How Old Is Too Old? Rethinking Age and Leadership in American Politics

Reflecting on Age Limits for Politicians: A Nonpartisan Conversation

The question of whether there should be a mandatory retirement age for politicians has become increasingly relevant. Recent books and headlines about President Joe Biden’s age and health, his decision to seek a second term, and the broader age profile of American political leadership have brought this issue to the forefront. Concerns about cognitive and physical decline are not limited to one party: former President Donald Trump, now in his late seventies, has also faced growing scrutiny from medical professionals, the media, and even some former associates regarding his mental acuity and behavior. As a nonpartisan organization, the League of Women Voters is committed to fostering thoughtful discussion-one that recognizes both the value of experience and the importance of effective governance.

Minimums, but No Maximums

The U.S. Constitution sets minimum age requirements for federal office: 35 for the president, 30 for senators, and 25 for representatives. However, it does not set a maximum age for any federal office, nor does it specify an age range for Supreme Court justices. This stands in contrast to many other professions-such as airline pilots, military officers, and judges in some states-where mandatory retirement ages are the norm.

For example, Minnesota requires judges to retire at age 70, and several other states have similar rules for their judiciary. At the federal level, however, judges and Supreme Court justices may serve for life, with some remaining on the bench into their 80s and even 90s. The average retirement age for Supreme Court justices has risen from 68 before 1970 to 79 in recent decades, reflecting both increased life expectancy and changes in the nature of the job.

Experience vs. Renewal

Advocates for age limits argue that the demands of high office-especially in an era of rapid change-require leaders who are both mentally and physically agile. They point out that many other critical roles, from military generals to Foreign Service officers, have upper age limits to ensure those in command are fully capable. Public opinion appears to support this view: recent polls show that nearly 80% of Americans favor maximum age limits for federal elected officials and Supreme Court justices.

On the other hand, age is not a perfect proxy for ability. Many individuals over 75 remain sharp, energetic, and deeply knowledgeable. Mandatory retirement could mean losing the benefit of decades of experience and institutional memory. It’s worth remembering that wisdom, judgment, and perspective often deepen with age. A blanket rule risks discarding valuable public servants simply because of their birth date.

A Changing Political Landscape

America’s political class is, by any measure, older than ever. The average senator is 64, and representatives average 58, with a notable number in their 80s and even 90s. Advances in medicine have extended healthy life spans, but they have also enabled political careers to last much longer than the framers of the Constitution could have imagined. In 1789, the average life expectancy was just 67; today, it’s well into the 80s for many Americans.

How Could Change Happen?

Implementing a mandatory retirement age for federal officeholders would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment-a high bar, given the need for two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Some have proposed less sweeping reforms, such as term limits, regular health and cognitive assessments for older officials, or changes to the seniority system in Congress. States retain the power to set retirement ages for their own judges, but federal positions are governed by the Constitution.

A Nonpartisan Challenge

This is not a question of partisanship but of governance. The challenge is to balance the renewal of leadership with the preservation of experience, to ensure that our representatives are both capable and connected to the realities of those they serve. As the debate continues, it is essential to approach the issue with respect for the contributions of older Americans and a clear-eyed view of the needs of our democracy.

The Constitution’s silence on maximum age reflects a different era. Whether that silence still serves us is a conversation worth having-thoughtfully, inclusively, and with an appreciation for the complexities involved.

By Karen Lundquist, board member of the League of Women Voters of Bloomington