Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Americans want younger leaders, but elected officials are getting older

Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Patrick Leahy

Sens. Chuck Grassley (left) and Patrick Leahy have both served nearly 48 years in Congress, the most of any current lawmakers.

Pool/Getty Images

The Constitution defines minimum age requirements for elected offices, and there are no age caps. But if it were up to the American public, older candidates would be ineligible to run.

And while such an age limit would require a constitutional amendment, millennials are trying to bring down the average age on Capitol Hill – even while Congress is getting older.

Recent polling by YouGov and CBS News found that 73 percent of adults believe there should be age limits for elected officials and, in an era of intense polarization, Americans are united in their preference for such a cap, across gender, age group, race and party identification.

However, they disagreed on what that limit should be.


The most popular maximum age for elected officials was 70 years old, preferred by 40 percent of respondents, followed by 60 (26 percent), 80 (18 percent) and 50 (8 percent). The age-70 option was the most popular across every demographic subgroup except one: Those under age 30 had a slight preference for a max age of 60.

The current Congress is the oldest, on average, in recent years, according to Quorum. The average age in the Senate is 64. Members of the House of Representatives are slightly younger, with an average age of 58.

Our two most recent presidents (Joe Biden, 78; Donald Trump, 70) were the oldest in history when they took office, marking a significant change from their predecessors. George W. Bush was 54 at his swearing in, while Barack Obama was 47 and Bill Clinton was 44 (third youngest, after Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy).

Quorum found that the average age has increased at least in part because lawmakers are serving longer terms than in the past. Six senators and three House members have served at least 40 years in Congress, including Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who lead the way in their 48th year.

According to a survey commissioned in early 2021 by U.S. Term Limits, which advocates for service caps on elected officials, 80 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of a constitutional amendment that would put term limits on members of Congress, with Republicans, Democrats and independents all supportive.

And younger generations are not helping to balance the equation, with the 30-39 cohort showing the biggest decrease in representation following the last election.

But it’s not because they aren’t trying.

The Millennial Action Project, which supports young people seeking state and federal office, has been gathering data on millennials running campaigns. MAP tracked 703 millennials who sought a seat in Congress in 2020, a 266 percent increase from 2018.

Data is not yet available on 2022 candidates.

In 2020, 251 millennials (anyone age 45 or younger, according to MAP) made it through to the general election. Among them, 140 were Democrats, 97 were Republicans and the remainder were independents or represented other parties. More of them were men (156) than women (95.)

That election cycle included 56 House incumbents as well as Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents to the YouGov/CBS poll said politics would be better if more young people were in elected office; 23 percent said politics would be worse. Self-identified liberals heavily influenced that question, with 74 percent saying “better” along with 51 percent of moderates and 26 percent of conservatives. The other moderates and conservatives were nearly evenly divided over whether politics would be the same or worse with more young people in office.

A person must be 25 years old to serve in the House, 30 for the Senate and 35 to be president. Roosevelt was 42 when he became president following the assassination of William McKinley.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less