Trump originally proposed limiting House members to six years and senators to 12 years during his 2016 presidential campaign, arguing that career politicians and decades of special interest influence had contributed to corruption in Washington.
The idea gained renewed momentum in January 2025 when Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Ralph Norman introduced a Constitutional Amendment proposing those same limits. If approved, House members could serve three (3) terms and Senators just two (2).
Let's make something really clear, this is something that an overwhelming majority of Americans support term limits for Congress. Americans are sick and tired of "Career Politicians." Americans overwhelmingly believe the partisanship is ultimately harmful for our nation. And yes, most Americans see most "Career Politicians" as crooked and serving their political party instead of the American people.
In fact, a Pew Research Center survey shows that 87% of Americans favor term limits for members of Congress, with strong, equal support from both Democrats and Republicans. That's a huge significant majority of Americans across the political spectrum. That's something that Washington should not ignore. The people support establishing term limits for members of Congress.
According to polling data from sources like the Pew Research Center and Gallup, public support for this policy consistently ranges between 80% and 90%.
The debate over congressional term limits involves several key perspectives on how they would impact the federal government:
The Constitutional requirement to make imposing term limits on Congress requires a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that individual states cannot place term limits on their federal lawmakers.
The debate over congressional term limits involves several key perspectives on how they would impact the federal government:
The Constitutional requirement to make imposing term limits on Congress requires a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that individual states cannot place term limits on their federal lawmakers.
As for support for Term Limits coming from lawmakers in Congress, while an entrenched power-hungry old Leftist like Bernie Sanders is against it, just as most Democrats are, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Republican Alabama Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) have introduced joint resolutions to limit Senators to two terms and Representatives to three terms, though these measures frequently stall in committee.
As for how it benefits Americans, reducing incumbent advantage means long-serving incumbents, those "Career Politicians" who have been in office for decades have a massive fundraising and name-recognition advantage over newcomers. In most cases, that makes elections unfair and uncompetitive.
Americans are well aware that people enter Congress to get rich!
Congressional tenure is all about increasing one's personal wealth. How else can they become Millionaires in a relatively short time while in Congress?
Members of Congress earn a set annual salary, which is currently fixed at $174,000 for rank-and-file members unless adjusted by law. They also participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), where pension benefits increase based on years of service, though federal law prohibits members from collecting full pensions immediately upon leaving office without meeting age and service requirements.
So how do they become so wealthy? Well, members of Congress hard not afraid to leverage the inside knowledge that comes with their positions. That's why lawmakers frequently trade stocks and options. Because of their positions, they are offered book deals and with royalties that average people would never see. In fact, unlike standard outside employment, book royalties are not subject to the strict statutory income caps imposed on members of Congress. High-profile members frequently secure very lucrative publishing contracts, with some earning hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from book sales. Imagine that, and they get others to write their books.
So how do they become so wealthy? Well, members of Congress hard not afraid to leverage the inside knowledge that comes with their positions. That's why lawmakers frequently trade stocks and options. Because of their positions, they are offered book deals and with royalties that average people would never see. In fact, unlike standard outside employment, book royalties are not subject to the strict statutory income caps imposed on members of Congress. High-profile members frequently secure very lucrative publishing contracts, with some earning hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from book sales. Imagine that, and they get others to write their books.
And no, let's not forget their speaking fees and media events. While outside earned income limits restrict certain types of professional pay, their public appearances are bring in a lot of money. They are highly compensated for their speaking engagements. Many of the members of Congress actually utilize their "Celebrity Status" to boost their personal income.
Since Federal election laws regarding how Leadership PAC funds can be spent are considered notoriously loose compared to standard campaign accounts, some lawmakers use these PACs to fund lavish lifestyles. In fact, that's partly how some of them afford five-star dinners, luxury resort stays, golf trips, and high-end travel. It's all under the guise of "political fundraising."
Many of us truly believe that Term Limits for Congress would curb corruption. Many of us believe that limiting terms would break up entrenched political networks and diminish the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists.
