
A new wave of candidates is putting motherhood front and center
Democrats see turning to a new type of candidate to give them an edge in the 2026 midterms: mothers of young children.
JoAnna Mendoza, a single mother of a 9-year-old son, launched a bid to run in Arizona's Sixth Congressional District in February. Christina Hines, a mother of three, threw her hat in the ring for an open seat in Michigan's 10th Congressional District in April. And in Iowa, state Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, a mom of two, is vying for the state's 3rd Congressional District in May.
Motherhood — once seen as a political liability — is becoming a key plank of campaign messaging for a new crop of Democratic candidates. Candidates are not just listing their credentials as former Marines or special victims prosecutors, but are also leaning into their experience raising a family in their pitch to voters.
'Women candidates work so much harder than anyone else, and especially mothers, because they know how to really juggle and manage a lot of things, but they also know what's at stake,' said Trone Garriott, who said she raised $230,000 within the first 24 hours of launching her congressional campaign that leans into her 'public school mom' persona.
And they have support from Vote Mama, a PAC dedicated to helping mothers of minor children get elected to public office. The group currently has 70 endorsed candidates and expects that number to grow.
'Moms have had enough,' said Liuba Grechen Shirley, who founded Vote Mama after her own unsuccessful run in 2018. 'Our policies fail moms.'
The recent rush of political involvement from mothers follows past waves. Most famously, the sexual harassment allegations that dominated Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination in the 1990s inspired a fresh crop of women running in 1992. But more recently, President Donald Trump's first presidential win inspired candidates in the 2018 midterms, and the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 pushed new grassroots groups to organize.
Despite some high-profile examples — former Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously raised five children before running for Congress — mothers of young children remain rare in elected office. Only 6.8 percent of the members of the 118th Congress were mothers of children under 18, compared to 24.2 percent being fathers of minor children, according to data released by Vote Mama. At the state level, only 7.9 percent of all legislators are women with minor children.
Ahead of the 2026 midterms, groups like Vote Mama say they are seeing renewed energy from mothers frustrated by Republican-led efforts to slash funding to programs that support families, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid.
But as more women enter public office, tensions arise with business as usual. Earlier this year, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna and a bipartisan group of lawmakers thrust motherhood into the spotlight with a push to allow proxy voting in the House — a move that drew aggressive criticism from conservatives and ultimately failed. 'Show up for work, or don't run for Congress,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said in a post on X. But Luna's campaign shows that there are signs of growing support for mothers serving in Congress.
'What is noticeable is that it started as a bipartisan effort, and because of that, I think that just helps show that this is not tied to your political party,' said Gayle Goldin, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation. 'This is something that needs to be in effect for women, regardless of their political party.'
Internal grapples with parental responsibilities has been one thing moms said they considered carefully. Hines, whose campaign was motivated by Trump's push to dismantle the Education Department, said she weighed the potential toll her candidacy could have on her family before making the decision to run.
'My biggest hesitation is the fact that I do have three kids — they're nine, seven and four — and they are my biggest passion and love of my life,' Hines said. 'The idea, not just of the campaign, but of winning and then being away from them, was something that was holding me back.'
And motherhood is front and center for many candidates' messaging strategy. Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who recently announced a long-shot bid against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in May, said in her candidate announcement video: 'I'm literally a busy mom,' highlighting taking her kids to tae kwon do, dance and football.
But Andrews' pitch to voters also aims to emphasize her blend of experience, highlighting her concerns as a doctor over Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s contested agenda. 'Like so many of you, I am worried about what the future holds for our kids,' she said.
And some of these moms are already seeing early enthusiasm for their candidacies. Mendoza, who is running in Arizona, raised over $816,000 for her first-quarter FEC filing, an impressive figure for a candidate seeking federal office for the first time. She's also locked down endorsements from BOLD PAC, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' political arm, and VoteVets, a progressive group that backs veterans running for office.
