Heritage Foundation founder Feulner dies at 83
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
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Americans feel Trump has gone too far with mass deportations, new polls find
If President Donald Trump had his way, the press would stop talking about his administration's handling of files related to his former friend, the late pedophile and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Rather, he'd wish that they would talk about his 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' or his policies related to immigration. But a series of new polls show that Americans do not approve of at least one of those core policies — Trump's efforts to deport swaths of immigrants from the country. CBS News released a survey on Sunday that showed 51 percent of Americans think the Trump administration is focused too much on deporting immigrants who are in the United States illegally. The same number of Americans also disapprove of Trump's program to find and deport migrants in the country illegally. The poll surveyed 2,343 adults in the United States between July 16 and July 18, with a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points. In addition to those bad numbers on immigration, a slight majority of 52 percent said that the Trump administration is trying to deport more people than they thought it would, and 56 percent of U.S. adults said that the administration is prioritizing deporting people who are not dangerous criminals. And a whopping 64 percent of Americans say that Hispanic people in the United States are subject to immigration and deportation searches from Immigration and Customs Enforcement as other races and ethnicities. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump talked frequently about enacting a mass deportation program to remove immigrants unlawfully in the country. Shortly after winning the presidency, he said that the plan would have ' no price tag.' His 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' would send $178 billion toward immigration enforcement and $30 billion to ICE specifically throughout the next decade. The White House also hopes to hire 10,000 new ICE agents to help with deportation. But lest the Trump administration brush off this poll as an outlier or 'fake news,' a new poll from CNN conducted by SSRS showed similar results. This one surveyed 1,057 respondents between July 10 and July 13, with a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. That survey showed that 55 percent of Americans thought that the Trump administration had gone too far in deporting migrants living in the United States illegally, up from 45 percent in February. And a slight majority of Americans at 53 percent say that the efforts have not made the United States safer. The shift in public opinion shows that Trump has lost what was once considered his biggest asset. In 2024, many voters elected Trump partially out of frustration at the Biden administration's seemingly lax approach to the influx of migrants at the US-Mexico border. The fact Joe Biden tasked Kamala Harris with handling the 'root causes' of migrsation from Latin America saddled her the administration's least popular policy. And even ancestrally Democratic and majority-Hispanic counties along the US-Mexico border such as the Rio Grande Valley in Texas revolted and voted for Republicans, sometimes for the first time in decades. But many Americans have not taken too kindly to the Trump administration's crackdown on immigrants. In response to protests of ICE raids in Los Angeles, the Trump administration deployed the National Guard without the consent of the governor, which 59 percent of Americans oppose. Americans also seem to support protests against the administration, with 55 percent of them calling protests against the administration's deportation policies are justified. In terms of what concerns them, 47 percent of Americans are more worried about the government going too far in cracking down on protests, compared with 38 percent who fear the protests will get out of control. And Americans don't seem to like the specifics of Trump's anti-immigration policies, with 53 percent of respondents opposing increasing the budget for ICE by billions of dollars, 59 percent opposing an attempt to end birthright citizenship, 57 percent opposing building new detention facilities to detain up to 100,000 undocumented immigrants. Trump's dropping numbers on immigration are a warning sign going into the 2026 midterms, especially considering that many Americans already disapprove of his across-the-board reciprocal tariffs and Americans who have heard of it disapprove of the massive cuts to social safety nets in the One Big, Beautiful Bill. This nosedive could easily signal trouble for him as he seeks to accomplish what has long been a goal of right-wing ideologues for whom Trump has been the ideal vessel.
