Last month, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) announced that she was dropping out of the New York gubernatorial race. Stefanik also said she would not seek reelection to Congress in order to spend more time with family. A staunch Trump ally, Stefanik was the highest-ranking woman within the House Republican Party and served as House Republican Conference Chair from 2023-2025.
Rather than back Stefanik’s gubernatorial bid, in December President Trump endorsed his long-time friend, Bruce Blakeman, the current Nassau County executive. Stefanik’s announcement about withdrawing from Congress and the New York governor’s race came just weeks after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) announced that she was leaving Congress after a public disagreement with Trump. Stefanik, Greene, and other GOP women colleagues also accused Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) of sidelining their legislative priorities, and showing a lack of respect.
These news headlines may seem surprising. But during the Trump 2.0 administration, a number of elected Republican women have reported experiences of dismissal, diminished support, and/or sidelining by their party and by the president. Some pundits point out that even women once fully aligned with Trump’s inner circle have been systemically excluded from GOP leadership roles and key policy initiatives. However, it would be a mistake to blame Trump alone for what many see as an anti-woman stance within the Republican Party.
Rather, these developments reflect a deep-rooted feature of Republican Party culture and leadership dynamics. The GOP has long embraced a view of political representation that downplays or rejects gender and other politically salient differences as relevant to governance. This gender-blind framework, often framed as a commitment to individualism or meritocracy, constrains the party’s ability to recognize gender as a meaningful political identity. Research from Rutgers and other universities suggests that this framework tends to render invisible the distinct perspectives, experiences, and claims to representation of Republican women. In turn, women pursuing public service perceive limits to both their presence and substantive influence within the party.
Why party culture matters
Gender shapes both the processes and outcomes of political party culture – the shared norms, values, and expectations governing behavior inside of parties – in systematic ways that are consequential for representation. Ignoring gender influences on party culture, political science research suggests, distorts the political process. For example, parties often encourage specific candidates to run, and parties also determine which candidates receive institutional backing. Unless they actively work to correct gender bias, parties tend to socialize, select, and elevate candidates in ways that (re)produce patterns of male dominance. Thus, women are likely to be under-represented when parties do not actively recruit or support them. This bias also impacts leadership pipelines, candidate quality, and the kinds of policy priorities that parties advance.
Next, gender influences political participation and internal party dynamics. When women are less active in party organizations than men, research suggests, party culture reinforces male norms. This leaves women less likely to gain influence within parties and, consequently, with little impact on the party’s culture. Internal party activism and membership shape decision-making processes, policy platforms, and the allocation of leadership roles within the party.
Gender biases guide party culture
Gendered patterns in media coverage, political stereotypes, and public perceptions feed back into party culture. Differences in how women politicians are portrayed affect how parties value and position women as leaders. It’s important to note that these biases are not superficial. They shape resource allocation and intra-party evaluations of competence and leadership, as well as voter perceptions. All of these factors affect party culture over time.
Men and women often have different political attitudes and issue priorities due to gender socialization and life experience. How parties construct platforms, mobilize constituencies, and allocate campaign resources often is influenced by a gender gap. This, in turn, shapes women’s political representation – will parties take note of gender differences, and try to bridge that gap? Gender, along with other politically salient identities such as race, continue to shape voting behavior and public opinion. Parties that ignore gender differences fail to understand important groups within the electorate and may consequently fail to adapt messaging or create policy platforms that speak directly to these voters.
In sum, the structural inclusion of women in political parties shapes democratic outcomes. Women are not peripheral but central to a political party’s legitimacy. Parties that minimize or effectively erase women risk entrenching inequality and limiting the diversity of perspectives that inform public policy. Ignoring gender reinforces patterns of exclusion within a political party that shape policy outcomes and democratic legitimacy. To be clear, these misogynist dynamics are rooted in social structures, institutional practices, and cultural stereotypes that operate both within and outside party organizations. And because political parties do not operate in a vacuum, they reflect broader societal norms about gender roles.
The Democratic Party has long taken a different approach
The Democratic Party, unlike the GOP, has normalized explicit attention to gender within the party culture. Democrats institutionalized women’s caucuses, recruitment initiatives, and leadership pipelines for women. In contrast, some political scientists argue, the Republican Party culture views gender-specific organizing as illegitimate or unnecessary. This has resulted in fewer institutional mechanisms to support women’s advancement. While the Democratic Party is more likely to recruit (non-Black) women candidates and encourage women’s leadership, the Republican Party tends to adopt a hands-off approach that perpetuates existing gender disparities.
America’s two major parties also differ in how they prioritize symbolic representation and women’s leadership. Democratic women are promoted by the party leadership as symbols of party values and diversity. Take, for example, Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party’s nominees for president in 2024 and 2016. The Republican National Convention, in contrast, has never nominated a woman to be the Republican presidential candidate. Research by political scientist Ronnee Schreiber, for example, suggests that Republican women are expected to demonstrate ideological loyalty first before being elevated within the party – yet are discouraged from changing party culture. Republican women like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Elise Stefanik, or Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) can become highly visible within the Republican party, yet lack durable power within party leadership structures because they have few options to alter party culture.
Where does this leave Republican women?
Women in the GOP continue to face a disadvantage – at the polls and within the party leadership – given the GOP’s lack of attention to gender-conscious politics. Regardless of how high they climb within the party, female leaders find it difficult to alter the ideological beliefs about gender and equality within the Republican Party. As long as gender is treated as irrelevant within the party culture, fewer GOP women are likely to attain meaningful leadership positions. This has profound implications for women’s representation, leadership, and influence across the American political system.
Stay up to date on all things politics and political science. Bookmark our landing page and sign up for Good Authority’s weekly newsletter by entering your email address in the box below.