'We're already in the political arena ready to go,' Mendoza said. 'Some of these other candidates are outside the stadium trying to figure out how to get in.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Assassinated Minnesota Dem had just crossed party lines to cast decisive vote against illegal migrant handouts: ‘I did what leaders do'
The Dem Minnesota state lawmaker who was assassinated by a crazed gunman in a rubber mask crossed party lines just days earlier for a critical vote revoting health care coverage illegal migrants. Melissa Hortman, the state House Democratic leader, was the only member of her party to side with Republicans and vote to repeal taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage for adult illegal immigrants as part of this year's budget bill. She and her husband were gunned down on Saturday in Brooklyn Park just outside of Minneapolis, shortly after the same assassin is believed to have gravely wounded Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. Cops are on the hunt for the suspect, Vance Luther Boetler, 57, a political appointee of Gov. Tim Walz, who allegedly left behind a sick 'manifesto' listing the names of 70 politicians, including Walz, according to authorities. Advertisement 8 Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman was killed in her home on Saturday. WKTT Just days earlier, on June 10, Hortman cast the decisive vote on a state budget bill that stripped access to MinnesotaCare benefits for illegal migrants over the age of 18. 'I did what leaders do, I stepped up and I got the job done for the people of Minnesota,' she told KTTC-TV, adding that she understood the anger of her fellow DFL members. Advertisement 'They're right to be mad at me. I think some of them are pretty, pretty angry. I think that their job was to make folks who voted for that bill feel like crap, and I think that they succeeded,' she said. 8 Rep. Hortman and her husband were killed in their Brooklyn Park home by a masked gunman. AP 8 An eerie picture of the suspect wearing a latex mask and body armor was shared by the FBI. She appeared visibly upset as she said she had voted for the healthcare provision solely to uphold the budget deal, which was later passed by the state Senate. Walz is expected to sign the budget into law. Advertisement 'I know that people will be hurt by that vote, and we worked very hard to get a budget deal that didn't include that provision,' she told the House on Tuesday following a four-hour debate, The state legislature in Saint Paul is extremely narrowly divided. The state House is controlled by Republicans, who have a majority of just one seat (67-66) and the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (as Minnesota Dems are called) holds the state Senate by the same margin (34-33). 8 She had voted to cut healthcare provision for illegal adult migrants in a crucial vote just days before she was killed. WKTT 8 Cops are still searching for the suspect who also killed Rep. Hortman's husband and tried to assassinate a Senator and his wife. AP Advertisement State Sen. Hoffman voted against the healthcare proposal, Alpha News reported. Although Saturday's killings are believed to be political, the specific motive for the shootings is not yet known. A photograph of a series of signs reading 'No Kings' found in the suspect's vehicle was shared by the Minnesota State Patrol in a post on X on Saturday. The slogan has become a calling card for the nationwide anti-Trump protests planned over the weekend, including several across the North Star State. 8 The suspect has been named as Vance L. Boelter, an appointee of Governor Tim Walz. AP A chilling picture believed to show Boetler wearing a creepy latex mask in doorbell cam footage was shared by the FBI on Saturday. He also sent a haunting last text message to a friend, David Carlson, at around 6 a.m. on Saturday, shortly after the shootings. 'David and Ron, I love you guys. I made some choices, and you guys don't know anything about this, but I'm going to be gone for a while. May be dead shortly, so I just want to let you know I love you guys both, and I wish it hadn't gone this way,' Carlson read from his phone while sitting on the front stoop, video shared by the Minnesota Star Tribune shows. Advertisement Further shocking details have emerged about this weekend's shootings. One of the victims Yvette Hoffman, used her body as a human shield to save her daughter's life, her nephew said. 8 Tributes have been left outside the Minnesota State Capitol in Saint Paul. REUTERS 'Early this morning, an absolute vile piece of s–t dressed as a cop broke into my aunt and uncle's house and shot him 6 times and my aunt 5 times in a political act of terrorism. My aunt threw herself on her daughter, using her body as a shield to save her life,' Mat Ollig wrote on Facebook. Advertisement Tributes have been paid to Hortman, a longtime speaker of the state House until Republicans won control, and her husband from across the political aisle. 'A formidable public servant and a fixture of the state Capitol, Melissa Hortman woke up every day determined to make our state a better place,' Walz wrote on X. 8 Rep. Hortman (R) and Sen. Hoffman, pictured in 2018. MelissaHortman/Facebook 'She served the people of Minnesota with grace, compassion, and tirelessness. Minnesota's thoughts are with her loved ones, and my prayers are with Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette, who were shot and wounded and are being treated,' Walz's former running mate of Kamala Harris wrote. Advertisement President Trump said he had been briefed on the 'terrible shooting' in Minnesota in a post on Truth Social on Saturday. 'Our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the FBI, are investigating the situation, and they will be prosecuting anyone involved to the fullest extent of the law. Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God Bless the great people of Minnesota, a truly great place!' he wrote.


