Originally published by The 19th.
Over the past couple of years, there has been a stream of reporting and rumors about the mental capacity of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who at 88, is currently one of the oldest members of Congress. Most recently, multiple colleagues told the San Francisco Chronicle that they no longer believe Feinstein is fit to serve, with one saying the senator forgot who they were multiple times during a conversation.
In a phone call, Feinstein told the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board that she had not heard concerns about her cognitive ability directly. “I’m not isolated. I see people. My attendance is good. I put in the hours … And so I’m rather puzzled by this,” she said. Feinstein’s office did not respond to a request for comment from The 19th.
Regardless of her capacity, the reporting has raised questions about Feinstein and retirement once again. Feinstein still has two years left to her term and told the San Francisco Chronicle she intends to complete it. She has not yet said whether she will run again in 2024.
Most Americans who continue working past the traditional retirement age of 65, when people qualify for Medicare benefits, do so because they cannot afford to stop. In an AARP survey of older adults from 2018, money was cited as one of the most common reasons respondents put off retirement. This is not an issue for Feinstein: The website Open Secrets, which tracks money in politics, estimates that Feinstein is the second wealthiest person in the Senate.
Concerns about the cognitive capacity of elected officials are not new. In 1996, Kevin Sack wrote in The New York Times about then 93-year-old Senator Strom Thurmond’s seeming confusion during a speech. Thurmond went on to serve seven more years, until his death at 100 years old. Similar concerns were raised about Senator Robert Byrd before his death in office at 93.
But experts say that Feinstein choosing to stay in the Senate well into her 80s could be making up for lost time in the political sphere. Women in politics like Feinstein face unique practical challenges involving family life and perceived competence.
More from The 19th
Women in politics have historically started their careers later than men. “The gendered expectation is that you need to be home with your children,” said Suzanne Chod, a professor of political science at North Central College who focuses on women in American politics. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, didn’t run for office until her youngest child had left for college. She was 47 years old. Pelosi is currently 82 and while she has faced accusations of dementia, the attacks come more or less exclusively from the political right.
Women in the Senate “have a lot they want to accomplish,” Chod said. “ … By the time they get in and they’ve worked a few years, by the time they get reelected and develop institutional memory, by the time they build up seniority, they’re going to be older.”
Expectations for women candidates are also higher. They may need to accomplish more before being encouraged to run for office — much less be successful in winning office, experts said. That can mean they are older when they run for — and win — office.
“For women, to run a successful campaign, they are evaluated differently. Even when she’s [been elected] she has to work twice as hard to be seen as half as qualified,” Chod told The 19th.
In 1991, the medianage for a U.S. senator was 56.5. After a surge of women joined Congress in the 1992 election, that number jumped to 58. Chod attributes some of that change to the influx of women that year. Feinstein first ran for national office in 1992, when she was 59 years old. Her children had all finished school by then.
Things are changing for women in politics. In 2018, a small group of women members of Congress founded an informal Moms in the House caucus. That same year, Sen. Tammy Duckworth became the first woman senator to give birth while in office. Currently, 25 members of Congress are women with school-age children. On average, however, women are still older than men in the Senate, House of Representatives and at the state level, according to Represent Women, a nonprofit seeking parity for women in politics.
Concerns over Feinstein’s capacity could also be related to something outside of the senator herself: Society has a tendency to judge older adults more harshly, particularly women, experts said.
“One of the central tenets of ageism is that we tend to over-exaggerate cognitive decline. Older adults are held to an absurd standard where any gaffe suddenly becomes a marker of dementing disease,” said Kim Gorgens, a professor of neuroscience at University of Denver.
“It’s harder for women to display any obvious vulnerability,” Gorgens said. The way Feinstein has been discussed in media “raises [Gorgen’s] hackles up.”
An AARP survey from last year found that 78 percent of older workers said they had seen or experienced discrimination based on age. In another survey conducted by Resume Builder, 80 percent of hiring managers reported having concerns about workers over the age of 60.
But letting go of work for older adults can also be tied to keeping a sense of self.
“Work gives people an identity,” said Mick Smyer, professor emeritus of psychology at Bucknell University and an expert on aging. “When you go to a gathering and meet somebody new, the first question is ‘what do you do?’”
Smyer cites bias against older adults as a reason someone like Feinstein may choose to continue working. “It’s not fear of aging as much as fear of ageism. If you’re above a certain age, you get invisible pretty quickly,” he said.
