How Should Democrats Feel About the MAGA Women of Congress?

One of the defining features of the past year has been the degree to which Republican politicians have marched in lockstep with President Donald Trump. That unity has started to unravel somewhat in recent days, as more and more Republicans have been expressing reservations about the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. But there is one group that began breaking ranks with GOP leaders months ago, not on immigration enforcement but on all manner of other issues: the MAGA women of Congress.

The focal point of this revolt was former MAGA loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene, who blasted the GOP on “60 Minutes” and in The New York Times — denouncing President Trump and party leaders on issues ranging from the release of the Epstein files to health-care policy. She also accused her colleagues of sexism. “There’s a lot of weak Republican men” who are “afraid” and “always try to marginalize the strong Republican women,” she said.

MTG was hardly alone. Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina, criticized House Speaker Mike Johnson in a scathing New York Times op-ed. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado spoke out against Trump for vetoing a bipartisan bill on clean water. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida used a discharge petition to try to ban congressional stock trading — an end run around the speaker. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, arguably the most powerful woman in the Republican conference, shocked Washington late last year by saying she would leave politics altogether at the end of her term. Not long before, she had written a post on X about Johnson that began: “Just more lies from the Speaker.”

Watching all this unfold, I have found myself confronting a familiar dilemma. I’m a Democrat who has many policy differences with all these women, perhaps especially on the most pressing issue facing the country today: the appalling conduct of immigration agents in Minnesota. MTG, to her credit, has staked out a middle ground on immigration enforcement recently, reminding her followers that “there is nothing wrong with legally peacefully protesting and videoing” and cautioning the country against “being incited into civil war”; others have made comments and taken positions with which I profoundly disagree.

At the same time, their general revolt against the MAGA establishment over the past few months has provided evidence for something I have long believed: that because women in elected office, on the whole, see the world a bit differently, it is good for the country when women of any political stripe get elected — even if they are from the other party, even if their ideological beliefs are very far from my own. When we look back at this moment in the months and years ahead, I would not be surprised if we end up crediting these women for cracking open the door to a wider Republican revolt against President Trump.

***

In 2014, I founded a nonpartisan women’s civic and political leadership organization in the hope of encouraging more women — regardless of party — to participate in American political and civic life. At our launch in 2015 we featured a conversation between Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, and Stefanik, who was then a newly elected rising star. They had a civil, inspiring discussion about the importance of women’s leadership. In 2016 we hosted a dinner with Amy Dacey, then the CEO of the Democratic National Committee, and Katie Walsh Shields, then the chief of staff at the Republican National Committee. It was one of the most constructive conversations I witnessed in that divisive cycle. In 2021 we honored both Mace for her advocacy on behalf of rape survivors and Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth for her leadership on behalf of working mothers. At our 10th anniversary celebration, we honored Republican Sen. Susan Collins for her bipartisanship.

Over the years some colleagues on the left have objected to our bipartisanship. High-profile Democratic donors have questioned why we would work with Republican women or bother to train women on the right to participate in our democracy. I’m often asked why I even speak with Republican women.

In some ways, it’s all very understandable: MAGA figures have hardly been gracious in their treatment of political opposition (to put it mildly), and the overt sexism perpetuated by Trump — from his attacks on women journalists to his dismantling of Roe v. Wade — have enraged millions of women, myself among them, who see the impact on women’s progress and recoil. In Minnesota this month, we are seeing the end result of MAGA’s worst policies, including policies enabled by some of these women. Given all this, it would be easy to wonder whether our efforts toward supporting and engaging Republican women have been worth it.

Yet it is also true that some of the attributes women politicians bring to the table are things that the country desperately needs. A 2019 study of 6,000 state legislators found that “women are more likely to respond to constituent requests than men.” A 2023 study of Europe and Central Asia found that “a 10%-point increase in women’s representation in parliament leads to a 0.74%-point increase in GDP growth.” As the organization Women Deliver explains, women around the globe are more likely than men to “work across party lines,” “be highly responsive to constituent concerns” and “help secure lasting peace.”

