GOP Woman Running for Office Said She Didn't Know If She'd Vote for a Woman
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A 25-year-old Republican woman is running for an Arizona state Senate seat after previously saying she does not believe women should hold office.
Mylie Biggs is running on a slate for Legislative District 14—which her father, Republican Andy Biggs, represented for 14 years before winning a seat in Congress—with Representatives Laurin Hendrix and Khyl Powell.
In August 2024, Mylie Biggs told an interviewer: "Honestly, I don't know if I would vote for any female. I don't know if females should be in office."
Newsweek has contacted her campaign for comment via email.
Why It Matters
Biggs' candidacy highlights the ongoing debate about gender roles in American politics, as well as internal disagreements about the role of women in politics within the conservative movement.
Although the number of women, including Republican women, holding elected office has grown in recent decades, some conservatives are sticking to more traditional gender roles, despite the belief among many that the idea women cannot hold office is misogynistic.
What to Know
However, her candidacy is facing criticism over comments she made in August 2024 on the Arizona-based podcast The Matty McCurdy Program.
During that interview, she questioned whether women should be in office.
"There are a lot of really good women in office—I'm not trying to hate on anyone—like, some really good congresswomen," she said. "Yeah, I don't think women should hold office in general. That's my position. That's my stance. I think women should run the home."
An undated campaign photo shows Republican candidate Mylie Biggs.
An undated campaign photo shows Republican candidate Mylie Biggs.
Mylie Biggs' X account
Biggs acknowledged that was a "hot take, even among conservatives," adding that many would not agree with her view.
"A lot of my own circle do not agree with that necessarily, that women should be wherever they want," said Biggs. "I don't know, it's just modern feminism has transformed incredibly over the past few years, starting with women's right to vote and went rampant from there."
She continued to say that some women and girls were "waking up" and being against the women who fought for their right to work. While she enjoyed her job, Biggs added that she hated having a "9-5." She has worked at the conservative organization Turning Point USA, reported The Arizona Republic. She has also served a Mormon mission in Brazil.
"Women are supposed to be the nurturers, and you know, take care of home, be mothers," said Biggs. "If you're out in Congress or out doing something else, what are your kids doing?"
Biggs has not publicly addressed the comments since launching her campaign.
The 2024 election saw a notable gender gap in voting.
According to CNN's exit polling, 53 percent of women backed former Vice President Kamala Harris, while 55 percent of men backed President Donald Trump last November. That gap was notably pronounced among voters aged 18-29. While Harris won women in that group by 23 points, Trump won men by one point.
What People Are Saying
Biggs wrote in a June 21 post on X announcing her candidacy: "My parents taught me to love my country, the Constitution, and to value my freedoms. I've watched so many good people in my life serve this country in the military and in public office. I too seek to serve."
State Rep. Powell told the Phoenix New Times: "I know Mylie and have complete trust in her."
Former Representative Joe Walsh, a former Republican, wrote on X: "Huh???"
