Congress today reflects one of the oldest governing bodies in American history. Nearly 120 lawmakers serving in the current session are over the age of 70. For some, advanced age provides valuable experience and a long view of policy. For others, it raises concerns about whether they still possess the mental sharpness necessary to handle the demands of public office. These concerns are not theoretical. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s decline before her passing drew widespread attention, as did reports that Representative Kay Granger spent her final months in a retirement home while technically still holding her seat. At the presidential level, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have faced scrutiny for moments of confusion in public settings.
These examples point to a larger reality: the responsibilities of lawmakers require quick thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to process complex information. When individuals show signs of decline, the concern extends beyond personal health and becomes an issue of governance. In situations where national security, public health, or economic stability are at stake, voters expect clarity of mind from those making decisions. Aging itself is not a disqualifier, but the absence of systems to monitor capability creates a gap in accountability.
Without safeguards, the burden often shifts to staffers who manage day-to-day operations for lawmakers struggling with their workload. While aides play a crucial role in supporting elected officials, their influence becomes problematic when it overshadows the decision-making of the representatives voters elected. This shift raises questions about transparency: if staff are doing the heavy lifting, are citizens truly being represented by the people they chose? The lack of clear answers fuels distrust and reinforces the sense that government is out of touch with those it serves.
The Push for Cognitive Testing
Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington has taken a direct approach to this problem. She proposed a measure requiring cognitive assessments for members of Congress, describing the idea as similar to renewing a driver’s license. Just as drivers must demonstrate clear vision to safely operate a vehicle, lawmakers would need to show adequate cognitive health to perform their duties. The goal of her proposal was not to punish or embarrass older members, but to introduce a baseline safeguard to maintain confidence in leadership.
The specifics of the amendment were straightforward. The Office of Congressional Conduct would be responsible for determining whether lawmakers were capable of performing their responsibilities. The tests would not automatically remove individuals from office but would provide an official assessment of their abilities. For voters, this would introduce transparency and reassurance that their representatives remained mentally fit. For lawmakers, it could serve as a measure of accountability in a system that currently lacks any formal checks on cognitive health.
Despite the modest scope, Perez’s amendment was rejected by the House Appropriations Committee. The swift dismissal highlighted a fundamental conflict: the people who would be subject to the tests are the same ones who must approve them. This creates resistance to change, as acknowledging the potential need for cognitive testing feels like admitting weakness. By turning away the proposal without serious debate, Congress missed an opportunity to address the growing public concern that its members may not always be capable of carrying out their responsibilities.
Why Testing Faces Pushback
The opposition to cognitive testing is based on both cultural and practical concerns. Culturally, American politics often treats longevity as an asset. Many see decades of service as proof of loyalty and commitment. Proposals for testing are criticized as ageist, suggesting they unfairly target older officials without considering their individual abilities. This perspective overlooks the fact that cognitive decline is not guaranteed, but it also ignores the risk that comes with leaving the issue unchecked. The absence of a process means the system has no way of distinguishing between those who remain sharp and those who no longer are.
Practical concerns add another layer of complexity. Critics ask who would design the test, how often it would be administered, and how results would be used. There is also fear that such testing could become politicized, used as a tool to discredit opponents rather than as a neutral measure of capacity. These questions make reform difficult, but they do not erase the need for solutions. The fact that a proposal can be misused is not an argument against accountability itself—it is an argument for designing safeguards carefully and transparently.
Meanwhile, public opinion is steadily moving in a different direction. Surveys show that a large majority of Americans support maximum age limits or some form of health requirement for elected officials. A 2023 Pew Research poll found nearly four in five respondents in favor of imposing maximum age limits for members of Congress. This broad support suggests that voters are ahead of lawmakers in recognizing the need for reform. By refusing to engage with the issue, Congress risks widening the trust gap between itself and the people it represents.
Beyond Testing: Considering Alternatives
Cognitive testing is one way to approach the problem, but it is not the only option being discussed. Term limits are often raised as a way to ensure turnover and prevent officials from remaining in power indefinitely. Supporters argue that limits would allow fresh perspectives and reduce the risk of entrenched leadership. Critics, however, caution that term limits can remove effective lawmakers before their experience has been fully utilized, weakening institutional knowledge in Congress.
Mandatory retirement ages represent another approach. These rules exist in other professions, such as aviation, where pilots must retire at 65 regardless of their individual health or performance. Applied to politics, mandatory retirement could establish a clear line that prevents the most extreme cases of decline. Yet this approach, too, has drawbacks. It would push out capable leaders who may still be performing at a high level, creating the risk of losing valuable experience alongside those who are struggling.
The reality is that no solution is without trade-offs. Cognitive testing, term limits, and retirement ages all present challenges in fairness and implementation. What unites these ideas is a recognition that the current system does not address the problem. In the absence of reform, the country risks relying on informal workarounds and staff-driven governance, neither of which provides voters with the transparency they deserve. The debate is not about perfection but about ensuring some form of accountability exists.
The Path Forward
The debate over cognitive fitness is ultimately about trust. Citizens elect lawmakers with the expectation that they are capable of fulfilling their duties. When those expectations are not met, confidence in the system declines. Whether through testing, term limits, or other measures, the core issue is how to provide voters with reassurance that their representatives remain able to perform the job.
At present, Congress has shown little willingness to address the problem. By rejecting even modest proposals like Perez’s amendment, lawmakers risk reinforcing the perception that they are more interested in protecting themselves than in strengthening democracy. That perception is dangerous in an era when public confidence in institutions is already low. Restoring trust requires not only words but action, and that means confronting uncomfortable realities rather than ignoring them.
Moving forward, the conversation does not need to pit respect for experience against accountability. Both can coexist. A system that acknowledges the contributions of older lawmakers while also ensuring they remain fit for service can preserve institutional knowledge and maintain public confidence at the same time. Ultimately, voters are not demanding perfection. They are demanding transparency, accountability, and clarity that those representing them are able to serve fully. Without those assurances, the foundation of democratic governance grows weaker.
