Heritage Foundation founder Edwin Feulner dies at 83
Edwin Feulner, founder and longtime president of the influential U.S. conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, has died at age 83, Heritage said in a statement. The Friday statement did not say when Feulner died or the cause.
Feulner, a Chicago-born political scientist, founded Heritage in 1973 and became its president in 1977, a position he held until 2013. Republican President Ronald Regan awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989.
Current Heritage president Kevin Roberts and Board of Trustees Chairman Barb Van Andel-Gaby, wrote in a joint statement that Feulner founded Heritage to plant "a flag for truth in a town too often seduced by power."
"What started as a small outpost for conservative ideas became - under Ed's tireless leadership - the intellectual arsenal for the Reagan Revolution and the modern conservative movement," they wrote.
Heritage continues to deeply impact American conservatism - including being the institution that created Project 2025, widely considered the policy blueprint of President Donald Trump's quick-moving second term.
Senator Mitch McConnell, a longtime leader of Congressional Republicans, wrote on social media that Feulner "was a great man" and that "his dedication to promoting peace through strength at the end of the Cold War offers a particularly enduring lesson." Representative Steve Scalise, a Republican and majority leader in the House of Representatives, wrote on social media that Feulner "was one of the architects who built the conservative movement in this country."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
16 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump new tariff rates ‘pretty much set,' says US trade representative
Speaking on Sunday, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the rates, set to take effect on August 7, are 'pretty much set,' defending the president's strategy as both economic and geopolitical. read more US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer gives a live TV interview about tariffs at the White House in Washington, DC, US. Reuters New US tariff rates are 'pretty much set' with no immediate possibility for discussion, Donald Trump's trade advisor said in remarks broadcast Sunday, justifying the president's politically motivated charges against Brazil. Trump, who has used tariffs as an instrument of American economic supremacy, has set tariff rates for dozens of economies, including the European Union, at 10 to 41 percent starting from August 7, his new hard deadline for the tariffs. In a pre-recorded interview broadcast Sunday on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said that tariff rates are unlikely to see changes in 'the coming days'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'A lot of these are set rates pursuant to deals. Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country,' Greer said. 'These tariff rates are pretty much set.' Undoubtedly some trade ministers 'want to talk more and see how they can work in a different way with the United States,' he added. But 'we're seeing truly the contours of the president's tariff plan right now with these rates.' Last Thursday, the former real estate developer announced hiked tariff rates on dozens of US trade partners. They will kick in on August 7 instead of August 1, which had previously been touted as a hard deadline. Among the countries facing steep new levies is Brazil. South America's largest economy is being hit with 50 percent tariffs on exports to the United States – albeit with significant exemptions for key products such as aircraft and orange juice. Trump has openly admitted he is punishing Brazil for prosecuting his political ally Jair Bolsonaro, the ex-president accused of plotting a coup in a bid to cling to power. The US president has described the case as a 'witch hunt.' Greer said it was not unusual for Trump to use tariff tools for geopolitical purposes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The president has seen in Brazil, like he's seen in other countries, a misuse of law, a misuse of democracy,' Greer told CBS. 'It is normal to use these tools for geopolitical issues.' Trump was 'elected to assess the foreign affairs situation… and take appropriate action,' he added. Meanwhile White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said that while talks are expected to continue over the next week with some US trade partners, he concurred with Greer's tariffs assessment in that the bulk of the rates 'are more or less locked in.' Asked by the host of NBC's Sunday talk show 'Meet the Press with Kristen Welker' if Trump could change tariff rates should financial markets react negatively, Hassett said: 'I would rule it out, because these are the final deals.' Legal challenges have been filed against some of Trump's tariffs arguing he overstepped his authority. An appeals court panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of the government's arguments, though the case may be ultimately decided at the Supreme Court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Misunderstanding India's advocacy for multipolarity