What Happens Next
The Gilbert-based district Biggs is running in is viewed as solidly Republican, so whoever wins the primary is favored for the general election. The primary is set to be held August 4, 2026, while the general election is scheduled for November 3, 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
25 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Leaves Alaska Empty-Handed
So what was that all for? President Donald Trump emerged today from his summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin without a deal and without much to say. Trump rarely misses a chance to take advantage of a global stage. But when he stood next to Putin at the conclusion of their three-hour meeting, Trump offered few details about what the men had discussed. Stunningly, for a president who loves a press conference, he took no questions from the reporters assembled at a military base in Alaska. In his brief remarks, Trump conceded that he and Putin had not reached a deal to end the war in Ukraine or even pause the fighting. 'There's no deal until there's a deal,' the president said. He characterized their three-hour meeting—vaguely—as 'very productive.' Of the outstanding issues between the two sides, he admitted that 'one is probably significant,' but he didn't say what that was. 'We didn't get there but we have a very good chance of getting there,' Trump insisted. The Russian president, for his part, made mention of 'agreements' that had been struck behind closed doors. Yet Putin also provided no elaboration, leaving the distinct impression that it was a summit about nothing. If anything, Putin seemed to make clear that his demands regarding Ukraine haven't changed. In his usual coded way, he said an agreement could be reached only once the 'primary roots' of the conflict were 'eliminated'—which means, basically, that Ukraine should be part of Russia. 'We expect that Kyiv and European capitals will perceive that constructively and that they won't throw a wrench in the works,' Putin said, in what sounded like a warning. 'They will not make any backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress.' As Putin and Trump boarded their respective airplanes for their flights home, Ukraine and Europe were left guessing as to what the coming days will bring. Will more missiles fly toward Kyiv? Will a second meeting involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky occur? The president was equally as vague in a Fox News interview taped after the summit, though he did suggest that the next steps in the process would be up to Zelensky. What was clear today was that Trump, who had once promised to bring the war to a close within 24 hours, left the summit empty-handed. 'Summits usually have deliverables. This meeting had none,' Michael McFaul, an ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, told me. 'I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet.' At their last summit, in Helsinki in 2018, Trump and Putin captivated the world when they took questions, revealing details of their private discussions as the American president sided with Moscow, rather than his own U.S. intelligence agencies, over Russia's 2016 election interference. This time, they quickly ducked offstage as reporters shouted in vain. When the two men did speak, they mostly delivered pleasantries. Putin even repeated Trump's talking point that Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 would never have happened had Trump been in office then. And Trump, once more, said that the two men 'had to put up with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.' That the summit happened at all was perceived by many as a victory for Putin, who, after years as an international pariah, was granted a photo with a U.S. president on American soil—on land that once belonged to Russia, no less. And he was greeted in an over-the-top, stage-managed welcome that involved a literal red carpet for a man accused of war crimes. Putin disembarked his plane this morning moments after Trump stepped off Air Force One, and the two men strode toward each other past parked F-22 fighter jets before meeting with a warm handshake and smiles. After posing for photographs, and quickly peering up at a military flyover that roared above them, the two men stepped into the presidential limousine, the heavily fortified vehicle known as 'the Beast.' The White House had announced earlier in the day that the two men would not have a previously planned one-on-one meeting, but would instead have a pair of sitdowns flanked by advisers. But here, in the backseat of the Beast, Putin had his time alone with Trump. As the limousine drove off the tarmac to the summit site, Putin could be seen in a rear window laughing. Putin and Trump were scheduled to have a formal meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, followed by lunch. But after the first meeting ran long, extending to more than three hours, reporters were abruptly rushed to the room where the press conference would be staged. The second meeting had been canceled. Had there been a breakthrough or a blowup? Putin sported the better body language: He almost glowed as he spoke to the press, offering a history lesson about Alaska, while praising the 'neighborly' relations between the men. And, oddly, he got to speak first, even though Trump was the summit's host. Trump, in contrast, seemed subdued, only perking up when Putin ended their media appearance by suggesting that their next summit be in Moscow. 'I think Trump did not lose, but Putin clearly won. Putin got everything he could have wished for, but he's not home free yet,' John Bolton, who was a national security adviser in Trump's first term, told me. 