Vivek Ramaswamy has publicly rejected the growing conservative use of the term “heritage American,” arguing it promotes a lineage-based test of belonging that echoes “blood and soil” nationalism. Critics note the concept revives historical intra-white prejudices and is incoherent because the nation’s early history includes Indigenous peoples, enslaved Africans and multiple European settlements. Proponents of a civic identity stress that Americanness should rest on shared ideals—rule of law, constitutional rights and equal citizenship—rather than ancestry. As demographic change continues, debates over national belonging are likely to intensify.
“Heritage American” And The Battle Over Who Counts: Why Lineage-Based Identity Is Making A Dangerous Comeback
I study bigotry. ‘Heritage American’ is a new expression of an old animus.
In a December speech at Turning Point USA’s America Fest and a subsequent op-ed in The New York Times, Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy rejected the rising conservative use of the phrase “heritage American,” calling it a form of lineage-based exclusion that treats descent as a test of belonging.
Background
The label “heritage American” has circulated more widely in right-wing online circles, a trend Ramaswamy attributes in part to the influence of white-nationalist figures such as Nick Fuentes and the Groypers, who promote a white-centric vision of the nation. Commentators including Ali Breland of The Atlantic note that prominent media figures, like Tucker Carlson, have at times supported ideas that tie Americanness to ancestry. Ramaswamy, who was born in the United States to immigrant parents from India, has used his platform to push back against any definition of American identity rooted in bloodlines.
Why The Term Is Problematic
Historically, lineage-based distinctions have fueled intra-white prejudice. In the early 20th century, many recent European arrivals — Irish, Italian and Eastern European Jewish immigrants among them — were regarded as less "white" than families established earlier in the country. By that logic, large swaths of Americans today would be excluded from being considered “heritage Americans.”
Moreover, the United States’ founding era and early national history do not support a simple, ancestry-based claim to exclusive belonging. As Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute and others have noted, the historical record includes early Spanish settlements (St. Augustine, 1565), English settlements like Jamestown (1607), enslaved Africans (1619), and Pilgrim arrivals (1620), along with Indigenous nations that had long populated the continent. Whose lineage would count as more "authentic" is arbitrary and contradictory.
“Blood And Soil” And Dangerous Echoes
Ramaswamy has warned that the “heritage American” idea resembles a “blood and soil” conception of nationhood — a phrase associated with Nazi ideology and with extremist rallies in the United States, most visibly the Charlottesville white supremacist march in 2017. That comparison underscores the potential for lineage rhetoric to serve as a cloak for racial exclusion and nativism.
Creed Versus Lineage
Ramaswamy and many critics argue for a creed-based model of national identity: Americanness defined by shared principles rather than ancestral pedigree. In his public remarks he emphasized commitments to the rule of law, freedom of conscience and expression, equal treatment under the Constitution, and loyalty to the nation as the markers of citizenship.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”
These lines from Emma Lazarus, inscribed at the Statue of Liberty, capture the creedal impulse that shaped immigration policy reforms such as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That act, influenced by the civil-rights movement, removed national-origin quotas and signaled a shift toward a more inclusive, ideals-based understanding of belonging.
What This Debate Means Going Forward
The contest over who counts as truly American is not merely academic: it shapes political rhetoric, policy choices, and social inclusion. As the U.S. becomes a majority-minority nation, debates over identity are likely to intensify. Whether the flashpoint becomes the phrase “heritage American” or another term, the underlying struggle is a longstanding American argument about whether membership in the republic is defined by ancestry or by adherence to shared ideals.
Ramaswamy’s intervention has refocused attention on the stakes of that argument. Rejecting lineage-based definitions of belonging—while acknowledging the real anxieties that fuel them—remains critical to preventing exclusionary ideas from becoming mainstream policy.
Help us improve.