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal Social Security needs some major changes, but they aren't in the new tax bill. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. Social Security is one of the biggest issues politicians in Washington must address in the next few years. Many retirees are feeling the pressure on their budgets due to rising inflation, despite automated cost-of-living adjustments for their monthly benefits. Meanwhile, the Social Security trust fund is in danger of depletion by early next decade if Congress fails to make any reforms to the program. Not only will that impact the amount future retirees will receive, but it'll cut benefits for the tens of millions of people relying on retirement benefits right now. President Donald Trump made several promises to voters about Social Security during his 2024 campaign. He said the government won't cut benefits, and it won't raise the retirement age for new beneficiaries (which is just another form of cuts). His biggest promise of all, though, aimed to help stretch each dollar of Social Security further for retirees. Trump proposed doing away with taxes on Social Security benefits. Not only are taxes on Social Security income complicated, they can significantly reduce the value of each retiree's monthly checks. But in the version of the new tax bill the House of Representatives just passed last month, there's no tax cut on Social Security benefits at all. While many retirees may find that disappointing, the truth is that they may be better off without it. How the government taxes Social Security As mentioned, taxes on Social Security income can be quite complex. The government uses a metric called combined income to determine what percentage (if any) of your Social Security benefits count as taxable income. Combined income is equal to half your Social Security income, plus your adjusted gross income, plus any untaxed interest income. If your combined income exceeds certain thresholds, you'll have to pay taxes on up to 85% of your Social Security benefits. Here's how it breaks down. As you can see, the thresholds are extremely low. That's because they haven't been updated for inflation since they went into effect over 30 years ago. Nonetheless, Social Security benefits have gotten annual adjustments to the point where the average retiree collects about $2,000 per month from Social Security. As such, more and more retirees are facing a tax bill on their Social Security income each year. Eliminating that tax sounds like a great relief for many seniors, but the policy could actually harm lower-income retirees the most over the long run, while leaving very few Americans better off. The unfortunate truth about Social Security's future As mentioned, Social Security is facing a significant shortfall if Congress fails to reform the program. Demographic shifts and extending life expectancies have led to higher cumulative benefits payouts without the requisite income to support those payments. The latest Trustees Report estimates the Social Security trust fund for retirement benefits will drop to $0 by 2033. At that point, the incoming funds will only support about 79% of benefits due. There are three components of how the Social Security trust fund generates revenue to support benefits payments. First is the tax on wages that's usually split between employers and employees. Every dollar of wages in America (up to $176,100 per person in 2025) incurs a 12.4% tax that goes directly to Social Security. That brought in $1.1 trillion last year. The second source of income comes from investing the funds held in the trust in government bonds. Net interest income totaled almost $64 billion last year. The third source of income is taxation on benefits themselves. In other words, Trump's plan to get rid of the tax on Social Security benefits will accelerate the depletion of the Social Security trust fund. And while those taxes generated just $54 billion last year, they're a growing source of revenue, and the impact is very noticeable. It could accelerate the trust fund depletion by over a year and require a 25% cut in benefits (instead of 21%), according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Eliminating taxes on Social Security will harm everyone in the long run, but the policy will only benefit a small percentage of Americans in the near term. Low-income households pay very little taxes on Social Security income. The bottom 40% of households by income receiving benefits pay an average of less than 1% in taxes on their benefits. Even high-income households don't face significant tax burdens. The top quintile of retirees, those with more than $205,800 in household income, pay just 20% in taxes on Social Security benefits, on average. Here's what the "One Big Beautiful Bill" offers instead Instead of cutting taxes on Social Security benefits, Americans age 65 and older will get an additional $4,000 tax deduction as long as their income remains below certain thresholds. That could give seniors some relief without as much negative impact on Social Security in the long run. As a result, most seniors will be better off under the current plan than if Trump got his way and fully eliminated taxes on Social Security. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Dems 'deliberately obfuscating' truth about 'big, beautiful bill' with this claim: Watchdog