Daily Record
a minute ago
- Daily Record
Scots police federation consider legal action over planning for Donald Trump visit
The Scottish Police Federation claimed workforce agreements previously agreed by Police Scotland bosses were being "breached" ahead of Trump's visit. An organisation representing the interests of Scots police officers is considering legal action over planning for Donald Trump's visit this week. The Scottish Police Federation (SPF) claimed workforce agreements previously agreed by Police Scotland bosses were being "breached in the days leading to the arrival of the President". It comes after the cash-strapped national constabulary was forced to request back-up officers from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to deal with the arrival of the US leader, under "mutual aid" arrangements. Trump will be in Scotland for five days from Friday and he is expected to visit both his golf courses in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire, as well as open a third. He will also hold talks with Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Aberdeen and meet First Minister John Swinney. The trip will inspire huge protests and Police Scotland will deploy its officers to ensure order is maintained. David Kennedy, SPF general secretary, said: "The reality is, if we had more police officers, we could ask for less mutual aid. We have been saying this for years now. We've seen a cut in police numbers and a cut in real time funding. "We'll survive these events, but surviving is not as good as coping and being proactive when they are announced. The situation is not sustainable. It's destroying cops, they are absolutely shattered. It's not a good place to be at the moment." He added: We currently have workforce agreements in place to protect police officers and provide minimum standards of Health and Safety at work. Sadly, we have seen these agreements breached in the days leading to the arrival of the President and as such we are seeking legal advice regarding potential legal action against the service." A spokesperson from the Northern Irish force said: 'There are well established processes for any UK based Police Services to request support from other services at times of peak demand. 'These requests are managed via the National Police Co-ordination Centre (NPoCC) and we can confirm that PSNI have received a request to provide mutual aid to Police Scotland which we are currently assessing. 'The decision to provide officers under the mutual aid process will be considered against our own demands, ensuring that we retain the capacity to respond effectively to local issues and maintain our own operational competence.'
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Donald Trump accused of blatant hypocrisy with demand Washington Commanders revert back to Redskins name
The President of the United States has more serious things to worry about than the name of Washington's NFL team, according to none other than the President of the United States. 'President should not be telling the Washington Redskins to change their name-our country has far bigger problems!' read a 2013 Twitter post from Donald Trump. 'FOCUS on them, not nonsense.' The 12-year-old post resurfaced over the weekend after President Trump called for owners of the team now known as the Washington Commanders to revert to 'Redskins' – a pejorative term deemed offensive by many Native Americans. Naturally, critics are now accusing Trump of hypocrisy. 'Pick a lane, man,' wrote one critic on X. 'Hypocrisy in 280 characters or less.' 'Trump in 2013: "Bigger problems than Redskins!"' another post began. 'Meanwhile, 2025: Still tweeting about 2016. Focus, Don! #TrumpTweets #RedskinsRebrand.' The President of the United States has more serious things to worry about than the name of Washington's NFL team, according to none other than the President of the United States Many others accused Trump of attempting to distract from uproar over his refusal to release court files related to the prosecution of his former friend, deceased pedophile Jeffery Epstein. 'The only real conclusion to be drawn from Trump playing culture war hits like 'bring the Redskins back' is that he is terrified of the Epstein stuff and terrified of losing his base by refusing to release the files,' read a post by Sonny Bunch, an editor for Bulwark. Trump's 2013 post was a response to then-President Barack Obama, who told reporters he'd consider changing the Redskins' name if he owned the team. Since then, Trump has won a pair of Presidential elections, while Washington dropped 'Redskins' in 2020 before adopting 'Commanders' two years later. And with the shoe now firmly on the other foot, it was Trump who called for Washington's NFL team to again change its name on Sunday, going so far as to threaten a previously announced stadium deal in the nation's capital. 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,' Trump wrote on his social media site. Months earlier, Trump took credit for an agreement between the Commanders and District of Columbia to allow the team to build a new stadium at the site of its former home, RFK Stadium. It's unclear if Trump can hold the deal up after then-President Joe Biden signed a bill in January to transfer the land from the federal government to the District of Columbia. Trump threatened the team's stadium deal in a follow-up post on Truth Social Of course, Trump's post on the subject didn't get into any such details. Instead he focused on his desire to see the Commanders re-adopt 'Redskins.' 'The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team,' Trump wrote on social media before a scheduled round of golf at Trump National Golf Club in Washington D.C. 