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

An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less
Muslim woman in headscarf and hijab prays with her hands up in air while holding prayer beads in mosque.Religion praying concept

What the fight over The Meadow, formerly EPIC City, reveals about pluralism, Pew data on Muslim Americans, and the duties of both sides.

magical_light/Getty Images

Freedom Without Friction: Navigating Identity and Public Life in Pluralistic America

America runs on a deal nobody signed but everyone is expected to honor. Host communities open their schools, their courts, and their markets. Newcomers, in turn, fold into the civic mainstream instead of asking their new country to rearrange itself around them. It isn’t written into any statute, yet it has been the quiet engine behind two and a half centuries of messy, mostly successful assimilation.

That deal is being argued out right now on a stretch of prairie forty minutes northeast of Dallas.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large dollar sign surrounded by code, number sequences in green ink.

As Congress weighs AI risk after researcher Jacob Coxon's viral warning, an opinion piece argues fear of 'losing control' can entrench Big Tech's power.

Anton Petrus/Getty Images

The Business Value of Losing Control of AI

A warning that artificial intelligence may escape human control can make its developers look more important, not less. For companies trying to establish AI as the defining technology of the century, even the possibility of catastrophe can increase the perceived significance of what they are building.

That possibility is now moving rapidly from Silicon Valley into Washington. On Sept. 16, senators were scheduled to gather for a private bipartisan briefing organized by Sen. Bernie Sanders on what he called the “extraordinary dangers” of advanced AI. The meeting followed the resignation of Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, whose warning that people building frontier AI genuinely believe the technology could kill humanity drew more than 100 million views. Coxon had spent three years working on pretraining at OpenAI and Anthropic.

Keep ReadingShow less