After House Republicans passed reconciliation language banning taxpayer funds from paying for sex change treatments, Democrats began using language to drum up opposition that conservative watchdog group the American Principles Project says is meant "to confuse people and make it sound like we're trying to ban normal healthcare, medically necessary healthcare." The House-passed version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes provisions that prohibit federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funding from being spent on "gender transition procedures for any age" in all 50 states. In response, Democrats and left-wing groups have begun claiming the GOP's spending package seeks to eliminate "medically-necessary care." However, according to APP President Terry Schilling, "it's a lie" and an effort to combat the prevailing notion among Americans that taxpayer funds should not be paying for transgender procedures. "They're deliberately obfuscating here, and it's because they don't have any good arguments," Schilling told Fox News Digital. "We shouldn't be paying for any cosmetic sex change procedures with our tax dollars, and that's what we're cutting here. "But they're introducing and now ramping up these highly weaponized and high-powered words to confuse people and make it sound like we're trying to ban normal healthcare, medically necessary healthcare." After Republicans in the House of Representatives passed their version of the GOP spending package last month, the Congressional Equality Caucus complained that "Congress should be working to make healthcare more affordable – not banning coverage of medically necessary care." "House Republicans changed a previous anti-trans provision so it now cuts off federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funding for medically-necessary care for ALL transgender people — no matter their age," a press release from the pro-trans Human Rights Campaign said after the House passed its spending bill. According to APP's Schilling, arguments that Republicans are taking away "medically necessary" healthcare from anyone are "just not true." To make his point, APP's Schilling pointed to one of the left's frequent sources for transgender medical recommendations, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Schilling pointed out that WPATH's guidelines and standards explicitly state there is no "one-size-fits-all approach" to treating individuals with gender dysphoria. "These are not medically necessary [treatments]. It's a lie. These are cosmetic," Schilling argued. "If you look at WPATH, even according to their own standards, transgender-identifying people don't actually have to medically transition. They say there's no one size fits all. Well, I'm sorry, but medically necessary means you need it in order to survive. You need it for your health. And they're saying in their own writings that it's not medically necessary, that it's not a one-size-fits-all." Schilling added that they're "arguing out of both sides of their mouth." "We're calling out the transgender industry, and we're trying to stop them from confusing even more people as we pass a very, very good and important bill," he said. In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Human Rights Campaign argued "gender-affirming care" is considered "best practice" and "evidence-based" by every major medical association in the country, noting that studies have shown it significantly improves mental health outcomes for transgender youth. "Healthcare decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors — not the American Principles Project," HRC said. Schilling said he has run numerous polls and focus groups about whether Americans agree with taxpayer funds supporting individuals' gender transitions, and he told Fox News Digital that the overwhelming sentiment from people across the political spectrum is that they should not. "Here's where Americans are at," Schilling said. "They want to ban the procedures for anyone under 18. And, anyone over 18, they want you to pay for it yourself. That's where they're at, and that's where [APP is] at, and that's where Donald Trump is at. That's where Republicans in the House and Senate are at." The Congressional Equality Caucus did not respond to requests for comment on this article.