If we can get those "Career Politicians" out of Congress, the people who own those "Career Politicians," might not be so fortunate to buy the next guy. And please don't fool yourself into thinking there isn't a lot of temptation out there from wealthy Special Interest Groups who donate millions to election campaigns. From Billionaire Climate Change donors who are trying to destroy America, to the Drug Cartels and the Human Traffickers who some lawmakers in Congress have actually defended when they are killed, yes the very people they kept in business by having Open Borders, the people at Big Pharma who pay millions of dollars to Congressmen and women to push harmful medicines on Americans, there is a lot of money out there to corrupt corruptible politicians.
She has received corporate Political Action Committees (PACs) donations and contributions from individuals in the industry.
Early in her Senate career, her committee accepted thousands of dollars from three specific pharmaceutical PACs. Later, her campaign accepted thousands more from a family member of the family who owned Purdue Pharma. According to tracking by an organization who tracks political contributions, Warren's 2020 Presidential campaign received over $600,000 from individuals in the "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products" industry. When including the broader health sector that total exceeded $5 Million. Depending on the election cycles pooled together, records indicate she has received between $800,000 and $855,000 from individuals associated with the pharmaceutical industry.
Trump Administration's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace cite that Democrat Sen Elizabeth Warren received at least $5.2 million total from the Big Pharma. So to answer your question, from what I can figure out, yes, Massachusetts Democrat Sen Elizabeth Warren accepts Big Pharma money.
I remember watching Democrats vehemently arguing to stop President Trump from stopping the Drug Cartels from bringing killer drugs into the United States. As crazy as it sounds. It's a fact that Democrats argued that the strikes are being carried out without proper Congressional authorization or consultation under war powers. Democrats said President Trump did not have legal justifications to stop those drug boats from bring in illegal drugs.
Democrats Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine introduced joint resolutions to restrict President Trump from attacking those drug runners. Schiff and Kaine were suspiciously supported by Republicans Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski who also seem to have an interest in working for the Drug Cartels who were running illegal drugs into the United States on the boats that President Trump was sinking. Frankly, I remember how it really looked strange because it almost appeared as if there were members of Congress working for the Drug Cartels.
Congressional term limits restricts the number of terms a lawmaker can serve, and subsequently would reduce the power of entrenched "Career Politicians." So instead of owing their allegiance to whoever offers them more money for them to either push through or stall legislation, members of Congress would owe their allegiance to us the American people as it should be. Sadly, only a few look at it that way now.
By encouraging "Citizen Legislators," something that our Founders envisioned, Americans believe regular turnover prevents entrenched "Career Politicians" and brings fresh perspectives aligned with everyday American citizens. By encouraging the right attitude toward public service through Term Limits, Americans can return to the ideal of a "Citizen Legislature" where individuals serve for a limited time and then return to their communities.
As for reducing partisanship, many Americans, including myself, believe that bringing in new legislators would bring fresh perspectives, potentially reducing the deep partisan gridlock often associated with long-tenured politicians who see their office as a "cash-cow" instead of a place to do "public service."
President Trump ended up placing a "Terrorist Designation" on the Drug Cartels to defend his his operations against Democrats who really and truly were looking like they were working for the Drug Cartels. It was a very strange bizarre situation.
On one hand Americans watched as President Trump had Drug Cartel drug boat blown up. On the other were Democrat leaders in Congress angry about it, and demanding that President Trump stop it. It was as if Democrats were angry that something real was being done about Drug Cartels drug runner boat. But they were even angrier that they couldn't help the Drug Cartels by getting President Trump to stop.
When it was going on, I had reader writing to ask me if I thought Democrats were being exposed for being on the payrolls of the Mexican Drug Cartels. It's true. Some of my readers questioned if Democrats Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine, and Republicans Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, were getting paid by the Drug Cartels to keep illegal drugs coming into the United States -- while President Trump was trying to stop it.
