Incoming senators are nearly 15 years younger than departing ones, on average. But the chamber’s overall age isn’t shifting much.
Nov. 7, 2026Updated 3:17 p.m. ET
When the new Senate convenes in January, it will welcome some (relatively) young new legislators. A few are even millennials, including James Talarico of Texas, 37, and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, 42, two Democrats who may have energized young voters to turn out.
But their effect on the average age of the Senate — which has crept up over the last few decades — will be small. The senators of the 120th Congress will be less than a year younger, on average, than the Senate’s current members were at the start of the 119th Congress two years ago. That’s because so many sitting senators are old, and getting older.
These numbers assume that Mary Peltola and Scott Colom will win their races in Alaska and Mississippi; they were both ahead in the vote count Saturday. (If both lose, the Senate’s average age will land at 63.6.)
65 should be the maximum for newly elected officials, forced retirement at 70, and strict term limits. They can hold advisory roles after that, but should be excluded from directly making decisions which they’ll never experience the consequences of.
I say the oldest you can serve as an elected official should be 62, which is when the government itself says it’s time to withdraw social security benefits.
At the very least apply term limits for senators, governors, and judges.
The actual full retirement age to start taking Social Security without a penalty is 67. You can start taking it as early as age 62, but that’s with a significant penalty so the amount you get per month will be permanently a lower number. If you wait until after 67 you would be rewarded with a higher monthly amount, which maxes out at age 70.
I was aware of that. My whole point is that 62 is the age the government decided when citizens can start to access retirement benefits, well then that’s when elected officials should serve their term by.
Falls to 63
Reminds me of the time I found an animal lighter than an elephant
Down from 65.
Isn’t that when corporations have decided that you are no longer useful and you are forced to retire. Finding a new job at that age is laughable.
And yet, people seem to think 80 is a proper age for running a country and deciding laws.
I still think Congress should have a mandatory age limit at whatever they set Social Security at.
They chose when that age should be, they need to adhere to it. Not sure what the mechanism would be to prevent them from raising that just to let them stay longer though, gotta think of some sort of negative that would balance it out.
While we’re at it, they get the same Medicare coverage as anyone else, not the super special cover everything plan they do now. Again, they get what they determined is good enough for everyone else.
With no more elected for 2 years…
Generally, the longer they’ve been in office, the more likely they’re corrupt. And, as a side effect, they’re older.
Age correlates with corruption, but does not cause it. Money is power and power corrupts.
Term limits would help mitigate corruption. It’s why we have term limits for the President, and we should have the same for Congress.
It’s why we have term limits for the President
No, you have term limits for the president because Congress thought FDR was too popular. This is, however, why every other democracy has term limits for the President.
Wow, they are spring chickens now
That’s like going from dust to retirement. Hooch change, very hooch.
Wow, that must mean they’ve got fifty odd 30 year olds
