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.”

Democrats’ newest approach to win back voters is a fresh embrace of the nation's oldest symbol.

Two days ahead of Flag Day, when President Donald Trump’s military parade will run through the streets of Washington, Democratic Reps. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) fanned out Thursday afternoon to give a gift to their colleagues to unite them.

It was a 4-inch-by-6-inch American flag, which they passed out at almost the exact moment, unbeknownst to them, that Sen. Alex Padilla was getting forcibly removed and handcuffed at a Homeland Security press conference in Los Angeles — an act House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries would later call “unpatriotic.”

The flags, made in Deluzio’s Pennsylvania, came with a message in an accompanying dear colleague letter written by Ryan, a West Point grad who served two tours in Iraq, and Deluzio, a U.S. Navy officer who did three deployments there. They have joined forces to become co-chairs of the first-ever, 18-member Democratic Veterans Caucus, formed just three days ago.

“Patriotism does not belong to one party,” the letter read. “The flag, and the values it stands for, belong to every single American.”

As Democrats look for a message to rebut the MAGA right, they are looking within their own ranks for a credible message against the overreach of those holding power.

“The timing is very apt, because we've now had a senator handcuffed; we've had one of my House colleagues charged and now indicted; we've had not just the National Guard federalized, but active duty troops deployed against U.S. citizens, and increasingly, Trump, who really is the Republican Party now, their definition of patriotism, is, do you support Trump and MAGA?” Ryan told POLITICO. “And if you don't, then you're not patriotic."

Democrats see the military display taking place in Washington on the Army’s 250th birthday — which also happens to coincide with President Donald Trump's 78th birthday — as emblematic of a president who puts himself above the country. In his speech this week, even California Gov. Gavin Newsom framed his criticism of Trump in patriotic terms, saying he’s “ordering our American heroes, the United States military, and forcing them to put on a vulgar display to celebrate his birthday, just as other failed dictators have done in the past.”

It's a message that a beleaguered party hopes resonates in the 90 percent of counties that shifted to Republicans last November. Or, as Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) put it earlier this year, it's time for Democrats to “fucking retake the flag.”

Ahead of Trump’s parade, outside groups like VoteVets are rallying former servicemembers to make a not-so-subtle contrast. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy officer, is organizing fellow veterans online to “call out how Trump is putting his ego first while he fires veterans from federal jobs and guts the VA.” Others who also served in the armed forces, like JoAnna Mendoza who is running to challenge Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, plan to be involved in the pushback.

“Patriotism is not something the Democratic Party should concede, because patriotism is not something the Republican Party created,” Moore said in an interview.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Instagram Thursday said “any salute to the flag or patriotism or talk of American greatness is completely hollow if you do not respect the freedoms that that flag represents.”

In Iowa last month at a town hall hosted by the Democratic political action committee VoteVets, Buttigieg closed his opening remarks with an extended meditation on the flag to his three-year-old daughter. The former Navy Reserve intelligence officer who deployed to Afghanistan for seven months extolled “the values that flag represents, the story, the incredibly rich and inspiring — and yes, very, complicated story, of everything that has happened under that flag and in the name of that flag.”

And it comes at a time when the party’s brightest stars include a number of veterans — including some poised to enter governor's mansions and help Democrats retake the House.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, her party's gubernatorial nominee in New Jersey, is a former Navy helicopter pilot.

Her candidacy has inspired a group of female veterans running for Congress in 2026, who hope to replicate the success of the 2018 wave by running moderates with national security experience.

And like Buttigieg, other possible 2028 presidential contenders are leaning into powerful national symbols: Kelly is also a former astronaut. And there is Reuben Gallego, a Marine combat veteran who served in Iraq.

In attempting to reclaim the flag from its right-coded fixture at the moment, Democrats face no easy task: One study found that a single exposure to the American flag shifts voter sentiment to the right for up to eight months after.

Major General (Ret.) Paul Eaton, a senior adviser to VoteVets, the PAC that sponsored Buttigieg's town hall last month, said messaging that has been so successful on the right to pigeonhole the other party [as] less than patriotic.”

Mendoza, a retired US Marine, says she finds it "extremely frustrating" when Republicans claim to be the true party of patriots. Medoza said she deliberately chose her campaign colors to be red, white and blue to make a point that "they don't own it, and we have to take it back."

"The Republican Party does not own this country, they don't own the American flag," she said. "It belongs to the people."

Democrats have spent years battling perceptions that they are less patriotic — and reversing that image could take just as long.

But “a key part of the way out of the moment we're in will be military veterans who can help bridge the divide," Ryan said. "That's why I think this reassertion of a constructive, unifying patriotism is absolutely just essential right now.”

