Nick Fuentes, the Groypers, Ethnonationalism, and the First Amendment: The Battle Over Free Speech
Craig Bushon Show Media Team
Nick Fuentes has become one of the most polarizing figures in modern American politics. Born in 1998, Fuentes rose to prominence as a live-streamer and political commentator, branding himself as a Christian nationalist and rallying thousands of young followers under his banner. His supporters, known as Groypers, have developed into a highly visible online movement that uses memes, trolling, and confrontation to push far-right ideas into mainstream political conversations.
Though Fuentes’ rhetoric has been condemned across the political spectrum as racist, antisemitic, and extremist, his voice is still legally protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This makes him a fascinating—and troubling—case study of how free speech principles function in an era of online influence, viral movements, and culture wars.
By the end of this article, you should have a clearer understanding of who Fuentes is, what the Groypers represent, how ethnonationalism shapes his worldview, and how constitutional protections shape the debate around figures like him.
Nick Fuentes: The Man Behind the Movement
Nicholas Joseph Fuentes grew up in suburban Chicago and briefly attended Boston University before leaving to pursue political commentary full-time. He first gained attention after attending the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, a violent white nationalist gathering that left one woman dead. From there, he began building an audience on YouTube, live-streaming his opinions on culture, politics, and race.
Fuentes quickly carved out a niche among young conservatives disillusioned with what they saw as a weak Republican establishment. His rhetoric went far beyond traditional conservatism, however, veering into open hostility toward immigration, feminism, LGBTQ rights, and non-white cultures. He repeatedly promoted conspiracy theories and engaged in Holocaust denial, which led to his eventual banning from mainstream platforms like YouTube, Twitter, PayPal, and Patreon.
Despite deplatforming, Fuentes leveraged alternative sites and live-streaming platforms to maintain influence. In 2020, he founded the America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC) as a direct challenge to CPAC, bringing together far-right speakers and activists who felt excluded from the mainstream conservative movement.
Who Are the Groypers?
The term “Groyper” refers to Fuentes’ online followers and activists. The name comes from a variation of the Pepe the Frog meme, this time depicted as a reclining frog with a smug expression. While Pepe has long been associated with online meme culture, Groypers adopted this version of the character to brand themselves as a distinct faction within the American right.
The Groypers are not simply casual fans of Fuentes—they are an organized network of young activists who promote a specific ideological agenda. They emphasize white nationalism, Christian nationalism, antisemitism, antifeminism, and hostility toward LGBTQ rights. They also reject multiculturalism and argue for an isolationist “America First” foreign policy, particularly opposing U.S. aid to Israel and Ukraine.
The movement gained wider recognition during what became known as the “Groyper Wars” in 2019 and 2020. Groypers disrupted events hosted by mainstream conservative organizations such as Turning Point USA, where they asked pointed questions about immigration, demographic change, and U.S. support for Israel. Their intent was to embarrass establishment conservatives, whom they saw as too weak or compromised, and to force nationalist positions further into the mainstream.
Groypers also excel at online trolling, coordinating campaigns through live-streams, Telegram channels, and social media raids. This strategy blurs the line between political activism and harassment, making them a disruptive force both online and offline.
Ethnonationalism: The Ideology Behind the Movement
Much of Fuentes’ worldview can be understood through the lens of ethnonationalism. Ethnonationalism is the belief that a nation should be defined primarily—or exclusively—by a shared ethnic identity, often tied to ancestry, culture, language, or heritage.
At its core, ethnonationalism argues that a true nation is composed of people with the same ethnic background. Outsiders—immigrants, religious minorities, or people of different races—are often seen as threats to unity. National strength, according to this view, comes from preserving ethnic homogeneity rather than embracing diversity.
This stands in contrast to civic nationalism, which defines a nation by shared values, institutions, and laws. Civic nationalism argues that anyone, regardless of ethnicity, can belong if they embrace the nation’s principles. The American identity, for example, has often been framed in civic nationalist terms: liberty, the Constitution, and equal opportunity.
Ethnonationalism, by contrast, defines belonging through ancestry. An ethnonationalist perspective might argue that America should remain primarily European-descended, with immigration from non-European countries seen as a threat to national survival.
