Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less