Work doesn’t just shape our sense of who we are. It may also impact our health, according to Gorgens. A large 2015 study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention journal Preventing Chronic Disease found working adults over 65 had better outcomes across all health status measures, compared with retired or unemployed older adults. It isn’t clear that the link between work and good health is causal, but “it’s more predictive of good health outcomes than most other variables,” Gorgens said.
According to Gorgens, Americans need to rethink the role of work for seniors. “From a healthy aging perspective, there’s been an entire paradigm shift. You need to normalize employment of older adults and the continuation of careers well into later adulthood,” she told The 19th.
Gorgens also pointed out that dementia, and neurology in general, is less understood in women. “There’s less research on [women with] dementia, even though we are more likely to get it,” she told The 19th. Organ and tissue samples from brain banks are overwhelmingly male, for example. “Particularly with dementing disease, we know more about women as caregivers than as patients,” she said.
Still, Gorgens acknowledges the risk older adults with dementia may play working in roles that may have life-or-death consequences. Gorgens gave air traffic controllers, surgeons and elected officials as examples. “What kind of oversight should there be to ensure that someone’s cognitive capacity is up to the task at hand?” she said.




















A view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2026. President Donald Trump jolted Republicans during a fiery appearance at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, scrapping a housing bill signing ceremony and clashing behind closed doors with a party rebel who challenged him over the Iran war. Trump had been expected to sign the bipartisan housing.
Only Trump doesn’t care about housing
It was August 15, 2024. Then candidate Donald Trump stepped out of his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club’s columned clubhouse to a gaggle of reporters. He was flanked by tables of groceries and signs showing the rising cost of food. Also on one of the tables was a dollhouse, meant to represent the equally alarming rise in housing prices.
It was a speech about the economy, the single most important issue of the 2024 election cycle, full of promises that went right to the heart of Americans’ anxieties. While former President Joe Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris were contorting themselves to posture a good economy that just needed more time to recover from the pandemic, Trump was preying on voters’ very real fears of unaffordable gas, groceries, and homes. It was obviously a winning message.
In that speech, Trump promised, “We’re going to open up tracts of federal land for housing construction. We desperately need housing for people who can’t afford what’s going on now.”
As of mid-2023, there had been a housing shortage of nearly four million homes, according to the National Association of Realtors. Americans all over the country were either priced out of buying new homes due to low inventory, trapped in their existing homes by sky-high mortgage rates, or facing exorbitant rent hikes thanks to corporate investors buying up rental properties. Americans needed help, and Trump promised it.
Cut to March of 2026, when Trump reportedly told House Speaker Mike Johnson, “No one gives a sh*t about housing.”
That kind of thinking may explain why Trump this week suddenly announced he was canceling a signing ceremony for the bipartisan “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” a housing bill co-sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott that passed the House 358-32 and was approved in the Senate on Monday.
Trump instead demanded Congress pass the SAVE America Act, his controversial election grievance bill that doesn’t have enough Republican support to get passed in the Senate.
It’s just the latest in a line of policy self-owns where Trump has seemingly intentionally made life more difficult for Republicans hoping to keep their majority. Despite midterm elections occurring in the midst of a blistering economy and an unpopular war, they were surely hoping the housing bill would give them something — anything — to brag about when they returned home to their districts.
And very much to the contrary, Americans do give a sh*t about housing. According to a recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a whopping 79% say the cost of housing is extremely or very important to them. Eighty-three percent say Congress should take action on the issue — like it just did. Eighty-nine percent say the House and Senate need to work together to pass affordable housing legislation — like they just did. And 63% say they would be more likely to vote for a lawmaker if they helped pass legislation to build more affordable homes and lower housing costs — like they just did.
There aren’t many issues that unite Americans like housing does, and very few bipartisan policy wins Congress can point to, and yet, Trump is holding that bill hostage in order to get his pet project — which doesn’t even have the support of his own party — pushed through.
If you’re trying to make sense of something so nonsensical, as I’m sure many Republican lawmakers are, it’s certainly sad but not actually all that complicated. Trump said what he needed to get reelected and then promptly abandoned his promises in order to pursue his own self-interests, even if those interests are bad for Republicans and bad for voters.
That’s just the kind of guy he is.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.