A survey of likely voters seeks to offer Democrats a blueprint for how to punch back on an issue that’s vexed them in recent elections: immigration.

The poll, conducted in key 2026 battleground districts by Democratic-leaning groups Way to Win and Impact Research and shared first with POLITICO, argues that Democrats — with the right messaging — can drive down President Donald Trump’s strength on immigration by a net 10 percentage points.

The poll does not shy away from Democrats’ overall poor standing on the issue. Republicans overall have an 11-percentage-point net negative job rating on immigration (43 percent approve versus 54 percent disapprove), but Democrats have a 58-percentage-point net negative rating on the issue (19 percent approve versus 77 disapprove).

Democrats can turn the tide, the message testing found, by playing up Trump's overreach and disregard for the rule of law that they say threatens citizens and noncitizens alike as he carries out his mass deportations. But many Democrats would rather avoid the topic.

“Coming into and out of the 2024 cycle, Democrats were silent — completely — on immigration,” said Tory Gavito, president of Way to Win. “There was just no response at all. This poll is to show Democrats that when they point out how enforcement has failed, they can attack Trump on one of his most favorable policies.”

The survey, conducted in more than 70 key congressional districts, including the 26 “frontline” member list of top House Democratic-held seats the party hopes to defend next cycle, found a weakness for Trump. His initial job rating, which started with 50 percent positive versus 49 percent negative on immigration, dropped to 45 percent positive and 54 percent negative after emphasizing overreach messaging.

The survey used specific examples, like the deportation of a person in the country legally “but deported and sent to a prison in El Salvador because of their autism awareness tattoowas wrongly identified as a gang tattoo” — or a 10-year-old U.S. citizen deported because her parents were undocumented.

Researchers say Democrats have plenty ammunition on the issue. They found policies that separate families and impact children among the most salient issues among respondents. A large majority, 74 percent, of respondents who oppose revoking visa and green cards from people without proof of committing a crime. And nearly eight in 10 respondents do not support sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons.

“Voters view Trump’s policies on immigration and his enforcement of immigration differently — there’s a gap,” said Molly Murphy, president of Impact Research. “They are more supportive of what Trump wants to do on immigration … from a policy standpoint, than how he’s actually going about it.”

Of course, getting voters engaged on the specifics of Trump's immigration policies can be a challenge. Public polling shows voters who haven't heard much about the high-profile cases are more likely to approve of the president.

The poll, conducted May 6-11 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent, does not capture reactions to the widespread protests in Los Angeles.

The showdown between California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Trump administration's deployment of the state’s National Guard has also centered on the president's overreach.

“Democrats shouldn’t be focused on protesters right now,” Murphy said. "We should be talking about the people he’s deporting: people here legally, people here with no criminal records, people who have proof of citizenship and not make this a fight about protesters, because that’s what he wants.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said the party needs to " keep those stories in the news.” and plans to hold a briefing on the survey findings for members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus early next week on Capitol Hill.

“Trump wants to highlight the chaos that he is helping stoke in LA," Cesar added. "Democrats should be making sure that more of the focus is on the immigration overreach that has everyday people … deeply upset and deeply troubled.”

When Rep. Mikie Sherrill won the New Jersey gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, the “Hellcats” group chat of aspiring female congresswomen lit up in celebration.

All four women in the "Hellcats" chat — named after the first female Marines who served in World War I — have military experience and are running for Congress in 2026. Sherrill, as a former Navy helicopter pilot, offers some much-needed inspiration for the party’s next generation of candidates.

Democrats, looking to turn around their struggling brand and retake the House in 2026, point to Sherrill and presumptive Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA officer, as reasons the party will do well.

Sherril and Spanberger are held up as the model for how the party might turn the tables — running moderate, former veterans and national security officials in tough districts who can say they “have put their country ahead of their party,” said Dan Sena, who served as the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018.

“Candidates with records of service showed in 2018 their ability to win in the most challenging districts and states in the country,” Sena added. “This cycle, the same dynamics are playing out with those kinds of candidates.”

Democrats say these House candidates can point to their political aspirations as an extension of their public service that began in the military or national security realm, and bristle at Republicans claiming MAGA is equivalent to patriotism.

“Right now, especially as this administration continues to create more chaos and dismantle our democracy, you're seeing veterans continuing to answer the call to serve their country,” said JoAnna Mendoza, a retired US Marine who served in combat, now running to challenge Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.).

Mendoza is a member of the “Hellcats” group chat, along with Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy officer who is taking on Rep. Tom Kean (R-N.J.), Maura Sullivan, a former Marine looking to replace Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) and Cait Conley, an Army veteran and former National Security Council official, who is up against Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.).

