Which conservative figures clashed with Nick Fuentes during the groyper wars?

Checked on December 16, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.

Executive summary

Nick Fuentes and his “Groypers” publicly clashed with a range of mainstream conservative figures during the original 2019 “Groyper Wars” and afterward — most prominently Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA, and more broadly with conservative commentators and institutions who rejected Fuentes’s tactics and views [1] [2] [3]. Prominent conservatives including Ben Shapiro and other mainstream voices criticized platforms that gave Fuentes airtime after later controversies such as Tucker Carlson’s interview, while institutional fights spilled into conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation and CPAC [4] [5] [2].

1. The headline feud: Fuentes vs. Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA

The clearest, best-documented clashes were with Turning Point USA and its founder Charlie Kirk. Fuentes’s followers disrupted TPUSA events in 2019 — a campaign called the “Groyper War” — pressing Kirk and his panels with provocative questions about immigration, Israel and LGBTQ issues and branding Kirk a “fake conservative” and “gatekeeper” [1] [3] [6]. That confrontation was the origin story of Fuentes’s public campaign to expose what he called conservatism’s “gatekeepers” [1].

2. Media blow-ups: conservative commentators who condemned platforms that hosted Fuentes

When high-profile platforms later hosted Fuentes, mainstream conservative commentators pushed back. Ben Shapiro and other mainstream conservatives criticized Tucker Carlson and others for giving Fuentes national exposure after Carlson’s October 2025 interview; organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish groups also flagged the risks [4] [5]. The backlash reflected broader unease in conservative media about normalizing a figure widely described as a white nationalist and antisemite [4].

3. Institutional friction: CPAC, Heritage and the conservative establishment

Fuentes and his Groypers were barred from some major conservative gatherings; his movement spurred resignations and internal fights when mainstream institutions faced decisions about engagement. The Heritage Foundation and other institutions experienced internal strife after controversies over conservative platforms and alleged infiltration, and some staff and trustees publicly split or resigned in response to debates about hosting or tolerating Groyper-adjacent views [5] [2].

4. Friendly fire within the right: feuds with other right‑wing intellectuals

Fuentes also sparred with other right‑of‑center intellectual currents that had different flavors of dissent. Reporting notes longstanding tensions between Fuentes and newer right-wing thinkers who have influence in conservative policymaking — for example, Fuentes’s “beef” with neo-reactionary figures like Curtis Yarvin and other far‑right intellectuals who have become prominent inside conservative circles [7]. Those disputes show the Groyper project is not simply an outsider-versus-establishment story but also involves jockeying among right-wing sub-currents [7].

5. Two competing narratives inside conservatism

Sources present competing views: one frames Fuentes and the Groypers as a dangerous white‑nationalist movement that mainstream conservatives must repudiate [2] [4]. Another, evident in some coverage and Fuentes’s own statements, casts him as a contrarian who claims to expose conservatism’s compromises and “gatekeepers” [1] [8]. Both narratives are active inside the movement of conservative discourse and have influenced how establishment figures and influencers respond [8] [5].

6. Aftermath and political consequences: why these clashes mattered

The Groyper conflicts reverberated beyond campus disruptions: Groypers were linked to Jan. 6 arrests, were banned from major events, and their presence fed debates over whether parts of the Republican Party were being “groyperfied” — including reporting that suggested young Republican staffers sometimes reflected Groyper views [2] [7]. The clashes forced conservative institutions to publicly police lines about antisemitism, extremism and acceptable platforms [2] [7].

7. Limits of available reporting and open questions

Available sources document disputes with Charlie Kirk/TPUSA, condemnation by figures like Ben Shapiro, and institutional fights at Heritage and CPAC [1] [3] [4] [5]. Sources do not provide a comprehensive list of every conservative figure who clashed with Fuentes; nor do they enumerate private conversations or all local incidents — those details are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting). Media treatment also varies, with some pieces emphasizing Fuentes’s influence and others stressing institutional rejection [5] [9].

8. What to watch next

Future disputes will hinge on who within the conservative ecosystem is willing to engage, platform, or bar Fuentes and associated voices. Recent high-profile platforming episodes and the institutional reactions they triggered — resignations, denunciations and policy changes at conservative groups — show these clashes continue to reshuffle the right’s media and organizational landscape [5] [9].

Want to dive deeper?
Which mainstream conservatives publicly condemned Nick Fuentes during the groyper wars?
How did Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro respond to Nick Fuentes and the groyper movement?
Which Republican politicians rejected alliances with Nick Fuentes and why?
What role did the Heritage Foundation and other conservative institutions play in opposing the groypers?
Were any conservative media hosts sympathetic to Fuentes, and how did that affect their careers?