Too Old to Serve?

In his June 2024 debate with Donald Trump, 81-year-old President Biden repeatedly tripped over his words, lost his train of thought, and at one point ended a rambling statement by declaring, “We finally beat Medicare.”

President Biden’s faltering performance highlighted the question of age limits for elected officials. The topic had already come up in 2023 when 81-year-old Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell froze on two occasions while speaking to reporters. But even before Biden’s and McConnell’s incidents, the public had already formed a consensus in favor of age limits (for example, Reuters/Ipsos in 2022 and YouGov in 2022).

The numbers

As of 2025, the consensus still holds. Solid majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents favor age limits for elected officials:

The only thing that has changed over time is, when Biden was president, Republicans were more supportive of age limits than Democrats. Now with Trump in office, Democrats show higher support. But this partisan shift represents only a small fluctuation within the broader bipartisan consensus that has persisted for years.

The constitutional hurdle

If the public is so in favor of age limits, why don’t we have them? A big reason is the U.S. Constitution defines age requirements for federal elected offices, but it only specifies minimums: 25 years old for House members, 30 for senators, and 35 for the president. In the absence of guidance to the contrary, members of Congress have always served without regard to a maximum age. For example, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina served until the age of 100.

In the 1995 case U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not add qualifications to federal elected offices. The case was about Arkansas’ attempt to impose term limits on its congressional members, but the reasoning applied to age limits too. The upshot was, a constitutional amendment would be necessary to impose new limits on federal elected offices.

Constitutional amendments need approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures—a deliberately high bar that has been cleared only 27 times in American history, and not since 1992. Given that many of the lawmakers who would need to vote for such an amendment are themselves older, the political reality makes this path long and difficult.

Other paths

If a constitutional amendment for age limits is not a near-term prospect, are there other paths to addressing concerns about elected officials’ aging out of competence?

State laws for congressional candidates

In 2024, the voters of North Dakota passed Measure 1, a ballot initiative that prevented anyone from running for a North Dakota congressional seat if they would become 81 years old during their term.

Measure 1’s sole financial backer was U.S. Term Limits, the advocacy organization that lost the 1995 Supreme Court decision. As designed, the measure—now law—is unconstitutional under that decision. The law includes various features to facilitate legal challenges back up to the Supreme Court.

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton was decided by a 5-4 decision. The current Court is more sympathetic to states’ rights than the court of 1995. So there is a chance that Measure 1 could lead to reconsideration and reversal of its earlier decision. If that were to happen, states would be able to impose term limits and age limits on their own congressional delegations.

Cognitive testing

Is voters’ concern really age, or is it age-related cognitive decline? People experience cognitive decline at different ages, so maybe the right answer is to target cognitive decline directly.

For example, there have been proposals for regular cognitive assessments of elected officials. Most states require extra tests of older Americans to renew their driver’s licenses—in-person vision, knowledge, or road tests, depending on the state. So a test to serve as an elected official is plausible and popular:

However, because it would add a qualification for holding office, mandatory cognitive testing would likely face the same constitutional hurdle as age limits. But unlike with age limits, it is possible to have voluntary cognitive testing. There are precedents for this, such as the voluntary but expected practice that candidates for higher office disclose their tax returns. When candidates fail to disclose, questions get raised about what they might be hiding.

Given the strength of public concern, one can imagine a norm of releasing a current, independently conducted cognitive test as part of any campaign for higher public office, including re-election campaigns.

Generational representation

But for some voters, age actually is the issue. The average member of Congress is roughly twenty years older than the average American. This disparity has led to what Professor Jesse Rhodes of the University of Massachusetts Amherst described as “considerable frustration with gerontocracy,” meaning rule by the elderly.

Put another way, no amount of cognitive testing will help an 85-year-old politician relate to the lived experiences of far-younger Americans. So for those concerned that political leaders are generationally out of touch, the direct answer is to pursue generational change in politics. This can be done at the ballot box, which we will discuss below. It can also be done within political parties and institutions.

In Congress, committee chairmanships could be subject to term limits rather than automatic seniority-based succession. Political parties could structure fundraising to support promising younger candidates rather than mostly flowing to established leaders. Enhanced retirement benefits or dignified post-service roles could provide attractive exit ramps that compete with the incentive to remain in office.

However, these changes would require buy-in from the very people who currently benefit from the existing system—an unlikely scenario in the absence of outside pressure, which brings us to…

The puzzle of voter behavior

The most obvious recourse for voters frustrated by aging politicians is to vote for younger candidates. But despite strong public support for age limits, Congressional re-election rates have historically exceeded 90%, creating an apparent puzzle: Americans say they want younger leaders but rarely vote-out older ones.

This puzzle reflects structural realities in American politics. Incumbent politicians, especially long-serving ones, often hold powerful committee positions and have extensive fundraising networks that make them formidable candidates. They can deliver federal projects and benefits to their districts in ways challengers cannot promise. Voters may prioritize these tangible benefits over abstract concerns about age, or they may apply age concerns to politicians generally while viewing their own representatives as exceptions.

Another complication: Primary elections, where age-limit supporters might be most likely to support younger challengers, typically have low turnout dominated by the most politically engaged voters—who are often older themselves and may be more comfortable with seasoned politicians.

A moment for change?

The barriers to change are clear. But Congress now has the most-ever members over 70. Three members have died in office already this year. President Trump is currently the second oldest president. President Biden was the oldest. If anyone wants to run against the gerontocracy, there is an unprecedented opportunity. For a critical mass of voters, age-related concerns may outweigh the fundraising and incumbency advantages that have historically protected older politicians.

If younger candidates can convert the public’s longstanding concerns into electoral victories—or even the credible threat of victories—perhaps it will have the same effect as an age-limit law: Politicians in age-related decline may increasingly decide retirement is better than risking being retired by voters.