Democrats say these candidates bring in necessary enthusiasm that translates to fundraising. In Pennsylvania, Ryan Croswell, a Marine and federal prosecutor who resigned when President Donald Trump pressured him to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, raised more than $215,000 in the first 48 hours after announcing his campaign on Monday, one of the biggest launch hauls that the party has seen this cycle.

Spanberger posted a selfie on X just minutes after her one-time Washington roommate Sherrill won her primary race in New Jersey on Tuesday. The pair is using their profiles as a springboard to higher office, after many of them helped Democrats flip the House in 2018.

In Michigan, former CIA analyst Sen. Elissa Slotkin fought off GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, himself an Army veteran, in a state that Kamala Harris lost in 2024. New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim, a former Department of State adviser on Afghanistan, easily won his election for the seat once held by former Sen. Bob Menendez, who was convicted of federal corruption charges.

“Patriotism is a value that the Democrats shouldn't be afraid to talk about,” said Jared Leopold, a former communications director for the Democratic Governors Association. “It is a productive conversation for Democrats to lead on as an entry point to the kitchen table issues of the day.”

Democratic candidates with national security backgrounds mitigate one of the party’s biggest liabilities — a perception that Democrats are weak. Democratic-run focus groups held after the 2024 election found voters across the spectrum saw the party as overly focused on the elite and too cautious. Voters regularly cite Republicans as the party they trust with national security issues in public polling, and the GOP bench of veterans elected to office runs deep.

But serving in the military or for the administration in a national security capacity “inoculates them from attacks that they're not tough,” said Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something, a group that recruits young people to run for office.

“It helps them ward off that opposition without having to say it out loud,” Litman continued. “Former Navy helicopter pilot, prosecutor — those are inherently tough, so that means women candidates don't have to posture, they can just be, because it's baked into their resumes.”

Of course, Republicans have, at times, effectively turned it against them. Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, for instance, highlighted his military experience but also faced "swift boat" attacks. More recently, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's military record came under scrutiny when he was elevated to the vice presidential nomination.

Bennett, who is also a current member of the Air National Guard, believes her dual identity as a veteran and mother gives her a unique appeal to voters, and a natural way to discuss financial strains like high daycare costs.

“I truly led in some of the most challenging environments that exist in this world,” she said. “And, I'm a mom too, and I fundamentally understand the issues and challenges that families are facing.”

Democratic National Committee members removed David Hogg his vice chair position — discharging the 25-year-old activist and another vice chair from national party posts amid his threats to take on “ineffective” Democratic incumbents in primaries.

The virtual vote, which concluded on Wednesday and the results were obtained by POLITICO, vacated its two vice chair positions, stemming from a procedural complaint unrelated to Hogg’s primary activities, and put forth a plan to hold a new election. Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta must now run again for their positions next week.

The election offers a potential reset for a party that’s dealt with a series of Hogg-related controversies in recent weeks.

In April, Hogg announced the group that he co-founded, Leaders We Deserve, planned to drop $20 million on safe-seat Democratic primaries, hoping to oust “asleep-at-the-wheel” Democrats. The move triggered a wave of anger from elected officials and DNC members alike, who vented that Hogg’s role as a party leader conflicted with the decision to take on incumbents.

The internal drama exploded again over the weekend, when POLITICO reported on leaked audio from a DNC meeting in which Chair Ken Martin told Hogg and other DNC leaders that his leadership has suffered due to the clash. The vice chair, Martin said, had “essentially destroyed any chance I have” to show national leadership.

Several of the DNC leaders who participated in the call expressed support for Martin and accused Hogg or his supporters of leaking it. Hogg, for his part, denied he shared it.

Now, the DNC will hold a new elections for the two vice chair roles — the vote for the new male vice chair will take place from June 12 to June 14 and then vote for a second vice chair of any gender from June 15 to June 17.

Joe Walsh, the former Tea Party congressman, right-wing radio host and current Never Trumper, is eyeing a possible move to South Carolina. He says he’s considering a run as a Democratic Senate candidate against Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Walsh, who became a registered Democrat last week, told POLITICO that Democrats have to take a new, asymmetrical approach to their Republican opponents and have to “fucking wake up and begin to do different things.”

“I am seriously considering moving to South Carolina and challenging Lindsey Graham next year, because he's a piece of shit," said Walsh, who describes himself as a “conservative” Democrat. "He’s everything that is wrong about our politics, and he's the worst, most pathetic Trump enabler."

Walsh would not be the only Democrat in the race if he runs: Dr. Annie Andrews, a progressive, has already announced a campaign for the seat that has been held by Republicans for over half a century.

Walsh represented the northwest suburbs of Chicago from 2011 to 2013.

Graham’s last race, when he faced Jaime Harrison, was among the most expensive of its cycle, totaling nearly $200 million. Harrison lost to Graham by 10 percentage points.