'Zelensky and the Europeans must be dismayed. And I thought Trump looked very tired at the press event. Putin looked energetic.' Putin seemed eager to broaden the conversation beyond Ukraine. He brought Russian business leaders to Alaska, hoping to play to Trump's hopes of better economic relations between the two countries, and perhaps strike a rare-earth-minerals deal. He also suggested earlier this week that he would revisit a nuclear-arms agreement, perhaps allowing Trump to leave the summit with some sort of win that did not involve Ukraine. But nothing was announced on those fronts either. The fear in Kyiv and across Europe was that Trump is so desperate for the fighting to stop, he might have agreed to Putin's terms regardless of what Ukraine wants. That did not happen, which was cheered across the continent, and Trump said he would soon consult with Zelensky and NATO. But Putin has shown no sign of compromising his positions. He wants Russia to keep the territory it conquered, and Ukraine to forgo the security guarantees that could prevent Moscow from attacking again. Those terms are nonstarters for Ukraine. The Europeans and Ukrainians had good reason to be nervous about today's summit. Trump has spent most of his decade on the global stage being extraordinarily deferential to Putin, which continued when he returned to the White House this year. He initially sided with Russia—even blaming Ukraine for causing its own invasion—before slowly souring on Putin's refusal to end the war. This summit came together in about a week's time' final details were still being arranged even as some of Putin's delegation arrived in Alaska yesterday. Trump's personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, had made several visits to Moscow in recent months. He had been in the Middle East when he received word through a back channel that Putin might finally be willing to come to the table given Trump's more hostile rhetoric toward Putin and threat of sanctions. After a series of meetings with key Trump senior aides and multiple flights across the Atlantic, Witkoff met again with Putin and accepted the offer of a summit. (He also accepted a twisted gift: Putin presented Witkoff an Order of Lenin award to pass along to a senior CIA official whose son had been killed in Ukraine fighting alongside Russia.) Summits, particularly those as high-stakes as ones between American and Russian presidents, usually take weeks if not months to plan. Everything is carefully choreographed: the agenda, the participants, the ceremony. Normally, the outcome is more or less predetermined: In the days before the actual summit, aides hash out some sort of agreement so the two leaders simply need to show up and shake hands to make the deal official. That was clearly not the case today—or in other Trump-Putin meetings. Trump had met with Putin seven previous times, all but one coming on the sidelines of larger summits and all friendly. The first was at the G20 in Hamburg, Germany, in 2017, when the two men sat next to each other for an hours-long leaders dinner. Their last meeting, at the G20 in Osaka, Japan, in the fall of 2019, ended with Trump mockingly warning Putin to never interfere again in American elections, with a sarcastic smile and exaggerated finger wag. But Helsinki is the headliner. It came against the backdrop of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow. I was one of the two American journalists called upon to ask a question, and I posed to Trump whether he believed Putin or his own U.S. intelligence agencies about Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Putin glared at me. Trump sided with Moscow. The eruption on both sides of the Atlantic was fierce and immediate, and even some loyal Republicans said they thought Trump's answer was a betrayal of American values. Some of Trump's top aides—including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Chief of Staff John Kelly—were photographed with pained expressions on their faces. Fiona Hill, Trump's Russia adviser, told me later she nearly faked a heart attack in a desperate attempt to get the summit to stop. Anchorage wasn't Helsinki. For that, Europe can be grateful. Trump didn't give away Ukrainian land to Russia or demand that Zelensky take a bad deal, at least immediately. But Putin did get much of what he wanted, including a high-profile summit and, most of all, more time to continue his war. When he boarded his plane to leave Alaska, he was spotted smiling again.
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
10 things you need to know about California Democrats' redistricting plan
The Palm Springs portion of Calvert's district, meanwhile, would be tacked onto the seat now held by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who would suddenly find himself in a district with a four-point Democratic advantage that spans Riverside and San Diego counties. Issa, who lost in the 2018 wave and moved to nab a safer GOP seat in 2020, would find himself once again a target. (More on those races below.) 2. Vulnerable Democrats get some relief Knocking off Republicans is just one side of the coin. Democrats also want to ease the pressure on their frontline members. Democrats in some of last year's toughest campaigns — including Adam Gray in the Central Valley, Derek Tran and Dave Min in Orange County and George Whitesides in Los Angeles County — all would see their districts turn a deeper shade of blue. Gov. Gavin Newsom, eager to maximize the intimidation factor for Texas, told Crooked Media that shoring up those vulnerable Democrats is in itself a net gain for his party. If Texas proceeds with its plan, he said, 'We'll neutralize them and we'll also punch above our weight in those four additional seats.' By that logic, the bluer tinge of the districts represented by Rep. Josh Harder and Mike Levin — two Democrats who are perpetually on the bubble of a serious challenge, but so far have not been marquee races — also add to the Democrats' spoils. Are the seats really 'additional' if Democrats already have them? No, but taking them off the board for Republicans would undeniably be a net positive for the party, allowing them to focus their resources in other tight races in California and throughout the country. 3. Don't count your chickens A lot has to go right for this to work, if 'work' is defined as 'Democrats flip enough seats in California to offset five Texas pickups.' Even if voters approve the new maps, coloring a district bluer on paper guarantees nothing. Just ask the string of Democrats who have tried, unsuccessfully, to oust Valadao from a seat where registered Democrats have for years outnumbered Republicans. The new map adds left-leaning voters to Valadao's district, but he's defied the voter-registration odds before. Meanwhile, some efforts to bolster Democratic incumbents are not guaranteed to work. Gray's Central Valley seat and the Orange County district held by Tran do get marginally more Democratic, but will still likely require Democrats to spend heavily in those races next year to ensure a win. 'I understand that Gov. Newsom is positioning himself as the top opponent to President Trump and the White House. So that's why he has ratcheted up his rhetoric,' said Nathan Gonzales, editor and publisher of Inside Elections, a nonpartisan campaign almanac. 'But he's offering some premature political analysis.' 4. Vibing with the Voting Rights Act Democrats could have sought even more gains but compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act stopped them from fully icing out Republicans on the congressional maps. They say it's a stark contrast to the ongoing, GOP-led redistricting efforts in red states like Texas — where there's little attempt to comply with prior Voting Rights Act requirements that prioritize fair representation of non-white voters through the creation of minority-majority districts and minority 'opportunity' districts.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Leaked chart reveals winners and losers in California's Democratic gerrymander
More details on California Democrats' proposed overhaul to the state congressional map are coming to light in advance of the official release of the new boundaries. State lawmakers were briefed Wednesday evening on the expected partisan tilt of all 52 congressional districts, providing the clearest view yet of which Republican districts they are targeting. The changes, which are not yet final, were detailed in a chart obtained by POLITICO and confirmed by multiple legislators and staffers. CD-1, the rural northeastern corner of the state represented by Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa, transforms from safe Republican to safe Democratic CD-3, a sprawling district along California's eastern border represented by GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley, goes from safe Republican to safe Democratic CD-9, Democratic Rep. Josh Harder's northern Central Valley district, moves from lean Democratic to safe Democratic CD-13, a Central Valley seat narrowly won last year by Democratic Rep. Adam Gray, changes from lean Republican to safe Democratic CD-27, a northern Los Angeles County seat held by Democratic Rep. George Whitesides, moves from lean Democratic to safe Democratic CD-41, a battleground seat held by GOP Rep. Ken Calvert, transforms from safe Republican to safe Democratic CD-45, which Democratic Rep. Derek Tran won last year in the most expensive race in the country, goes from lean Democratic to safe Democratic CD-47, an Orange County district represented by Democratic Rep. Dave Min, moves from lean Democratic to safe Democratic CD-48, which spans Riverside and San Diego counties and is held by GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, changes from safe Republican to lean Democratic. The new maps could also see more Democrats added into the Central Valley district of GOP Rep. David Valadao, who has already been able to defy gravity in a seat with a Democratic registration advantage. Gov. Gavin Newsom, speaking to reporters after he kicked off the campaign to give voters final approval over the still-unreleased districts, teased their imminent debut. "People are eager to see the maps,' he said. 'We anticipate that these maps will completely neuter and neutralize what is happening in Texas." Republicans are already denouncing the move. The nine-member California Republican House delegation released a joint statement Thursday pointing to the newest POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab survey which found strong bipartisan majorities prefer district lines be drawn by an independent commission than lawmakers. 'Governor Newsom is trying to grab power away from the citizens on the commission and give it to Sacramento politicians to gerrymander their own districts,' the statement said. 'Our delegation will stand with the citizens of California and defend their rights as they stand today in our state constitution by opposing Newsom's ballot measure. All Californians, regardless of their political affiliation, should vote NO on this attempt to eliminate the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission's ability to draw fair congressional districts.' The unveiling of the maps as soon as Friday sets the stage for a week-long sprint through the Legislature. Legislators must approve a constitutional amendment to be approved by the voters, as well as companion bills to put the maps in statute as well address the cost of the special election and other logistics. The bills are expected to be heard by the elections committees in both houses on Tuesday and appropriations committees on Wednesday before final floor votes Thursday. The breakneck speed means that none of the measures can be amended without facing a delay under the 72-hour rule.
