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.
Which conservative figures and organizations clashed with Groypers and why?
Executive summary
Groypers—followers of Nick Fuentes—have repeatedly clashed with a range of mainstream conservative figures and institutions over what they call “Conservatism, Inc.,” using hostile Q&As and online campaigns to push a harder “America First” line; their most visible fights targeted Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk [1] [2]. Established conservative elders, think tanks and media personalities (including Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson’s critics, and Washington institutional conservatives) have pushed back, warning about antisemitism, white‑nationalist currents, and the political risks of accommodation [1] [3] [4].
1. The Groyper tactic: ambush Q&A’s and social‑media pressure
Groypers’ signature tactic has been to attend mainstream conservative events and ask provocative, conspiratorial questions—on immigration, Israel, LGBTQ issues and race—in order to expose what they portray as the moderating or compromised instincts of “Conservatism, Inc.” and to make those moments go viral online [1] [2] [5]. Observers say the tactic is as much about spectacle and fandom around Fuentes as it is about programmatic policy demands [6].
2. Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk: the original “Groyper War”
The most cited early and public clash was with Turning Point USA and its leader Charlie Kirk during the 2019–2020 “Groyper Wars,” when Fuentes’ followers repeatedly ambushed Kirk’s campus events; Kirk later described Groypers as “vermin” and warned debating them was a mistake [1] [2]. That campaign was explicitly aimed at shifting college conservative messaging on immigration, Israel and LGBT rights [1] [2].
3. Media figures and intra‑right feuds: Carlson, Shapiro, and the conservatives who warned
Some media figures have been both interlocutors and targets. Tucker Carlson’s decision to host Fuentes provoked denunciations from parts of the conservative establishment for normalizing extremist views; at the same time other conservatives (for example Ben Shapiro and similar mainstream commentators) have been singled out by Groypers as insufficiently “America First” [7] [1]. Critics such as Senator Ted Cruz and Rod Dreher have publicly warned that a permissive approach helps spread antisemitism and extremist ideology inside the broader right [4] [3].
4. Institutions and the “old guard”: think tanks, staffers and internal alarms
Washington’s institutional conservatives—think tanks, Republican staff networks, and older conservative intellectuals—have expressed alarm at Groypers’ reach among young staffers and activists; some insiders estimate significant Groyper sympathies among younger GOP staff, and commentators warn that failure to confront the movement risks long‑term damage to the conservative coalition [3] [8] [9]. Pieces in outlets like The Bulwark and The New York Times document an intra‑party struggle about whether to confront or accommodate Fuentes‑style politics [4] [3].
5. Why the fights matter: agenda, ideology and political calculation
Conservative critics argue Groypers are not merely purists but promoters of ethnonationalist, antisemitic and conspiratorial views that threaten electoral viability and moral credibility; Groypers reply that mainstream conservatives have caved to elites and betrayed nationalism, seeking to pull the GOP farther right [2] [8]. Analysts emphasize this is both an ideological contest—over Israel, immigration, race and Christian nationalism—and a branding war over who speaks for the right [2] [1].
6. Multiple perspectives on responses: purge, debate, or co‑optation
There is no consensus in conservative media about how to respond. Some urge deplatforming and clear denunciation of Fuentes and his followers; others counsel engagement or tactical tolerance to avoid splitting Trump‑aligned factions. Commentators like Rod Dreher and groups in the “old guard” favor stronger repudiations, while other writers warn that heavy‑handed ostracism risks driving recruits further into fringe ecosystems [10] [8] [11].
7. Limits of the record and open questions
Available sources document high‑profile skirmishes (Turning Point USA, media personalities, and institutional pushback) and report claims about Groypers’ reach among young conservatives, but exact membership numbers, organizational structures, or firm causal links to violent incidents are not fully established in the cited material; some later pieces discuss arrests and violence in 2025 but do not conclusively tie the entire movement to single actors [12] [13]. Available sources do not mention every conservative figure or organization that may have clashed with Groypers; further primary reporting would be needed to map the complete list and chronology.
If you want, I can compile a timeline of key public confrontations (events, dates, and quoted responses) from these same sources to make the dispute’s arc clearer.