Donald Trump just turned 79 on June 14th, and something clicked for me. As a 42-year-old American, I will live with the consequences of today’s presidential decisions for the next 40+ years, while our current president may not even see the next decade. This stark reality crystallized a truth I’ve been wrestling with: it’s time for America to establish a maximum age limit for the presidency, and that limit should be 67—our nation’s official retirement age.
The timing isn’t coincidental. Trump’s 79th birthday milestone represents something unprecedented in American democracy: we now have leaders making 20-30 year policy decisions while potentially having less than a decade of life remaining. Meanwhile, the generation that will bear the long-term consequences—my generation and younger—watches from the sidelines as our future gets decided by people who won’t be around to face the results.
The numbers tell a sobering story
Let me start with the data, because the trends are unmistakable. The last five presidents include the two oldest in American history. When the Constitution was written in 1787, life expectancy was around 35 years—the same age they set as the minimum for president. The Founders never envisioned leaders serving into their late 70s and beyond because people simply didn’t live that long.
Here’s what the age trajectory looks like:
| Era | Average Presidential Age at Inauguration |
|---|---|
| 1789-1850 | 56.5 years |
| 1851-1900 | 53.2 years |
| 1901-1950 | 55.1 years |
| 1951-2000 | 55.8 years |
| 2001-2025 | 63.4 years |
That recent spike is dramatic. We’ve gone from relatively stable presidential ages around 55 for over two centuries to a sudden jump of nearly 8 years in just the past quarter-century. Biden was inaugurated at 78, Trump at 70 in his first term and now 78 in his second. Compare this to the broader population: only 1% of S&P 1500 CEOs are 78 or older, yet we’re routinely electing presidents at these ages.
The disconnect becomes even starker when you consider what Americans actually want. According to Pew Research, 79% of Americans favor maximum age limits for elected officials, and 61% specifically support age limits for presidential candidates. When asked about the ideal presidential age, 49% prefer leaders in their 50s, 24% prefer their 60s, and only 3% think someone in their 70s or older represents the optimal choice.
Why 67 makes perfect sense
The age of 67 isn’t arbitrary—it’s America’s official full retirement age, established after careful consideration of longevity, productivity, and societal needs. If we’ve determined as a society that 67 is when most Americans should step back from full-time work to enjoy retirement, why would we want our most demanding job filled by someone past that age?
This retirement age was set by the 1983 Social Security amendments specifically because of increasing life expectancy and the need for people to remain productive longer. The National Commission on Social Security Reform, led by Alan Greenspan, studied the data extensively and concluded that 67 represented the optimal balance point for a sustainable system. Their reasoning included cognitive and physical capacity considerations alongside economic factors.
Consider the physical and mental demands of the presidency: 24/7 availability for crisis decisions, complex international negotiations, grueling travel schedules, and the need to process vast amounts of information quickly under extreme pressure. We already recognize these capacity concerns in other high-stakes professions. Commercial airline pilots must retire at 65. Military flag officers retire at 64 (extendable only to 68). Foreign Service officers retire at 65. These aren’t arbitrary ages—they reflect research-based understanding of when human capabilities typically begin declining in ways that matter for critical decision-making.
The cognitive science is clear
This brings me to an uncomfortable but necessary discussion about aging and cognitive capacity. Medical research shows that executive function—the exact skill set most critical for presidential decision-making—begins declining significantly at age 60. This affects the prefrontal cortex, impacting working memory, planning, cognitive flexibility, and decision-making under uncertainty.
A particularly relevant study from UC Irvine examined political decision-making in adults over 90. While political ideology remained stable despite cognitive decline, the researchers found a “loss of coherence” between general beliefs and specific policy positions. The implications for presidential leadership are profound: an individual might appear cognitively normal in routine interactions while struggling with the complex policy integration and strategic thinking that effective governance requires.
I’m not suggesting every person over 67 is cognitively impaired—individual variation is significant, and many older adults remain sharp. But we’re talking about the most demanding leadership position in the world, affecting 330 million Americans and global stability. The question isn’t whether some 75-year-olds can handle the job, but whether we should systematically risk the consequences when alternatives exist.
The generational policy divide
Perhaps most compelling is the stark difference in policy priorities between generations. As someone in my early 40s, I see this divide clearly in my daily life and career. Young leaders consistently prioritize long-term challenges like climate change, technological innovation, and social progress, while older leaders often focus on maintaining existing systems.
The data backs this up. On climate change—arguably the defining issue of my generation—77% of millennials favor diplomacy over military strength, compared to just 43% of the Silent Generation. Young people are most pro-government in modern history, with 73% saying reform plans would increase their confidence in government institutions. Meanwhile, older generations remain more skeptical of government intervention and more focused on traditional security concerns.
This isn’t just about preferences—it’s about who will live with the consequences. When I look at climate policy, infrastructure investments, technology regulation, and debt levels, I see decisions that will fundamentally shape the world my children inherit. Yet these choices are being made predominantly by people who will be gone before the full impact unfolds.
Consider some successful young leaders who’ve tackled these generational priorities effectively:
- Emmanuel Macron became president at 39 and championed the Paris Agreement while modernizing France’s economy
- Justin Trudeau implemented carbon pricing at 43 and created a national childcare program
- Volodymyr Zelenskyy demonstrated exceptional crisis leadership at 41, masterfully using digital communication to rally international support
These leaders succeeded precisely because they brought fresh perspectives to long-standing challenges, weren’t beholden to existing power structures, and had personal stakes in long-term outcomes.
Addressing the counterarguments
I understand the pushback to age limits. Critics rightfully point out that age alone doesn’t determine capability, and that voters should decide fitness through elections rather than arbitrary rules. Experience and institutional knowledge matter, and some older leaders have been highly effective.
But this argument misses the broader point. We’re not talking about discrimination against individuals—we’re talking about systemic optimization of democratic representation. The military doesn’t retire flag officers at 64 because every single one becomes incompetent at that age, but because the institution recognizes that peak performance typically declines and succession planning strengthens the overall system.
The “let voters decide” argument also ignores practical realities. Voters often lack access to detailed health information, and cognitive decline can be subtle. More fundamentally, our current system gives voters a choice between two aging candidates rather than encouraging a broader range of ages in the candidate pool. Age limits would force parties to develop younger talent earlier, ultimately expanding rather than limiting voter choice.
Some worry that age limits promote ageism, but I’d argue the opposite. By establishing clear, universal rules that apply equally to everyone, we remove the uncomfortable individual judgments about specific candidates’ fitness. We already do this with minimum age requirements—the Constitution requires presidents to be at least 35, recognizing that some level of life experience is necessary for effective leadership.
International precedent supports limits
While few countries have maximum age limits for heads of government, this often reflects parliamentary systems where leaders can be removed through confidence votes. However, age limits are common in other high-stakes positions requiring peak cognitive performance. Thirty-two U.S. states have mandatory judicial retirement ages, typically between 70-75 years. Research shows these limits increased court productivity by 25% or more in states that implemented them.
Internationally, judicial retirement ages are widespread:
- India: Supreme Court justices retire at 65
- Japan: Supreme Court justices retire at 70
- New Zealand: All judges retire at 70
- Belgium: Constitutional court judges retire at 70
If we trust age limits for judicial decisions affecting individual cases, why wouldn’t we apply similar standards to executive decisions affecting entire nations?
The path forward
Implementing presidential age limits would require a constitutional amendment—admittedly a high bar requiring two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of states. But the public support exists: 79% of Americans favor age limits for elected officials, with relatively modest partisan differences.
Representative John James has already introduced H.J.Res. 87, which would prohibit the election of anyone who would be 75 or older during their presidential term. While I’d prefer 67 as the cutoff to align with retirement age, this represents meaningful progress toward addressing the issue.
The amendment process is deliberately difficult, but we’ve done it before when circumstances demanded change. The 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms passed in 1951 after FDR’s four-term presidency raised concerns about democratic norms. Today’s unprecedented age levels similarly threaten democratic representation and effective governance.
A personal stake in the future
As I write this at 42, I’m struck by a simple mathematical reality: I’m likely to live 35-40 more years, meaning I’ll experience the long-term consequences of today’s policy decisions for decades to come. Climate policies enacted now will determine whether my children inherit a livable planet. Infrastructure investments—or the lack thereof—will shape their economic opportunities. Technology regulations will influence their privacy and freedom. Debt levels will affect their tax burden and government capacity.
Yet these decisions are increasingly made by leaders who may not live to see their full implementation. This isn’t sustainable for a democracy that depends on accountability and long-term thinking.
I don’t want to live in a gerontocracy where power accumulates among those with the least stake in future outcomes. I want leaders who will personally experience the consequences of their choices, who understand emerging technologies and social changes, and who represent the demographic diversity of modern America.
The solution isn’t complex: establish a maximum presidential age of 67, our nation’s retirement age, giving leaders a full career in public service while ensuring they remain personally invested in long-term outcomes. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to have leaders who will live with the consequences of today’s decisions.
It’s time for America to embrace the next generation of leadership. Our future depends on it.
Final Thought
Trump’s 79th birthday this month crystallized something I’ve felt growing stronger over the past few years: our democracy works best when leaders have skin in the game for the future they’re shaping. At 42, I represent a generation that will live with climate change, artificial intelligence, infrastructure choices, and fiscal policies for decades to come. We deserve a voice in selecting leaders who share that timeline.
Establishing a presidential age limit of 67—aligned with our national retirement age—isn’t about discrimination or ageism. It’s about optimizing democratic representation, ensuring cognitive capacity for the world’s most demanding job, and guaranteeing that those making 20-30 year policy decisions will personally live with the results.
The public supports it, the science justifies it, and the future demands it. Now we need the political will to make it happen. Our democracy will be stronger for it.
Sources:
