Marjorie Taylor Greene Reportedly Prepping For 2028 Presidential Run
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is reportedly considering a run for president in 2028 — a move that, if realized, could reshape the Republican Party’s post-Trump era and test the staying power of the “America First” movement.
According to a new report from Notus, Greene has privately expressed interest in following in Donald Trump’s footsteps to the White House. The outlet cites four sources familiar with her thinking, saying Greene believes she represents the “real MAGA” faction — the core conservative movement that has reshaped the GOP since 2016 — and that many Republican leaders have drifted away from those grassroots values.
One source told Notus that Greene feels confident she has built the national donor network and grassroots support needed to mount a serious primary campaign, especially as the GOP’s base remains loyal to Trump’s populist agenda.
Building a National Brand
While Greene has long been a lightning rod for criticism from the left, she’s also gained national recognition for her unapologetic defense of conservative causes — from border security to religious freedom, from cutting wasteful spending to standing up against what she calls the “weaponization” of government against political opponents.
In recent months, Greene has sought to expand her reach beyond the hardcore MAGA base. She’s made high-profile appearances on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” on HBO, The View, and CNN, signaling an effort to engage audiences outside of conservative media. Her willingness to enter unfriendly territory underscores her confidence and desire to make the case for conservative principles in front of skeptics.
As one GOP strategist told Notus, “She’s trying to take the MAGA message to a national stage — not just to Republicans, but to all Americans who feel Washington is broken.”
Criticizing the GOP’s Lack of Direction
Greene has also been unafraid to criticize her own party when she believes it has lost focus. On Real Time, she expressed frustration with Republicans who, after years of campaigning to repeal and replace Obamacare, “still don’t have a plan.”
“I’m angry about that,” Greene said on the show, adding that conservatives need to deliver tangible results, not just rhetoric.
In recent weeks, she has also called out male Republican members of Congress as “weak” for caving to establishment pressure, blasted the GOP for having “no plan” to avoid government shutdown chaos, and criticized the party’s leadership for not pushing harder to release Jeffrey Epstein files, saying Americans deserve transparency and truth.
A Populist in the Trump Mold
Those close to Greene describe her as both fiercely loyal to Donald Trump and equally committed to ensuring his populist movement survives beyond him. She was one of Trump’s earliest and most vocal defenders during both impeachments and remains one of his strongest allies in Congress.
At the same time, Greene has worked to develop her own national voice, one that emphasizes restoring American sovereignty, rebuilding manufacturing, reducing foreign entanglements, and protecting traditional values that she argues have been under assault from both the left and establishment Republicans.
The 2028 Question
When asked directly about a presidential run during an appearance on comedian Tim Dillon’s podcast last October, Greene laughed off the speculation — but didn’t shut it down entirely.
“Oh my goodness. I hate politics so much, Tim,” she said. “People are saying that, and I’ve seen a few people saying ‘she’s running’… What I’m doing right now is I very much want to fix problems. That’s honestly all I care about.”
Still, those familiar with her thinking say Greene’s ambitions go beyond her congressional seat. With her growing national platform, fundraising power, and ability to command headlines, she could emerge as one of the most influential Republican figures in the post-Trump era — whether she runs in 2028 or not.
In August, President Donald Trump made his clearest endorsement yet for a future Republican presidential candidate, declaring that Vice President JD Vance is “most likely” to carry the MAGA torch after his second term ends.
Trump described Vance as “probably the favorite” to lead the Republican Party into the next election cycle.
“He’s most likely the heir,” Trump said, referring to Vance. “He understands the movement, he understands the people, and he’s doing a phenomenal job as Vice President.”
Trump also praised Secretary of State Marco Rubio, calling him “somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form,” suggesting Rubio could play a key role in a future Vance-led administration or campaign.
Rubio, for his part, echoed Trump’s praise of Vance during a recent interview with Lara Trump on Fox News.
“I think he’s doing a great job as Vice President. He’s a close friend, and I hope he intends to do it,” Rubio said of Vance.
Although recent polling has shown Rubio with some early support among Republican voters for a potential 2028 run, conventional political wisdom indicates he wouldn’t start publicly signaling interest in running for president until much closer to the election.
“You never know what the future holds,” Rubio said. “But if I’m able to finish this term strong and we accomplish what we’ve set out to do, I’ll be satisfied with that as the apex of my public service career.”
GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates
In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.
The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.
Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.
Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.
To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”
In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.
And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.
To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.
This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.
There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”
Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.
What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.
Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.
None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.
The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.
What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.
This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
Sponsored
DOUBLE Your Impact to Crush the Left’s Comeback! It’s up to patriots like you to stop them. Heritage will match every dollar — up to $1 MILLION. Double your impact before it’s too late!.