Historical Examples of Ethnonationalism
Nazi Germany promoted the idea of a racially pure Aryan nation. This ethnonationalist ideology justified the Holocaust, where millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs, and others were murdered because they were considered outside the “true German nation.”
Pre–World War II Japan promoted the belief that Japanese people were racially superior and destined to rule Asia, fueling expansionism and atrocities such as the Nanjing Massacre.
During the 1990s breakup of Yugoslavia, ethnonationalist leaders in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia inflamed ethnic divisions, leading to campaigns of ethnic cleansing.
In Rwanda in 1994, ethnonationalist propaganda against the Tutsi minority led to one of the fastest genocides in modern history, with around 800,000 people slaughtered in just 100 days.
Other examples include South African apartheid, where the white minority imposed rule over the Black majority, and Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority in the 2010s.
In Context of Fuentes
When Nick Fuentes and the Groypers advocate for an “America First” worldview, they often do so from an ethnonationalist perspective. They argue that America should remain culturally and demographically dominated by European-descended people, that immigration from non-European nations weakens the country, and that multiculturalism is not a strength but a threat.
This is why Fuentes is frequently described as a white nationalist rather than simply a nationalist. His vision is rooted in ethnicity and ancestry, not civic ideals like freedom, equality, or constitutional democracy.
One Person’s Extremist, Another Person’s Hero
Nick Fuentes highlights the paradox of democracy: one person’s extremist can indeed be another person’s hero.
For critics, Fuentes is a dangerous extremist who spreads hate, emboldens white nationalism, and undermines democracy. They see his rhetoric as corrosive and destabilizing.
For his supporters, however, Fuentes is a truth-teller who defends traditional values and challenges political correctness. They view him as someone willing to say what others will not, standing against globalism, liberalism, and an establishment they see as corrupt.
Issues Open for Debate
It is also important to recognize that some of the subjects Fuentes raises—though framed in extreme and exclusionary terms—touch on debates that are legitimate in a democracy. Immigration levels, border enforcement, and assimilation are real policy questions. Foreign aid, especially to Israel and Ukraine, is debated across the political spectrum. Questions about cultural change, the role of family, and the power of technology companies to police speech are all part of ongoing national conversations.
Fuentes often packages these debates in ways that lean toward ethnonationalism, antisemitism, or hostility toward minorities, but the topics themselves are not illegitimate. This distinction matters because open societies must tolerate controversial ideas in order to maintain a robust public square.
The First Amendment and Fuentes
The First Amendment is central to understanding why Fuentes and the Groypers continue to operate despite widespread condemnation. Hate speech, Holocaust denial, and offensive rhetoric are all protected unless they incite imminent lawless action, as defined by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
His speech would lose protection if it crossed into true threats, harassment, or explicit incitement to violence. But absent that, the government cannot silence him. What it can do is allow private companies to set their own policies. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and PayPal were well within their legal rights to ban him. The Constitution protects him from government censorship, not from private moderation.
Why It Matters
Nick Fuentes and the Groypers embody the challenge of balancing free speech with the dangers of extremism. They demonstrate how internet culture can evolve into political activism, how deplatforming can both weaken and radicalize movements, and how free speech principles apply equally to popular and unpopular ideas.
Whether seen as a dangerous extremist or a cultural warrior, Fuentes illustrates the paradox of democracy. The Constitution ensures his ability to speak, leaving it to citizens to decide whether his ideas should gain influence or be rejected.
Nick Fuentes is not just an influencer; he is the center of a nationalist digital movement that thrives on provocation and constitutional protection. His Groypers show how internet-driven subcultures can push fringe ideology into mainstream debate. His ethnonationalist worldview places him in a long and troubling history of movements that define belonging by ancestry rather than values. And while many view him as an extremist, others see him as a hero standing against the tide.
This duality is at the heart of America’s free speech tradition. The First Amendment ensures that even the most controversial figures have a platform, not because their ideas are good or noble, but because silencing them through government power would undermine the very freedom that protects us all.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only. It does not endorse or promote Nick Fuentes or the Groyper movement. The goal is to provide factual context about his influence, ideology, and constitutional protections to encourage informed understanding and debate.
