Why Politicians Must Be Barred From Life-Extension Treatments

There Should Be No Fountain of Youth for the Powerful

If would be nice if the only people who used guns were hunters, or if the only people who took fentanyl were hospital patients. Similarly, it would be comforting to know that the only people allowed to receive de-aging treatments in the near future were the commoners, not the power-hungry politicians.

It’s too late to stop guns and fentanyl from being abused; it’s not too late to do something about potential abuses of longevity treatments. To be clear: anti-aging treatments would be among the greatest scientific achievements. Although there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical, overzealous enthusiasm for this field is entirely warranted, given ongoing biotech breakthroughs and massive investments from Sam Altman, Google, and any number of billionaire philanthropists. Still, every technological advancement comes with downsides. Ideally, the downsides should be noted early so that preventative measures can be put into place.

In fact, as a popular trope in science fiction, it’s no secret that authoritarian leaders will be eager to abuse life-extension technology. A short list of popular films and TV shows showcasing this concern includes Dune, Blade Runner, Elysium, The Hunger Games, Altered Carbon, Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, and Star Trek. It’s safe to say that anyone who has turned on a TV or gone to a movie theater in the past three decades has very likely encountered the authoritarian leader who secured everlasting power through life-extension.

This sci-fi scenario has already made the jump into the real world. On September 3, 2025, Xi Jingping was caught on a hot mic discussing longevity and organ harvesting with Vladimir Putin. As Xi said to his fellow dictator, it used to be rare for a person to reach the age of 79, but “now they say that at 70 you are only a child.”

It’s likely Xi and Putin aren’t the only world leaders eager for an extended life. Donald Trump is almost certainly thinking about life-extension, given his self-image as a demigod and his newfound association with Silicon Valley elites.

If it’s true that life-extension treatments are coming, and if it’s true that the world is currently led by a cohort of would-be forever dictators, then this is the exact time to institute preventative measures.

Many countries already place a number of rules and restrictions on politicians: There are stock trading limits, requirements on disclosure of assets, restrictions on “revolving door” job placements, and an expectation that they will resign for misbehavior. These restrictions are in place to prevent petty corruption. Why not institute a similar restriction that would forestall the ultimate corruption—seizure of power for all time?

Here’s an obvious proposal: While in office, top-level politicians should be barred from receiving life-extension treatments. They can receive healthcare, as they do now, but not the types of treatments that stop or reverse the aging process.

There are downsides to this proposal. This would restrict the medical choices for a specific group of people, which is morally fraught and could be difficult to enforce legally. And practically, it’s a challenge to define “longevity treatment,” so loopholes would be inevitable. Also, this approach could lead to politicians stifling research and development in the anti-aging field.

But these downsides are outweighed by the potential benefits. Broadly, putting a moratorium on politicians receiving longevity treatments would reaffirm our foundational value that we do not want to be ruled by a dictator (let alone a forever dictator). It would safeguard our society from stagnating with ageless leaders. And importantly, it could prevent the development of a biological caste system where political elites outlive common citizens.

On February 12, 2025, the Senate Committee on Aging held a hearing to discuss longevity research. The hearing, which included interviews with leading health and longevity experts, focused on the right concerns: the chronic diseases plaguing our society, the healthcare costs associated with an aging population, and the steps that can be taken to turn research into treatment plans.

The fact that the Senate is taking these issues seriously is exciting. But the hearing highlighted the fact that politicians are personally interested in never getting sick, never growing old.

In his opening statement, the Senate Committee Chairman, Rick Scott, said:

Every member of this Committee is a parent, and most of us, well, some of us are grandparents. I’m a grandparent. Living a long and healthy life is something that is very important to me, and I’m sure to all of our members on this Committee, but having more time with our loved ones is only half the issue.

My hope is your focus on today is extending not just our lifespans—the number of years we live—but also our health spans: the number of years we live free of disease or disability. I’m trying to make sure I have no [diseases or disabilities].

There is nothing sinister in this statement. Quite the opposite: it’s heartfelt and entirely relatable. Politicians are human beings with families. Just like the rest of us—the people they are elected to serve—they do not want to get old or to fall ill.

But we have to acknowledge that our democracy would be threatened at a fundamental level if Rick Scott—let alone Donald Trump—were to taste the Fountain of Youth while in office. Politicians, even the best of them, do not give up on power easily. Joe Biden signaled to the public that he would only serve one term, though he couldn’t bring himself to turn this into a promise, and ultimately led his party down a ruinous path when he determined to run for a second term. Ruth Bader Ginsburg forever tarnished her legacy when she clung to her post on the Supreme Court even after her fifth cancer diagnosis. Dianne Feinstein stubbornly held onto her office in the Senate even as she struggled with serious memory loss.

Ultimately, what compelled these (and many, many other) politicians to leave office and make way for fresh faces in politics? Death or near incapacity. Even George Washington himself, the archetype for conceding power, acknowledged in his 1796 Farewell Address that, “[E]very day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome.” Washington was 64 at the time. Would the American experiment have been set on an entirely different course if he had been (or looked and felt like) 34? It’s entirely possible.