Connect with us

News

Are Politicians Too Old? California Democrats Want to Debate an Age Cap.

Published

on

Are Politicians Too Old? California Democrats Want to Debate an Age Cap.

As Democrats grapple with how to recover from their losses in November, an uncomfortable question has emerged in California, the state that has long set trends for the party.

Are their leaders simply too old?

Some party activists, pointing to several examples where they say leaders held onto power long past their prime, want to take the political keys away from state and local officeholders at a certain age.

The idea, initiated by San Francisco Democrats in a resolution, will be considered by the statewide party when it holds its convention later this month. Though it is largely a symbolic pursuit, the fact that the conversation is occurring at all is noteworthy in a place known for revering its elder leaders.

California is the state of Dianne Feinstein, who died in office at age 90 in 2023. It is also the home of Jerry Brown, who served two terms as governor in his 70s; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, who is 85; and Barbara Lee, the former congresswoman who was elected last month as Oakland mayor at the age of 78.

Advertisement

Not all of those leaders have caused worry, and some have had significant achievements late in life, bringing the gravitas and fortitude that can come with experience.

But many Democrats still have regrets over Senator Feinstein remaining in office long after major health issues became apparent and questions were raised about her ability to focus and make decisions.

They likewise recall their consternation over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision not to resign from the Supreme Court while President Barack Obama was in office. She died at age 87 late in President Trump’s first term, giving him the opportunity to replace her with a conservative justice.

But it was former President Joseph R. Biden who brought the issue to the fore last year, when he was campaigning at 81. Many Democrats believe he waited too long to bow out, robbing the party of time to mount an effective effort to beat Mr. Trump.

“We can’t just act like it didn’t happen and like we aren’t going to make changes as a result,” Eric Kingsbury, a San Francisco Democrat, said of Mr. Biden’s decline. “Everyone saw it with their own eyes, and a ton of people told them what they saw wasn’t the truth.”

Advertisement

Mr. Kingsbury, 36, is a member of the little-known yet locally powerful San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee. He said he wrote the resolution as a direct response to Mr. Biden staying in the race too long and some Democrats remaining unwilling to even discuss how to clear the way for younger candidates.

His resolution called for exploring a mandatory retirement age for all elected and appointed leaders at the state and local levels, but not federal positions such as Congress. Notably, it did not specify a particular age.

The proposal passed last month, but only after a heated conversation. Some opponents pointed out that Senator Bernie Sanders, an 83-year-old independent from Vermont, is one of the few leaders energizing the left now.

“It’s offensive,” said Connie Chan, 46, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and of the local party committee who voted no. “It’s ageism. It’s discrimination against people who have experience.”

The resolution will be among hundreds considered by the California Democratic Party at its convention this month, but it may not advance very far. Even if it does, it would take a state law, passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor, to impose an age limit.

Advertisement

If that ever did come to fruition, California would be the first state to force state and local politicians to retire at a certain age. Thirty-one states — but not California — force judges to retire. The most common cutoff is 70, though Vermont allows judges to serve until they are 90.

Age is not only a Democratic worry. Voters last year in North Dakota, a Republican-led state, approved a measure that prohibited candidates from running for Congress if they would turn 81 or older by the end of the year before their term concludes. But the measure did not affect state and local officeholders, and it was likely to face a legal challenge should an octogenarian candidate file suit.

In 2023, Republicans also raised concerns after Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader at the time at age 81, physically froze while taking questions at news conferences.

There are already federal policies that require mandatory retirement for occupations that require intense focus. Airline pilots must retire at 65, air traffic controllers generally must retire at 56 and military officers typically must step aside at 64.

Of course, the person atop the federal executive branch faces no retirement age. While so much focus was on Mr. Biden last year, many Democrats have been quick to point out that Mr. Trump will be 82 by the time his term ends.

Advertisement

“There should be concern about Donald Trump’s age,” said Scott Wiener, a Democratic state senator from San Francisco who believes the president is wreaking havoc on the economy and international relations. He recently abstained from the central committee vote on the age resolution.

Beyond California, David Hogg, the 25-year-old political activist who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla., and is now the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, has said Democrats must quash the “culture of seniority politics.” Through a separate organization, Leaders We Deserve, he has pledged to spend $20 million to back younger primary candidates against older, entrenched Democrats.

Representative Ro Khanna, 48, Democrat of California, has long urged a generational change in politics, and praised Senator Dick Durbin, 80, of Illinois for his “wisdom” in recently deciding to not seek another term.

Americans seem to support the idea of a mandatory retirement age for officeholders. A Pew Research Center survey from 2023, before Mr. Biden’s age-related difficulties became clear, found that 79 percent of Americans favor age limits for elected officials in Washington, and 74 percent favor them for Supreme Court justices.

Some residents in Northern California said that a mandatory retirement age might make sense, though they recognized the delicacy of the topic. Marcelle Maldonado, a 67-year-old retiree in Dixon, Calif., said she believed that politicians should retire by 65 or 70 to make room for people with “fresh eyes and fresh ears.” But she was not optimistic that such a mandate would pass because the politicians themselves would have to approve it.

