A Modern Day Sparta: The American Gerontocracy and the National Security Implications of Elderly Rule
Old age happens to all humans. Eventually, individuals with spritely, active youths, and sharp minds begin to falter and their mental and physical acuity begins to fade. While this is a rite of passage, it is a fact of life and, for the average U.S. citizen, one that occurs begrudgingly, but without posing nationally significant problems. For elected officials, those in Congress and appointed to important policymaking positions, the effects of aging pose substantial issues for the public, in few places more seriously than in national security.
An increasingly high-tech national security atmosphere has been marked by artificial intelligence, quantum computing, drone warfare, and numerous other advanced methods of gaining information, destroying targets, or otherwise protecting the nation and like-minded allies. Solutions of a national security nature require a strong and deep understanding of U.S. and international law as well as geopolitics. While countless individuals of advanced age hold the degrees, experiences, and proper intellect needed, at a certain point, those experiences and degrees matter little if one’s intellect and health are faltering.
Examining America’s issues with aged politicians and policymakers not only illuminates this very real and serious national, political, and ultimately human security issue, but can assist in finding policy solutions to this burgeoning problem that is morphing and spreading into all facets of American public life.
America’s Aging Politicians and Civil Service
The current 119th Congress stands to be “79 days older [than the previous session] and the third oldest in history,” with the average age of a member being 58.9; overall, the U.S. Senate’s average age is 63.8 while the U.S. House’s average age is 57.7. While Gen X (born 1965-1980) took an advantage over the Baby Boomer generation (1946-1964), the Baby Boomer generation nonetheless remains strong within the federal government and seems intent on holding onto power. This also transcends political parties and ideologies, both the political left and right fall into this trend.
For the Republican Party, substantial criticism was leveled against Joe Biden for his age and the Democratic Party for nominating such an elderly individual during the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. Some House GOP leaders considered holding “hearings and possibly even [issuing] subpoenas for documents and recordings” as they related to Biden’s health and mental acuity. However, this was hypocritical given the fact that their own nominee, Donald Trump, was a mere four years younger than Biden and has a wealth of documented behavioral issues and medical risks.
For the Democratic Party, while they broadly have a more diverse membership and electorate (in terms of age, race, ethnicity, and religion), they nonetheless have an issue with the age and seniority of their members. In mid-December 2024, the Democrats encountered a struggle over who to appoint to be the lead Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. Younger members of the Oversight Committee wanted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka “AOC,” the 35-year-old more progressive Representative from New York) to lead whereas the Steering and Policy Committee, “who ultimately decide,” favored Gerry Connolly, the 74-year-old Representative from Virginia’s 11th district. While AOC was thought to become the top leader, the Democrats chose Connolly, a nine-term Congressman who had been diagnosed with esophageal cancer the month prior. Many in the Democratic establishment bristled at the thought of AOC being named the Democratic head of the Committee while Nancy Pelosi worked behind the scenes to force Democrats to back Connolly. While this was the most high-profile case, it is also worth noting that the Democrats chose similarly aged individuals to lead key committees such as the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Appropriations, the youngest ranking member being 73 and the oldest being 86.
It was clear the Democratic elite leadership’s move was intended as “part of a pattern that places seniority, institutional experience and intra-party relationships above all else at a time when new ideas, new leadership and a break with past party practice might be more important than ever.” Amanda Litman, co-founder of an organization helping youthful Americans run for office, put this even more urgently writing the “septuagenarian and octogenarian [older white male] class” of Democratic leadership “are by and large ill-equipped” for a second Trump administration while also blocking “an incredible bench of Gen Z and millennial leaders”.
Furthermore, both political parties have had issues with their leadership and more illustrious members regarding age. For Democrats, a very notable example of the infectious gerontocracy was Dianne Feinstein. First getting her start in politics in 1970, Feinstein was the longtime Senator for California. Despite reports from staffers emerging as early as 2020 that Feinstein was experiencing “cognitive decline” and struggling to recall names, conversations, or seemingly where she was on Capitol Hill, she remained in her seat until her death in September 2023. Democratic Representative John Larson, meanwhile, appeared to have a stroke (what he called a “complex partial seizure” due to medication) on the House floor in early February of 2025. As seen with Rep. Connolly, it is apparent that the elected Democratic leadership is much older than those their party represents and will work to stonewall or block more youthful individuals with substantial and varied experiences from positions of influence.
With Republicans, this issue may be starker. Mitch McConnell, the longtime Senator for Kentucky since 1985, has long been a key face of the Republican Party and facilitated the party’s right-wing shift. Throughout the Biden and Trump administrations, however, he had numerous health issues, from freezing up twice while answering questions at press conferences in 2023 to falling at least twice between mid-December 2024 and early-February 2025 to even being hospitalized in 2019 for a concussion. In a highly publicized (but quite nearly forgotten) news story, it was found that Texas Republican Kay Granger, a Congresswoman for a district in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, was residing in a senior living facility, suffering from dementia. This was after she had missed roughly six months of Congressional votes. Earlier in the year, Granger had resigned from some committee appointments and announced in October of 2023 that she would not seek re-election.
