes umbrage at how I accurately quoted Heritage’s own mission statement.

The first three of those principles are Conservative Inc.talking points in defense of “capitalism.” In other words, he is deeply concerned—so concerned that it comprises the first three items on his list—about preserving tools for earning money. If he were a carpenter, he’d be rushing into the fire to save his toolbox.

But that charge is small potatos. Howting goes on trivialize the relevance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Mind you, I do not even mention the Declaration in my op-ed and the Constitution is mentioned in passing.

The fourth—”traditional American values”—means the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration is an ordinance of secession from the British Empire, and the Constitution is an old list of laws and political compromises. This is akin to running into a fire to grab a drawer full of old legal documents.

The Declaration is the greatest statement of governance in the history of the world. Do I really need to state that self-evident truth in our 250th year of independence? But to Howting, it is simply just an “ordinance of secession.” Basically a statement announcing a breach of contract. Which self-evident truth does Howting take exception with? And the Constitution is “old list of laws and political compromises.” Our foundational law, which even progressives pretend to revere, is cast away as a dusty old document.

Chronicles Magazine is “dedicated to defending and advancing the philosophical and spiritual foundations of Western Civilization.” I’ve learned that the phrase “Western Civilization” no longer refers to the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Anglo-American legal tradition. No, this approach would burn down our entire liberal order, and create some sort of new illiberal order that perhaps resembles a theocracy. There is no need for “old list of laws.” Keep that in mind the next time you hear the phrase “Western Civilization.”

If you read on, Howting attacks Adam Mossoff’s education, and says he does not understand Aristotle:

If Mossoff had been classically educated, he might have known better, but his scoffing at friendship is revealing.

Mossoff received a bachelor’s in Philosophy for Michigan, a masters in Philosophy from Columbia, and served as Richard Epstein’s research assistant at the University of Chicago. He is a leading scholar on the historical roots of intellectual property law. I encourage you to read his brilliant essay on the Copyright and Patent Cause in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. My friend and former professor traces the doctrine from the 15th century to the present. I think Adam has qualified for receiving an education in the classics. But none of that matters. As I noted above, isn’t it some coincidence that of all the people who resigned, Howting charges that two Jewish zionists do not understand the topics on which they profess?

Howting closes:

Kevin Roberts may not be perfect, but the defectors from his organization who heap scorn on him have no right to lecture him, or anyone, on conservative principles. Heritage is better off with Roberts and without them. He matters for conservatism—they don’t.

Who matters here? Again, I had no interest in writing about Howting’s article, because it didn’t matter. But a Heritage VP of Development–who is responsible for fundraising and courting donors–felt compelled to post the link on her X profile. What does that post say about how Heritage views its donors? What does it say about the intellectual approach of Heritage in this 250th year of independence? Heritage traditionally had a curated and effective social media presence. Who is running the ship now?

People have not “slithered” away from Heritage because of Heritage’s positions on free trade, MAHA, or gender ideology, as Derrick Morgan, the Heritage Executive Vice President, implied. People have resigned due to an intellectual and moral implosion. If a VP of Heritage is forced to reaffirm the importance of the Declaration of Independence, the mission has been lost. Heritage is fond of quoting from Theodore Roosevelt’s Man in the Arena speech. Fair enough, but all arenas have sidelines and not everyone belongs on the playing field. As TR presciently warned, our republic must reject the “fanaticism which, whether religious or antireligious, democratic or antidemocratic, [is] itself but a manifestation of the gloomy bigotry which has been the chief factor in the downfall of so many, many nations.” Well said.

I realize that many good people are still at Heritage, including some friends. I do not envy their situation. Leaving a job is difficult. There is of course the financial sacrifice. Trust me, I know. People reasonably worry that they cannot replace a stream of income, benefits, and other perks. Then there is a fear of reputational harm. They worry that leaving Heritage might impair their ability to gain some future employment or might diminish their influence. But eventually, the dynamic flips at an inversion point. At some point, as Heritage’s reputation declines, the benefits of leaving exceed the costs of staying. In short, every day they remain, their reputation suffers worse than the day before. The intellectual capital that has drained from Heritage cannot simply be refilled through new hires. And as the quality of work continues to decline, and their work is taken less seriously, the risk of staying increases at a faster pace.

Writing this, and other posts on this topic, does not bring me any joy. Heritage is an institution that I have long held in such high regard. I devoted four years of my life to a project with that name. John Malcolm and I helped to recruit more than 150 judges, scholars, and advocates to contribute to the Heritage Guide, including a Supreme Court Justice. I put my own reputation on the line to persuade others to join the project–a task that was not always easy. Yet the good will built up over the course of fifty years is being flitted away, for what? For what? I don’t even know what the point of all this has been. It’s not like there was some sort of actual intellectual schism. All of this is over a tweet, which still remains online. Maybe at some point in the future, the events of the past few months can be put in perspective. For now, my only reaction is one of sadness.