A growing number of liberal American geopolitical analysts and Donald Trump, whom they despise, have a few things in common — they are opposed to India's relationship with Russia, its association with Brics, and advocacy for multipolarity. Trump's criticism of India is sharp and direct, of course. The Trump presidency will end in another three-and-a-half years, but this rare consensus in Washington DC, on India's search for multipolarity will remain. This is something, therefore, Indian strategic thinkers must reflect on. Put differently, with or without Trump around, India's advocacy for multipolarity will continue to haunt New Delhi, particularly given the structural transformations underway in the international system today. India's foreign policy is not about indecision. It is a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. (AFP) Let's begin by unpacking some important aspects of multipolarity, given its many layers of complexity and ambiguity. First, notwithstanding the general perception about the virtues of multipolarity, it is becoming somewhat clear that a multipolar world is not as pretty as we had imagined it to be. Even the imperfect multipolarity that we have today — with poles of various sizes and influence competing for power — seems messy, incoherent, confusing and hard to navigate. If this is what a system that is not even really multipolar looks like, what will a true multipolar system look like? Second, notwithstanding the messy nature of the quasi-multipolar order today, New Delhi remains committed to a multipolar world. The desire for multipolarity is deeply entrenched in India's tradition of non-alignment, which is one of the first principles of Indian foreign policy. When faced with a difficult choice, the first strategic instinct of political New Delhi is to be non-aligned, neutral, and multi-aligned. Mostly in that order. I would not view that as strategic escapism. It is very much part of the DNA of Indian foreign policy. It would also be wrong to mistake non-alignment (or a variation thereof) as not valuing friendships, loyalty or solidarity: In fact, India's foreign policy history is rich with examples of friendships, loyalty and solidarity. In that sense, India's foreign policy is not about indecision; it's a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. This is where the country's fascination with a multipolar world becomes crucial, for there is no genuine autonomy, balance and agency in world affairs without true multipolarity. Third, India's complaints about American unipolarity are on a steady decline, even as the rhetoric remains. It would be a mistake, however, to view New Delhi's rhetoric against unipolarity as merely, or primarily, directed against the US because today, New Delhi is less anxious about America's global unipolarity than a potential Chinese unipolarity in Asia. While America's declining global unipolarity is mostly a theoretical concern for New Delhi, the prospect of a China-led unipolar Asia is the true source of anxiety. In that sense, New Delhi's desire for multipolarity is also an attempt at ensuring the absence of a unipolar (China-dominated) Asia. Therefore, even if New Delhi is more focused on countering Chinese unipolarity in Asia rather than US unipolarity globally, opposing regional unipolarity without opposing global unipolarity will ring hollow. There are two reasons why New Delhi would be concerned about China's unipolarity in Asia. One, this could mean that China might set the rules of geopolitical engagement in Asia. Once much of Asia falls under China's influence, it will be harder for New Delhi to push back Chinese hegemony. Two, a rise of Chinese unipolarity in Asia might prompt the US to think of accommodating China in a G2 format, especially if the American nativist and isolationist tendencies persist. In an ideal world, New Delhi's articulations must make a clear distinction between American unipolarity and Chinese attempts at unipolarity in Asia, but doing so is not easy for a variety of reasons, including that New Delhi continues to resist aspects of American unipolarity and is not yet willing to acknowledge the possibility of Chinese unipolarity in Asia. But New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony, without openly resisting the growing Chinese regional hegemony or a potentially unipolar Asia, could have unintended consequences. Some US administrations, especially the current one, might interpret India's rhetoric against American unipolarity as personal rather than an academic exercise, for the most part. This could prompt an unhappy Washington to undercut India's geopolitical standing in the region, thereby indirectly aiding China's attempts at regional hegemony. This creates a paradox: India aims to counter Chinese unipolarity in Asia by promoting global multipolarity, which annoys the US, prompting it to marginalise India in the region, thereby ultimately aiding Beijing's efforts to establish hegemony in Asia. New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony could also prompt the US, which is losing influence in various parts of the world, to seek ways of strengthening its influence in spaces where it can — this could lead to accepting Chinese unipolarity in Asia. More so, if the US reacts negatively towards India, as it is doing now, it could create a fertile ground for China and Russia to fan the Indian rhetoric against the US, encourage India to proactively participate in forums and arrangements aimed at undermining US unipolarity, and generate confusion within India's strategic community about the true motives behind India's multipolarity rhetoric. All of this will further drive the geopolitical wedge between New Delhi and Washington DC. There is no easy way out. New Delhi will need to have a lot more conversations and build trust with the US. That is not easy when a president like Trump occupies the White House. Happymon Jacob is the founder and director of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research and the editor of INDIA'S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal.