Even more concerning is that members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle seem intent on keeping their medical records away from the press. In an article for the American Prospect, investigative journalist Daniel Boguslaw discussed the Office of the Attending Physician, a “Navy-staffed hospital … whose primary responsibility is providing care to members of Congress and the Supreme Court … for nearly unlimited [and incredibly cheap] medical care”, confirming “multiple sitting members struggling with symptoms of dementia.”. Despite his requests, no House Committee members overseeing the office, nor elected officials who used their services, responded to interview requests.
Not only is this an issue within the halls of elected power, but also within the federal civil service. According to independent researchers and news agencies like Politico and Government Executive, “only 17 percent of the federal government’s workforce is younger than 35, [and more than] 25 percent of feds are over 55.” While this is rapidly changing in Donald Trump’s second term, with massive layoffs of federal employees across the entire government, these changes are not for the better nor are they cost-cutting. Instead, by eliminating career civil servants for alleged partisanship and creating the Department of Government Efficiency, the administration instead is making a government easier for the chief executive to control and engage in unconstitutional activity, creating immense instability throughout the United States. In all likelihood, the individuals who will be brought in to replace these civil servants will not be sought after for their youth or age, but rather for their loyalty to the chief executive, which is highly concerning.
Old Age, American National Security, and Potential Solutions
The reasons behind America’s aged Congress and civil service are multiple. Mary Kate Cary, an adjunct professor with the University of Virginia’s Department of Politics, explained in late 2023 that older members of Congress find it difficult to leave their positions for four reasons: denial, identity, ego, or power. It could be a denial of their real age and a fear of facing their mortality, a linkage of their job to their identity and a fear of becoming bored in retirement with no hobbies, the belief that they are “indispensable … the only ones who can possibly do the job,” and finally the desire or need for power and influence is massively on their minds. For these reasons, many elderly elected officials never leave, even if well past their prime and doing their constituents a disservice.
The implications of an older federal workforce are stark. While an aged federal workforce does not automatically mean that the individuals are unqualified, research indicates that “an older labor force is less productive … less able to learn new skills [and] are more expensive, due to their greater use of health care services. The issue is not because of a nefarious effort by the older generation to continue to grip power but because the U.S. federal government “has done a poor job of recruiting and lacks a good hiring strategy.” Furthermore, the entire hiring system for federal employees is not only dated and out of touch technologically, but also dependent upon Congressional action for reforms and budgetary approval. Further, the federal service is more prone to hiring veterans than other industries, leading to a workforce that is predominantly white and skews older.
Elected officials who are gone for weeks at a time, recuperating from falls or getting medical tests due to injuries, will not be able to hold hearings, vote with their constituents in mind, or perform the duties of their office. Elected officials suffering from cognitive decline are less capable of making informed votes and decisions, harming not only their constituents but the nation as a whole. An individual who is dealing with a mental deficiency or is constantly being sidelined by medical issues will not make for an effective advocate for their district or policymaker. While some may decry this as exaggerated or far-fetched, it is worth noting that in April of 2023, the RAND Corporation found that such individuals with dementia can be considered a security threat as they may “unwittingly share government secrets.”
Age is not a guarantee of wisdom or intelligence. Keeping up to date on military technologies or other emerging tech is a constant need and a necessity in crafting effective policy governing it. When Congress was confronted with the role of good governance in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Republican Representative Jay Obernolte was surprised at the amount of time he spent explaining to fellow representatives “that the chief dangers of A.I. will not come from evil robots with red lasers coming out of their eyes.” An older individual, especially those whose last formal schooling came in the 1950s or 60s—or who still think of the internet in a dial-up sense—will struggle to be brought up to speed on the inherent dangers of AI or other complex, technical topics
The older individuals who are in power will not have to live through the policies they are enacting. In an article for The Guardian, academics on far-right politics and international relations articulated that “younger leaders probably would be more prone to address climate change than those who will not have to face the catastrophic effects of warmer temperatures, rising sea levels and reduced food production.” By virtue of having lived experience facing down an issue, younger leaders are better equipped to continue that fight.
The road to resolving the United States’ bend toward gerontocracy will not be easy. After all, the body most likely to bring about this effort (Congress) is largely run by older individuals keen to maintain their hold on power. However, the most effective solution to this is to cultivate younger individuals who are invested in politics, domestic policy, and foreign affairs, and to encourage them to run for public office. This is much easier said than done.
To start, older Americans generally are financially more well off given they “have outvoted younger Americans by a wider margin than in the typical OECD country” and are plentiful thanks to the Baby Boom of the post-World War II era. Furthermore, the American electoral system rewards those who enter the political playing field with wealth and money. In an article for New Yorker’s blog Intelligencer, columnist Eve Peyser explains:
“Boomers, for the most part, had more economic opportunity not only than their parents’ generation, but also more than their children, largely millennials, who have faced slower wage growth and higher barriers to homeownership and family formation … The older you are, the more money and resources you most likely have, which you need to run for political office. When you run for office, you specifically target voters in your age range since they will be more likely to vote for you [therefore] incumbents have a significant advantage when it comes to elections, so retaining power is much easier than attaining it.”