I’ve seen this dynamic play out in my own political career at the local level in suburban New York. I was the only elected Democrat on the legislative board in my town of 30,000. At first, I was also the only woman. I was especially concerned that we were stonewalling a claim by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which led to the Department of Justice suing the town — concerning allegations of discrimination against a woman firefighter as well as claims of sexual harassment of women employees. Initially, I couldn’t get anywhere on this issue. But as soon as two other women — in this case, two Republicans — were elected, the entire tenor of the board changed. Those two new members and I didn’t agree on many issues, but when it came to rooting out harassment of women, we were united. Ultimately the town settled with the DOJ and the firefighter, and avoided a protracted legal fight. It’s one of the proudest accomplishments of my career — but without the two Republican women who stood with me, no progress would have been made.

I don’t think it was a coincidence that it was women who were some of the first to break ranks with Trump, Johnson and the MAGA establishment. It’s not surprising, first of all, that it was women who, admirably, forced the GOP to act on the Epstein files. Many Republican women expressed horror at the abuse of young girls that is at the heart of that case. And for women like Nancy Mace, herself a survivor of sexual assault, the Epstein case is particularly personal. She was seen leaving a committee meeting in tears.

But there is another dimension, too, albeit a speculative one. Knowing the argument that women are more bipartisan and better at constituent services, I can’t help but wonder: Did being a woman make even partisan warriors like MTG and Mace just a bit more likely to see the other side from within their own conference, or at least to understand some key issues through a different lens? To have some psychological distance from their leadership? To hear out constituents who are growing tired of Trump’s inability to make pragmatic improvements in their lives? And if that’s right, aren’t those exactly the instincts that we should celebrate in politicians — especially in this fraught moment?

Of course, one reason for the decision by so many women to speak out may be a simple reaction to sexism in Republican leadership. “Unfortunately, women are not a priority for this speaker,” one long-tenured GOP congresswoman recently told me. “Supporting Republican women in leadership has been important to every speaker since Newt Gingrich, and it helped us win the majority, get more done and broaden the party’s appeal. This speaker clearly does not prioritize that, and it shows. He has mostly blocked women from holding leadership roles. Pushing women aside is not helping him hold on to power. He will likely lose the House because of it.” (In December, Johnson addressed the accusation of sexism, telling reporters it was a “spurious claim” and meant to stir divisions in his party. I reached out to his office for comment but did not receive a reply.)

Whatever the truth about these sexism allegations, it will be the American people, not Republican leaders, who will pay the highest price if women are not well-represented in both parties — because, as one Republican operative recently told me, “Frankly, in office, they are more likely to get things done.”

Needless to say, it would be a vast oversimplification to assert that the presence of women in power automatically makes things better. The current administration has a number of powerful appointed women — Pam Bondi, Susie Wiles, Karoline Leavitt — who have put loyalty to the president above all else. Kristi Noem, in particular, bears much responsibility for the chaos and confrontation in Minnesota. And I’m not suggesting voters throw their values to the wind and vote for politicians they disagree with just because they are women.

Still, there is inherent value in having women in Congress on both sides of the aisle. Wouldn’t we be better off right now with a bit more of a heightened capacity for bipartisanship — the ethos, say, of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has been among the most forceful Republicans in criticizing immigration enforcement this week — as well as the practical-minded attentiveness to constituents that women have shown?

The question isn’t whether all women leaders make things better, all the time. It’s whether, on balance, everyone benefits when women are well-represented in Washington across the political spectrum. And on that count, the women who revolted against MAGA late last year have given us all something to think about. They deserve credit for standing up to the powers-that-be in their own party — a spirit we need in American politics, now more than ever.

Lauren Leader is the founder and CEO of All In Together, a nonpartisan women’s civic education and mobilization organization.