Advertisement

In Oakland, Nicole Barratt, a 30-year-old employee at a plant shop, said that she found it odd that many professions required people to retire by age 65, but the country’s leaders have no such rule.

“They become very isolated after they’ve been in office a really long time,” she said.

Several politicians older than 70 did not return requests for comment. That included Ms. Lee, who will be sworn in later this month as Oakland mayor, and Antonio Villaraigosa, 72, a former Los Angeles mayor who is running for California governor in the 2026 race.

John Burton, the former congressman from San Francisco who stepped down as California Democratic Party chairman eight years ago, said he did not like the idea of term limits or age limits. He took umbrage at the notion that he is getting up in age.

“Jesus, don’t call me an elder statesman,” he grumbled in his trademark prickly style. “I’ve never heard that used to describe me.”

Advertisement

He is 92.

John Laird, a 75-year-old state senator from Santa Cruz, said the idea of an age limit was “arbitrary and silly” and that he felt sharper and more engaged than when he was elected to the Santa Cruz City Council at age 31.

He added that California’s term limits help solve the problem. He will be termed out when he is 78.

“My staff was having a field day telling me what to say when you called,” he said with a laugh. “‘Wait, I can’t hear you!’ and ‘Wait, my cardiologist is on the other line!’”

Any legislation instating an age cap would, if passed, head to the desk of 57-year-old Gov. Gavin Newsom — and he is not a big fan. He said that politicians need “the qualities of youth” such as imagination and sharpness, but that those attributes do not decline at the same age for each person.

Advertisement

“We all process life, physically and emotionally, a little differently,” he said.

Some Democrats observed that if California had tried to impose an age limit on members of Congress, Ms. Pelosi would not have been speaker the second time around, nor would she have wielded the influence she still has as a congresswoman. Among her acts last year was to push President Biden to leave the 2024 race.

Last month, the San Francisco central committee resolution passed with 15 aye votes, eight nays and eight abstentions.

One committee member might have felt stronger than the others.

Ms. Pelosi, through a representative, cast a vote against the age limit. She has not said yet whether she will run for another term next year.

Advertisement

Coral Murphy Marcos contributed reporting from Oakland, Calif.

News

Three more people charged with damaging Reflecting Pool after Trump’s multimillion-dollar restoration | CNN Politics

Published

on

Three more people charged with damaging Reflecting Pool after Trump’s multimillion-dollar restoration | CNN Politics

Three more people have been criminally charged with destruction of property at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Officers say they detained Cameron Thiers, Sophie Dennison-Gibby and Justin Carreno one Saturday afternoon in June and described in court documents witnessing them peeling and removing pieces of blue paint from the Reflecting Pool.

One officer “witnessed Carreno reach down into the reflecting pool and pull up a piece of the blue paint,” according to the court documents.

The officer who detained Dennison-Gibby “found 1 additional piece of the reflecting pool liner” in her purse, the documents said.

All three incidents were recorded on the officers’ body worn cameras, they said in the court documents.

Advertisement

Several “partnering law enforcement agencies assigned to the Reflecting Pool” working with US Park Police were involved in detaining the two men and one woman — including officers from Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and California.

One of the officers said in court documents that Thiers “admitted to removing a piece of blue sealant from the Reflecting Pool and still had it in his hand when I made contact with him.”

The three defendants were arraigned in court Wednesday and pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charges of destruction of property with a value less than $1,000. The judge ordered them to stay away from the Reflecting Pool.

Lawyers for Thiers and Dennison-Gibby declined to comment. CNN has reached out to Carreno’s attorney.

If found guilty of destruction of property, the defendants could be fined up to $1,000 and face a maximum of 180 days behind bars.

Advertisement

The New York Times first reported that three additional people had been charged with damaging the Reflecting Pool.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that vandals caused major damage to the pool by gashing the lining after his administration spent more than $14 million on renovations, though he has not provided evidence to support that claim. The officers who charged Carreno, Thiers and Dennison-Gibby did not accuse them of gashing the lining.

Former Olympic canoeist David Hearn was indicted by a grand jury in Washington, DC, last week for allegedly damaging the Reflecting Pool. Hearn — unlike Carreno, Thiers and Dennison-Gibby – was charged with destruction of property with a value of more than $1,000 which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, if convicted. He is set to be arraigned in court Thursday.

Crews began draining the Reflecting Pool over the weekend to make repairs, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, for the second time in three months.

The move comes after weeks of problems – algae blooms, green-hued water, a chipping bottom and the administration’s allegations of vandalism – that have plagued the iconic landmark, making its woes the subject of national interest.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Published

on

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

Mario Tama/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.

In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.

Advertisement

The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.

Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

Continue Reading

News

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

Published

on

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.

A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.

Advertisement

City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”

Advertisement

Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.

Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.

“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.

Advertisement

Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.

Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.

Advertisement

“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.

@fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Advertisement

Image from @fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Image from @Bogs4NY via X

Advertisement

The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.

Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.

“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.

Advertisement

Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”

He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.

Advertisement

Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.

On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending