Commentary: Elon Musk and Americans are wrong about term limits

Shocking news recently broke that former Texas GOP Rep. Kay Granger, a 14-term veteran of Congress, was living in a senior facility while still a sworn member of the U.S. House.

The revelation reignited the decades-old debate over congressional term limits, this time supercharged by tech billionaire Elon Musk. Taking to X, the social platform he owns, Musk amplified calls for one of the most popular political reforms in America — a proposal supported by more than 80% of voters — as the solution to an aging, ineffective and out-of-touch legislature.

But beneath its widespread appeal lies a dangerous mirage: Term limits wouldn’t fix Congress. They would break it even further.

Let’s be clear. Congress has an age problem. Granger’s story joins a growing list of unsettling examples of aging lawmakers struggling to fulfill their duties.

Former California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s frailty and memory lapses were on full display in her final months, forcing aides and colleagues to whisper instructions to her during votes.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has frozen midsentence twice in front of cameras, spurring health concerns that remain unanswered. And former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, at 84, broke her hip after a fall just weeks before announcing her intention to run for another term.

These incidents are understandably frustrating and embarrassing for an institution already deeply unpopular with the public. But the prescription so often proposed — term limits — would make the very problems they are meant to fix far worse.

Advocates of term limits claim they would eliminate career politicians, reduce the influence of lobbyists and make Congress less polarized. But decades of experience from states with term limits tell a different story. Rather than rejuvenating legislatures, term limits exacerbate dysfunction, turning over power to unelected lobbyists, bureaucrats, governors and party leaders while leaving Congress even less capable of solving the nation’s most pressing problems.

If you think Congress is dysfunctional now, populate the place with folks who have no incentive to invest in their work because they know they will soon need another paycheck.

One of the most common arguments for term limits is that they would create a “citizen legislature,” bringing in fresh perspectives and diverse backgrounds. But this, in itself, is a myth.

Politics, like any profession, has a steep learning curve. The labyrinth of congressional rules, procedures and policy details requires years — if not decades — to master. Term limits would ensure that lawmakers are constantly in the early, least effective stages of their tenure, leaving real decision-making to the unelected insiders who stay put: lobbyists, long-serving bureaucrats and congressional staffers.

Consider California, a state that has operated under term limits for decades. Studies consistently show that term-limited legislators are more dependent on outside actors for policy expertise, less effective at oversight and more likely to vote in lockstep with their party.

What’s worse, term limits would disproportionately exclude Americans who lack significant financial resources. Congress is already disproportionately wealthy — members are more than 12 times wealthier than the average American. Limiting terms would mean that only those who can afford to take a career detour for a temporary stint in office — without worrying about lost income or job security — would be able to serve. Meanwhile, diverse, younger or working-class candidates, who already face immense financial barriers to running for office, would be shut out even further.

Another claim is that term limits would reduce polarization by freeing lawmakers to act independently of their parties. The opposite is true. With term limits in place, the constant churn of new lawmakers means more reliance on parties and ideological interest groups for campaign funding and electoral support. Research shows that term-limited legislators are more partisan, not less. They vote with their party more often and engage in less bipartisan collaboration than their non-term-limited peers.

Perhaps the most ironic failure of term limits is their effect on career politicians. Rather than forcing lawmakers to “return to the farm,” term limits simply push them into other political roles. Many term-limited legislators run for different offices, accept gubernatorial appointments or — most troublingly — become lobbyists. Nearly 500 former members of Congress are currently working as lobbyists or consultants, using their connections and expertise to influence the very institution they left behind. Term limits would only accelerate this revolving door.

If age is the problem, the solution isn’t term limits — it’s age limits. Mandatory retirement ages for lawmakers would directly address concerns about cognitive decline and physical frailty while preserving the institutional memory and expertise that Congress desperately needs. Unlike term limits, which arbitrarily force out effective lawmakers alongside ineffective ones, age limits would target the root of the problem without weakening the legislature as a whole.

Congress does have serious problems. It is polarized, gridlocked and disconnected from the public it serves. But term limits are not the solution. They are a distraction, a blunt instrument that would cripple Congress rather than cure it. If we want a more functional and responsive legislature, we should focus on reforms that make it easier for talented, diverse and, yes, much, much younger candidates to run for office. And once we get past the myth of term limits, then we can tackle other huge problems like the outsize influence of money in politics and the staggering lack of competitiveness of congressional elections.

As frustrating as Congress can be, its flaws cannot be fixed by gutting the institution of its most experienced members. Real reform requires us to invest in a better Congress, not sabotage it in the name of misguided simplicity.

Term limits may be popular, but they are the wrong answer to the right question.

____

Casey Burgat, Ph.D., is a former congressional staffer-turned-professor of legislative affairs at George Washington University. He is the author of the forthcoming book “ We Hold These ‘Truths’: How to Spot the Myths that Are Holding America Back,” which examines common misconceptions about American democracy and their impact on contemporary political discourse.

___