Democratic governors facing potential big budget problems exacerbated by the GOP megabill being fast-tracked in Washington are considering emergency measures to try to soften the blow.

Blue state policymakers from Connecticut to California to New York are raising the specter that they will call lawmakers back for special sessions to tackle what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs as a result of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” And even some deep red states — like Florida — are taking steps to address the financial fallout.

The preparations signal the depths of concerns about how the Republican package might reverberate in state capitals, even as passage is far from assured, especially given the recent vitriolic attacks on the spending bill from Elon Musk. State officials are scrambling to navigate the likely fiscal challenges in what’s already the toughest budget year since before the pandemic in many states.

“The bill is destructive and risks destabilizing the entire network of supporting programs,” said New Mexico Treasurer Laura Montoya, a Democrat whose governor has all but guaranteed a special session will be necessary.

The bill, which cleared the House last month and now awaits Senate action, would cut some $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, largely by forcing states to pay into the program for the first time. It would also kick 7.6 million people off Medicaid and save $800 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The special session threat could be a way for Democratic governors, some of whom enjoy large legislative majorities, to respond to pressure from constituents angry about cuts to health care and food benefits — even if there's little they can do to combat Trump’s agenda.

The details of what the governors would even ask the lawmakers to do are scant given the high degree of uncertainty around the final bill. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, referencing potential cuts to education, school meals and Medicaid, warned earlier this year that “nothing prohibits us from coming back in a special session to deal with anything that comes our way from the federal government.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said last month “we will definitely be back in a special session to deal with” the reconciliation package if the House-passed version is adopted.

There could be immediate substantive reasons for a special session in response to the GOP bill, even though provisions like sharing the costs of the nation’s largest food aid program with states wouldn’t take effect until 2028. The vast majority of states start their fiscal years on July 1 — meaning that their budgets have been crafted based on current conditions even as officials leave the door open to make changes later and minimize the pain in response to the final federal legislation.

“Bottom line is states will not be able to absorb all the costs, and decisions will have to be made,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the nonpartisan National Association of State Budget Officers. “All states will be impacted.”

Some Republicans have also expressed concern at the downstream impacts of the GOP megabill. Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries Rick Pate, a Republican who recently announced a bid for lieutenant governor, previously told POLITICO that in his state “there would be very little interest in us generating the dollars it would take to fund something huge as SNAP.”

Others are using the special session chatter as a cudgel to hammer Democrats in blue states for being in a precarious fiscal situation to begin with.

“I would say that our priorities have been on the goofy side,” California Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican on the budget committee, said in an interview regarding his state’s poor fiscal outlook, pointing specifically to massive spending to attack homelessness that’s failed to dent the problem. “We're trying to offer too much to too many people when we can't even offer basic services.”

Still, states would be impacted across the board even if it’s only Democrats that have the political incentive to publicly oppose the reconciliation bill. That means states will need to turn to unpopular choices like cutting benefits or raising taxes to fill as much of the gap left by the federal cuts as possible, in addition to other maneuvers like drawing from their rainy day funds, said Sigritz.

Some legislators are accepting that they will likely return to their statehouses for special sessions.

Connecticut Treasurer Erick Russell, a Democrat, said in an interview that a special session will likely be necessary if the federal budget significantly shifts costs to states to ensure that lawmakers are “building in some flexibility to try to make whatever adjustments we may need to safeguard residents of our state.”

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont’s office told POLITICO that he and legislative leaders are considering declaring a fiscal emergency in order to raise the spending cap, a move that it argues would be necessary to pay for the costs shifted to states under Republicans’ megabill.

New York state Sen. Gustavo Rivera, a Democrat who chairs the chamber’s health committee, said he fully expects to return to Albany in a special session if the reconciliation bill clears Congress — and that he will push to “raise taxes on the wealthy” to cover some of the Medicaid spending the federal government plans to cut.

In California, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said there is “a scenario where lawmakers come back later this year” to deal with new budget realities brought by federal cuts.

“I'll come back any day,” said California Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, a Silicon Valley Democrat. “This is our job. And if we have to come back in the fall, I will gladly come. In fact, if it means protecting some of these programs, then I think we should come back in the morning, noon, weekend, holidays.”

And in deep-red West Virginia, Mike Woelfel, minority leader in the state Senate and one of the 11 Democrats in the entire Legislature, said he wants his Republican governor Patrick Morrisey to call a special session if the federal cuts are adopted.

“This is the kind of thing that should trigger special sessions if we get into this hellhole that this legislation would put our most vulnerable citizens in,” Woelfel said. “But there’s political risk in (the governor) doing that.”

Eric He and Katelyn Cordero contributed to this report.