The fact that Baby Boomers are populous and have immense wealth that is generationally unparalleled to their parents or offspring gives them a leg up when it comes to mounting a political campaign. Furthermore, the fact that some get into these positions when they are older means they have a much larger, more expansive network of individuals to tap into for assistance or funds, again providing them with an advantage. Coupled with the fact that polarization has made fewer Americans willing to split the ticket or cross party lines and the fact that gerrymandering makes “competitive elections all the more rare,” it becomes clear to see why elections for Congressional seats are becoming “less and less competitive.”
For elected officials, it is clear, term limits would be a fantastic idea to resolve this problem. Not only would term limits (say a maximum three terms for Representatives and maximum two terms for Senators at the federal level) allow for more diversity in office, but it would also make for a government and political system that is not necessarily as concerned with getting elected indefinitely and therefore being slow moving on policy matters. Term limits are a method of preventing a Congress beset by the problems of old age.
Having mental and physical competency testing is also another option and one that has been suggested by some; Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and a presidential hopeful for the Republican nomination in 2024, advocated for “compulsory mental competency tests for elected leaders who are 75 and older” though she attested that passing or failing a test would neither be a required qualification or cause of removal from office, leaving it somewhat toothless. Another method of helping to stave off a gerontocracy in the long run would also be reforming campaign finance laws. These reforms would “make it possible for everyday working people … to run for office,” which has long impeded candidates, and also would promote good governance.
Reforming the civil service, meanwhile, would likely be much easier. Anthony Fauci and Max Stier, both experienced in the civil service and reform fields, push for making “greater use of student internships to assess talent and help those who excel navigate the arduous hiring process [and] develop contemporary messages that resonate with young people.” In a Washington Post op-ed, the authors encourage Congress to expand hiring opportunities for recent graduates and students and make the pay structure commensurate with the growing cost of living. Fauci and Stier both conclude these reforms would enable the government to compete “for top talent in cutting-edge fields.”
These solutions outlined are seemingly sound and would help to not only alleviate the gerontocratic nature of federal service but also make for a stronger and more efficient federal workplace. While easier and simpler to de-gerontocracize the federal civil service, it is likely for now impossible; in this current political climate with Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s rampage on the U.S. government and directing mass and illegal layoffs of federal employees, it is best to assume that any actions by this current administration which affect the civil service bureaucracy will not in any way be a reform, rather a destruction.
Conclusion
A government run by the elderly and infirm is an improper government. Nor is it one that Americans want. Pew Research found over 80% of Republicans and over 75% of Democrats favor “a maximum age limit in place for elected officials,” while CBS News determined that 73% of polled adults want age limits. These numbers indicate that Americans do not want gerontocratic rule, even if their votes do not correlate with their desires.
Enabling and allowing younger Americans the ability to run for public office, at the local, state, and federal level, is the only surefire way to stave off a gerontocracy. Any policy measures coming from Congress are likely to be ineffective. As can be seen with the financial industry and law enforcement, reform from within is never the most effective nor long-lasting. Congress presents a unique dilemma. It is clear those in power do not want to give up the reins—either because of ego or how integral their work is to their identity.
Additionally, leaders need to know when to leave the room. The average person can reasonably articulate and understand their own body better than others and knows if their mental acuity is failing at a certain point. They can understand if they are not performing as they used to, if they have difficulties in certain aspects of their job or position that used to be easy, if they find themselves getting confused or constantly having to be shepherded by aides. While this may seem insurmountable given the stereotypes many have of elected officials, it is important to note that some do recognize this; Democrat Congresswoman Annie Kuster of New Hampshire served seven terms in the House before resigning in December of 2024 to “set a better example … there are colleagues—and some of whom are still very successful and very productive—but others who just stay forever.”
A solution to the United States’ gerontocratic form of government is not on the horizon any time soon. With Donald Trump’s intensely fascist and oligarchic grasp on the levers of power in the United States, there will be little chance of any reform or movement on this issue in the near future—unless it benefits the Republican Party. While Democrats have been slow to react to this issue and have angered many amongst their base, it is a smart policy for the Democratic Party to take on the mantle of making a less aged, more youthful party and begin truly working towards that goal. Naturally, this is easier said than done. It requires fortitude and immense political will as well as the foresight to rewire one’s brain. Samuel Moyn, a professor of law and history at Yale, stated that “Gerontocracy, no less than plutocracy, is a form of oligarchy” and any ultimate remedy to this comes from “a cultural shift.” If gerontocracy is to be staved off and put to rest, then not only must those in power work to make it easier for the youth to craft policy and take the reins of power, they must also make it so that the elderly are cared for and not made irrelevant.
Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the views of GSSR, Georgetown University, or any other entity. Image Credit: ChatGPT