Economic Times
16 minutes ago
- Economic Times
2028 Presidential Candidates: JD Vance soars high, Kamala Harris fades in new poll for swing state
A recent Emerson College Polling survey conducted in North Carolina has offered the first look at how prospective 2028 presidential election candidates fare among likely voters in a key swing state. While the actual election remains years away, the results provide early signals of party dynamics and voter preferences as both Republican and Democratic fields take shape. North Carolina has long been considered a battleground state with the power to sway national results. As a microcosm of broader U.S. political sentiment, primary polling in states like North Carolina can reveal emerging frontrunners and influential voter attitudes. With the 2028 cycle already stirring interest, these early tests offer insight into name recognition, party enthusiasm, and the evolving face of each party's July 28–30, 2025, pollsters surveyed 1,000 registered voters across North Carolina, including categorised subgroups of likely Republican and Democratic primary voters. The survey carries a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. These early results are especially notable given that major candidates have yet to officially declare runs, as mentioned in a report by Newsweek. Among likely Republican primary voters, Vice President J.D. Vance dominates with 53% support, far ahead of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (7%) and Senator Marco Rubio (5%). Conservative figures such as Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley draw lower single-digit support. Nearly 15% remain undecided, potentially leaving space for shifts as the field evolves. These results align with national polling: in a May Emerson poll, Vance led the GOP primary with 46% support, while DeSantis captured 8%, and Rubio 12% in other surveys. On the Democratic side in North Carolina, Pete Buttigieg holds a narrow lead with 17%, followed by Kamala Harris at 12% and Gavin Newsom at 10%, with 24% undecided. This pattern reflects broader national trends: a June Emerson national poll showed Harris in the lead at 30% among Democratic primary voters, though Buttigieg and Newsom gained in second and third positions with single-digit percentages, as per a report by Newsweek. Besides candidate preferences, the poll highlights key voter sentiments: 40% of North Carolinians report their family's finances are worse off than a year ago, while 28% say finances have improved and 32% report stability. These concerns may shape priorities for primary voters as they evaluate 2028 contenders on issues such as the economy, inflation, and job security, as per a report by Newsweek. Columbia University political scientist Robert Y. Shapiro observed that early Democratic polling largely reflects name recognition rather than policy appeal. He added that Republican figures like DeSantis and Rubio carry baggage from past losses in high-profile contests, while Vance benefits from his vice-presidential platform and alignment with former President Trump's MAGA presidential hopefuls are unlikely to formally announce candidacies until after the 2026 midterm elections, a traditional milestone in modern campaigns. In the interim, potential candidates such as Buttigieg, Newsom, and Harris may increase national visibility through media appearances, speeches, and policy the Republican side, Vance's commanding early lead positions him as the presumptive frontrunner, though undecided voters and favorable candidate shifts could alter the landscape as the next cycle approaches. Vance's Strength in GOP Primaries: With over half the Republican support in North Carolina, Vance emerges as the early favorite. Competitive Democratic Field: Buttigieg holds a slim edge in North Carolina, but the national picture remains fluid as voters weigh familiar names. Economic Anxiety: Many North Carolinians feel financially strained, underscoring economic messaging as a decisive factor. High Undecided Vote Share: With nearly a quarter to 15% undecided across party lines, there's significant room for jockeying. Long Road Ahead: True clarity will likely emerge post-midterms, once major candidates formally enter the race. While still early in the eight-year presidential cycle, the Emerson College poll in North Carolina underlines evolving allegiances and growing clarity around frontrunners. For Republicans, Vice President Vance is off to a strong start, while Democrats face a more fragmented field. The poll was conducted between July 28–30, 2025, surveying 1,000 registered voters in North Carolina. The survey has a ±3 percentage point margin of error.