'There is a big clamoring for this.' Daily Mail has reached out to Commanders spokespeople for comment. While Trump may be slightly off about the team name (they were the 'Washington Redskins' and then the 'Washington Football Team' but never the 'Washington Redskins Football Team'), he is right about uproar over the changes. Fans and even some Native American groups have voiced support for the team's new ownership group to revert to 'Redskins.' Several public opinion polls of self-identified Native Americans have found most were not offended by the term, while critics have pointed to academic research by the University of Michigan and UC Berkeley that found the opposite was true. Trump appeared to reference the public polling in favor of a name change on Sunday. 'Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen,' he claimed. 'Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!' He also demanded the same from MLB's Cleveland Guardians, née: 'Indians.' 'Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past,' he wrote. It's unclear where Trump is getting 'six original baseball teams' from. The NHL famously has six original teams and MLB's National League was once limited to a half dozen clubs. However, the Guardians franchise is in the American League, where it has been known as the Broncos, Naps and Indians before adopting its current moniker in 2022. Guardians' president of baseball operations, Chris Antonetti, told the Associated Press the team isn't considering another name change. 'We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago, but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future that's in front of us,' he said. Of course, 'Indians' is not quite the same as 'Redskins,' which has traditionally caused greater controversy. Trump later underlined his demands on social media, writing in a second post: 'My statement on the Washington Redskins has totally blown up, but only in a very positive way.' 'The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone,' he wrote. 'Cleveland should do the same with the Cleveland Indians,' Trump continued. 'The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. 'What he doesn't understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!' Trump was referring to Guardians owner Paul Dolan's brother, Matt, who lost a US Senate bid in 2024. The Dolans are also related to New York Knicks owner James Dolan, a Trump supporter and donor. The origin of 'Redskins' is disputed, according to a 2016 Washington Post article that claims it was first used as a pejorative as early as 1863 in Minnesota. 'The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory,' read an announcement in The Winona Daily Republican. 'This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.' By 1898, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary began defining 'redskin' with the phrase 'often contemptuous.' A 2016 Washington Post poll found that 90 percent of the 504 Native American respondents were 'not bothered' by the team's name. Now-former team owner Daniel Snyder ultimately wrote an open letter, defending his decision to keep the moniker by citing the study. However, that survey and other similar studies have been slammed by journalists and social scientists as being unreliable. 'The reporters and editors behind this story must have known that it would be used as justification for the continued use of these harmful, racist mascots,' read a statement from the Native American Journalists Association. 'They were either willfully malicious or dangerously naïve in the process and reporting used in this story, and neither is acceptable from any journalistic institution.' A football and a jersey sit on top the Resolute desk in the office of President Donald Trump as he announces a plan to bring the NFL Draft to the National Mall in the spring of 2027 In March of 2020, UC Berkeley revealed a study that found that more than half of its 1,000 Native American respondents were offended by the team name. The Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that a trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes on free speech rights. Prior to that, the United States Patent and Trademark office had tried to revoke the Redskins' trademark because it was a racial epithet. Ultimately it was uproar over Floyd's death in 2020 that led to the change. When the team joined in a social media campaign against racism, many slammed Washington for its continued use of 'Redskins,' leading to the temporary adoption of 'Washington Football Team.' One twist in the story of the Commanders was their unexpected success with rookie quarterback Jayden Daniels last season. Finishing 12-5, Washington upset the Lions in Detroit en route to the NFC Championship, where they lost to the ultimate Super Bowl winners, the Philadelphia Eagles. By taking another step in 2025, and potentially winning a Super Bowl as the 'Commanders,' Washington might sideline the debate indefinitely. Washington D.C. and the NFL's Commanders are set to announce a deal Monday to bring the team back within the city limits after a nearly three-decade run in Landover NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Commanders owner Joshua Harris met Trump at the Oval Office in May to announce plans to bring the league's draft to the National Mall in 2027. Washington was selected as draft hosts just days after DC mayor Muriel Bowser announced a plan to bring the team back to the city with a new field on the site of the old RFK Stadium, where the team then known as the Redskins played until 1996. Currently, RFK Stadium stands on the site on the banks of the Anacostia River in the eastern part of the city. The building has been in the process of a prolonged demolition that has been delayed multiple times. The building was closed back in September 2019, but structural demolition has only begun this year.
