Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does the Heritage Foundation's view on Israel compare to other conservative think tanks?
Executive Summary
The Heritage Foundation’s recent public posture and policy work portray a complex, sometimes contradictory approach to Israel that mixes advocacy for a strong bilateral relationship with proposals to reshape security assistance and high-profile personnel choices that have stirred controversy. Compared with other conservative think tanks — notably the American Enterprise Institute and Hudson Institute, which emphasize robust, long-term military and strategic support — Heritage’s March 2025 policy proposal to transition the U.S.–Israel relationship toward a “strategic partnership” and to phase out direct military aid by 2047 stands out as a substantive departure that has provoked debate inside and outside conservative circles [1] [2] [3].
1. Why Heritage’s 2047 Plan Changes the Conversation
Heritage’s March 2025 report recommends reframing the U.S.–Israel relationship from a perpetual “special relationship” to a time‑bound strategic partnership, including winding down direct U.S. military aid while increasing cooperative programs and joint capabilities to advance U.S. interests. That proposal reframes long-standing conservative orthodoxy that equates U.S. support with ongoing, open-ended foreign military financing; it asserts that Israeli self-reliance and deeper technology cooperation can substitute for grant-based assistance over two decades [1]. The report triggered sharp reactions: critics argue the plan would weaken Israel’s deterrence and U.S. influence, while supporters inside conservative policy circles claim it modernizes the alliance and reduces fiscal burdens. The debate exposes a split between impulse toward sustained military aid and a newer strain of fiscal-trim, capability-focused realism within parts of the conservative movement [2].
2. Personnel, Politics, and Perception: The Roberts Controversy
Heritage’s institutional posture cannot be separated from leadership choices. President Kevin Roberts’ public defense of Tucker Carlson and Heritage events hosting figures linked to antisemitic influencers drew intense scrutiny and raised questions about the think tank’s culture and messaging on Jewish community concerns and Israel [4]. These personnel controversies matter because think tanks both shape and signal elite opinion: hosting or defending polarizing media figures changes how stakeholders — donors, policymakers, allied organizations — perceive an organization’s priorities and tolerances on rhetoric about Jews and Israel. The fallout underscores that policy proposals (like the 2047 plan) arrive in a political environment where credibility with allies and Jewish communal leaders can be as determinant of influence as the analytically argued merits of an idea [4] [2].
3. How AEI and Hudson Contrast with Heritage’s Theses
By contrast, established conservative foreign‑policy think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute generally articulate a clearer commitment to sustained U.S. military and strategic support for Israel, framing the alliance as central to regional deterrence and U.S. interests [3] [5]. AEI scholars emphasize immediate security threats — Iran, regional instability — and argue continued robust support and interoperability are essential tools of U.S. policy. Hudson similarly frames a strong, durable U.S.-Israel alliance as nonnegotiable for deterrence and shared democracy arguments. These organizations have not advanced Heritage’s phased‑aid blueprint; instead they tend to prioritize maintaining capabilities and influence through continuing aid and strategic cooperation, highlighting an intra‑conservative policy gap between fiscal‑realist proposals and traditional security commitments [3] [5].
4. External Echoes: Israeli Think Tanks and Transatlantic Influence
Outside the U.S., Israeli policy actors like the Kohelet Policy Forum illustrate how ideological networks and funding ties shape divergent policy agendas with transatlantic resonance; Kohelet’s far‑right positioning and efforts to influence U.S. law and policy demonstrate that conservative think tanks are not monolithic and that allied foreign think tanks can push distinct priorities into U.S. debates [6] [7]. Kohelet’s emphasis on judicial and economic transformations and its alignment with certain Israeli government agendas contrasts with Heritage’s technocratic 2047 thesis, underscoring divergent conservative currents: one oriented toward ideological reforms at home and abroad, another toward recalibrated security partnerships. These cross-border relationships influence how U.S. think tanks frame recommendations and how policymakers gauge domestic political feasibility of major shifts in aid or strategy [7] [8].
5. What Policymakers and Observers Should Watch Next
Policymakers should watch three dynamics: first, whether Heritage’s 2047 proposal gains traction with Republican lawmakers, many of whom remain committed to ongoing aid; second, whether leadership controversies reduce Heritage’s credibility among Jewish and pro‑Israel constituencies, affecting coalition building around any new blueprint; and third, how AEI, Hudson, and allied organizations respond publicly — by defense of existing aid frameworks or by proposing alternative reforms. These signals will determine whether Heritage’s plan catalyzes a broader conservative reappraisal of U.S.-Israel security ties or remains an outlier debated mostly in think‑tank and media circles [1] [2] [4] [3].