Putting the “Cap” in Capitol: Making the Case for Congressional Term Limits

Putting the “Cap” in Capitol: Making the Case for Congressional Term Limits

By: Ivie Burns III

United States politicians are older than ever. The 119th Congress, which began this January, has an average age of 58.9 years.[1] This is the third oldest Congress in U.S. history, only behind the 115th and 117th Congresses, which began in 2017 and 2021, respectively.[2] The average Senator, at 63.8 years, is a few years older than the average House member, at 57.7 years.[3] Meanwhile, the citizens whom these Congress members represent retire at a median age of sixty-two.[4] This data, paired with President Joe Biden exiting the Oval Office at age eighty-two and President Donald Trump re-entering it at age seventy-eight, leads many Americans to joke that Washington, D.C. is effectively a retirement home.

There are certainly pros and cons to an older Congress. Age brings experience and wisdom. As quipped by President Biden in 2023, “You call me old? I call it being seasoned. You say I’m ancient? I say I’m wise.”[5] However, older age brings a decline in physical and cognitive ability, as recently exemplified by some of our most powerful members of Congress. At age eighty-one, Senator Mitch McConnell, while serving in his thirty-eighth year in the Senate, fell at a dinner, causing him to suffer a concussion and fracture a rib.[6] Following this incident, he has frozen multiple times while publicly speaking.[7] One year after this fall, he fell again and suffered a sprained wrist and cut to the face.[8] In the same week as McConnell’s second fall, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at age eighty-four, and while serving in her thirty-seventh year in the House, fell at an event in Luxembourg and required hip replacement surgery.[9] At age ninety, Senator Dianne Feinstein, while serving in her thirty-first year in the Senate, died in office after years of enduring severe health problems and brushing aside concerns from her colleagues and staffers about her fitness for office.[10] No eloquent argument is needed to explain that having influential leaders in this condition is not in the nation’s best interest.[11]

Congress’s old age reveals a deeper and more serious problem: Congress members frequently serve too long. Career politicians—elected officials who make a full career from their work in office—are dominating Congress, as indicated by the examples above. Besides these anecdotes, data shows that Congress members in the past few decades have served longer than ever. Over the nation’s nearly 250-year history, Congress members’ years of prior service have generally risen.[12] Average experience for representatives increased from 2.5 years in the nineteenth century to 9.4 years in the twenty-first century, and average experience for senators increased from 4.8 years in the nineteenth century to 11.2 years in the twenty-first century.[13] Also, the percentage of representatives who did not seek reelection has generally decreased, from approximately 40% in the nineteenth century to 13.6% today.[14] Multiple factors can explain these trends, notably the difficulty for a newcomer to defeat an incumbent backed by a political party.

Whatever causes this issue, career politicians are not helping those they are intended to serve—the people. With each new term in Washington, D.C., Congress members grow more disconnected from their constituents. They become less interested in what the people want and more interested in what the lobbyists or the parties want. Whatever additional experience long-standing Congress members can offer is outweighed by the damage of decades in Congress. This is not jaded cynicism of our political system; it is simply an observation of human nature. “Out of sight, out of mind” is a common expression with real implications. With more years spent in D.C. and away from constituents, a Congress member will naturally focus more on business in D.C. and fall out of touch with the needs and desires of his or her constituents.

Career politicians, especially in the House, are antithetical to the foundations of our federal government. While the Founders designed the Senate to bring “order and stability” with longer terms that build familiarity with governance, the Founders clearly intended the House to be elected by “the great body of the people of the United States.”[15] Unlike the executive and judicial branches,[16] the House is directly elected by the people, the source of its power.[17] “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the [legislature] should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”[18]

The Founders recognized that in the legislative system they created, Congress members would struggle to stay connected with the people they represent. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “[i]t is a misfortune incident to republican government . . . that those who administer it, may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust.”[19] Additionally, the Founders were not blind to the possibility of career politicians, predicting that “[a] few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing.”[20] They foresaw that these members, like McConnell and Pelosi today, “will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages.”[21] This potential for corruption is balanced with the understanding that new Congress members’ lack of experience will leave them “more apt . . . to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.”[22] Although there is no perfect system, the Founders warned of career politicians who serve themselves above the people.

Term limits would reacquaint career politicians with the American people. Due to a shorter stint in D.C., term limits would keep Congress members more attuned to their constituents’ wishes, make each day in office more crucial, and cut back on the chance of corruption. Term limits would result in higher turnover, leading Congress, particularly the House, to consist of more common and relatable people who have not been politicians for decades. This change will better reflect the people’s will in Congress.

Critics of term limits claim that they are undemocratic, meaning they can eliminate the people’s choice of an effective or beloved legislator who has already served the maximum number of terms. However, the people widely support the proposition of term limits. In fact, a 2023 study found that five in every six Americans supported term limits for Congress.[23] Thus, term limits would not thwart the will of the people but instead realize it.

On January 7, 2025, Senator Ted Cruz introduced a joint resolution that proposed a constitutional amendment limiting the terms for representatives and senators.[24] The proposed amendment would limit representatives to three terms, or six years, and senators to two terms, or twelve years, in office.[25] Similar proposals have popped up in Congress since the 1940s, none of which have been successful.[26] Given that constitutional amendments are extremely difficult to ratify,[27] and that term limits require Congress to limit the service of at least future members of their own body,[28] this amendment is unlikely to pass. However, seventy-seven percent of Americans currently disapprove of how Congress handles its job.[29] Perhaps in this instance, Congress members should listen to the people they are designed to serve and institute term limits, whether with Cruz’s amendment or a different proposal. As succinctly stated by Alexander Hamilton, “[t]he natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.”[30]

* J.D. Candidate, University of Tennessee College of Law, Class of 2025; B.A., University of Tennessee Knoxville, Class of 2023.

[1] Joe Murphy, Congress, Once Again, Is Getting Older, NBC News (Jan. 3, 2025, 5:00 AM), https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/congress-age-2025-third-oldest-us-history-rcna185742.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Aimee Picchi, Planning to Retire at 65? Most Americans Stop Working Years Earlier — and Not Because They Want To, CBS News (Dec. 2, 2024, 3:38 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-age-in-america-62-claiming-social-security-early/.

[5] President Joe Biden, Remarks at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (Apr. 29, 2023).

[6] McConnell Leaves Rehab Facility After Therapy for Concussion, Associated Press (Mar. 25, 2023, 5:31 PM), https://apnews.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-fall-concussion-therapy-f7af2c851b96e5fdccb7d2829e869f6a.

[7] Frank Thorp V, Sen. Mitch McConnell Appears to Freeze Again at a Kentucky Event, NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-mitch-mcconnell-appears-freeze-kentucky-event-rcna102583 (last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 4:48 PM)

[8] Frank Thorp V et al., Sen. Mitch McConnell Says He’s ‘Feeling Good’ After Falling and Spraining His Wrist, NBC News (Dec. 10, 2024, 2:27 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-mitch-mcconnell-fine-medical-personnel-spotted-office-colleague-sa-rcna183657.

[9] Mary Clare Jalonick & Lisa Mascaro, Pelosi Gets Hip Replacement Surgery at U.S. Military Hospital in Germany After Injury from Fall, PBS News (Dec. 14, 2024, 6:33 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pelosi-gets-hip-replacement-surgery-at-u-s-military-hospital-in-germany-after-injury-from-fall.

[10] Sarah Jacoby, Dianne Feinstein, Oldest Senator, Dies at 90: What to Know About Her Recent Health, Today (Sept. 29, 2023, 11:03 AM), https://www.today.com/health/news/dianne-feinstein-health-rcna118039; Annie Karni & Carl Hulse, Feinstein Suffered More Complications from Illness Than Were Publicly Disclosed, N.Y. Times (May 18, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/us/politics/feinstein-illness-shingles-senate.html.

[11] Admittedly, there are outliers to Congress members’ age and health issues on both ends of the spectrum. At age 90, Senator Chuck Grassley is in his 44th year in the Senate, and he is known for jogging and challenging younger colleagues to push-up contests. Alec Snyder, Grassley Released from Hospital, Politico (Jan. 18, 2024, 9:04 PM), https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/18/chuck-grassley-hospital-00136536; Alexandra Hutzler & Fritz Farrow, Too Old to Hold Office? A Political Flashpoint amid Americans’ Concerns: Analysis, ABC News (Sept. 5, 2023, 5:05 AM), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hold-office-political-flashpoint-amid-americans-concerns-analysis/story?id=102867265. At age 35, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already in her 7th year in Congress, and at age 25, Representative Maxwell Frost entered Congress in 2022. Darin Evangelista, The Youngest Members of Congress (Currently and Historically), Quorum (Nov. 10, 2022), https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/youngest-members-of-congress/. However, these exceptions do not alleviate the concerns posed by Congress members like McConnell, Pelosi, and Feinstein.

[12] Sarah J. Eckman & Amber Hope Wilhelm, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R41545, Congressional Careers: Service Tenure and Patterns of Member Service, 1789-2023 2–3 (2023).

[13] Id. at 2. The House’s average “peaked at 10.3 years—just over five terms—during the 102nd (1991-1992), 110th (2007-2008), and 111th Congresses (2009-2010).” Id. at 3. The Senate’s average “peaked at 13.4 years during the 111th Congress (2009-2010).” Id. at 4.

[14] Id. at 5.

[15] The Federalist No. 57, at 435 (Alexander Hamilton) (John Church Hamilton ed., 1868).

[16] The Senate was also not directly elected by the people until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in the 20th century. U.S. Const. amend. XVII.

[17] The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison).

[18] The Federalist No. 52, at 404–05 (Alexander Hamilton) (John Church Hamilton ed., 1868).

[19] The Federalist No. 62, at 469 (Alexander Hamilton) (John Church Hamilton ed., 1868).

[20] The Federalist No. 53, at 414 (Alexander Hamilton) (John Church Hamilton ed., 1868).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Five-in-Six Americans Favor Constitutional Amendment on Term Limits for Members of Congress, Program for Pub. Consultation, Sch. of Pub. Pol’y, Univ. of Md. (Mar. 21, 2023), https://publicconsultation.org/united-states/congressional-term-limits/.

[24] S.J. Res. 1, 119th Cong. § 1 (2025).

[25] Id. at § 1–2.

[26] See John David Rausch, Jr., When a Popular Idea Meets Congress: The History of the Term Limit Debate in Congress, 1 Pol., Bureaucracy, and Just. 34, 36–38 (2009) (highlighting Congress members who have led proposals for congressional term limits over the past several decades).

[27] Other than by calling a constitutional convention, constitutional amendments require two-thirds’ approval from both the House and the Senate and three-fourths’ approval from the state legislatures. U.S. Const. art. V.

[28] Cruz’s proposed amendment would not affect the terms of any Congress member that began before the ratification of the amendment. S.J. Res. 1 § 3.

[29] Congress and the Public, Gallup, https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx.

[30] The Federalist No. 21, at 180 (Alexander Hamilton) (John Church Hamilton ed., 1868).