Democrats tried to say that their opposition to President Trump's attacks on Mexican Drug Cartels and their bringing drugs into the United States was over their concerns regarding "legality, war powers, transparency, and oversight."
The problem that Democrats have with saying that is that they were not concerned at all with "transparency or oversight" when the Biden Administration's Open Border policy allowed Mexican Drug Cartels to get a foothold in many American cities while bringing in historically high amounts of illegal killer drugs. Democrats only seem to care when President Trump decided to stop the Cartels. And yes, that's why Americans were saying that it looked like Democrats worked for the Cartels, were getting paid by the Cartels, were getting paid by the Cartels to stop President Trump. The Democrat's "TDS" hatred for President Trump made them look like they were supporting the Drug Cartels.
Of course, no matter how bad it looked for Democrats attacking President Trump for trying to stop those Drug Cartel drug boats, or how bad it looked for Democrats Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine and Republicans Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, no one really knows if members of Congress have received illegal political "contributions" from Drug Cartels.
As for illegal political "contributions" being made by nefarious elements or individuals, there are organizations that actually try to track those sorts of political contributions. Most of those organization argue that large donations from corporations like Planned Parenthood, and industry groups such as pharmaceutical companies, and wealthy individuals like George Soros, lead to a system where members of Congress prioritize the interests of major donors over those of their own constituents. Their reliance on wealthy donors creates a wall for candidates without access to significant financial networks to serve the public. That's one way how the corrupt stay in office.
Congressional term limits restricts the number of terms a lawmaker can serve, and subsequently would reduce the power of entrenched "Career Politicians." So instead of owing their allegiance to whoever offers them more money for them to either push through or stall legislation, members of Congress would owe their allegiance to us the American people as it should be. Sadly, only a few look at it that way now.
By encouraging "Citizen Legislators," something that our Founders envisioned, Americans believe regular turnover prevents entrenched "Career Politicians" and brings fresh perspectives aligned with everyday American citizens. By encouraging the right attitude toward public service through Term Limits, Americans can return to the ideal of a "Citizen Legislature" where individuals serve for a limited time and then return to their communities.
As for reducing partisanship, many Americans, including myself, believe that bringing in new legislators would bring fresh perspectives, potentially reducing the deep partisan gridlock often associated with long-tenured politicians who see their office as a "cash-cow" instead of a place to do "public service."
Opponents to Term Limits for Congress are many of the lawmakers themselves because Term Limits would severely limit their chance, or outright kill, their ability to become wealthy in Congress. The "Career Politicians" that we have in office today fight against Term Limits for themselves by trying to scare the American people into believing that a "forced turnover strips Congress of experienced lawmakers would shift real power to unelected staff members and permanent lobbyists who understand the legislative process."
Democrats go on to say that "Seasoned Legislators" build cross-aisle relationships and have "expertise" that helps them negotiate and pass complex bipartisan legislation, and that constant turnover reduces these personal ties. That should aggravate you to no end.
Politicians say such things thinking the American people is stupid and can't see the collusion, the corruption, and how unelected government bureaucrats in the Federal government are already in control of things behind the scenes. That's not a "conspiracy theory," that information in the news on a daily basis.
Most Americans completely understand the benefit of how mandatory rotation would serve us well by weakening the relationships between long-tenured politicians, and by eliminating such conspiracies between cohorts. And example of that is what we all saw take place when a Democrat-controlled Congress waged its coup to impeach President Trump on charges that we later found out were criminally fabricated.
Mandatory rotation after a few years would lessen the special interest control on Congress and hopefully stop some of the corruption and lack of respect for the American people. And frankly, that's why "Career Politicians" who are completely unwilling to do anything good for America are against term limits.
In August 2026, President Trump said he was comfortable with Congressional term limits but also warned that forcing experienced lawmakers out could leave Washington with inexperienced replacements.
While I have a huge amount of respect for President Trump, and I fully support him, if what we see coming out of Congress is an example of how good things are with the "experienced" team in there, I say America won't be that bad off if they are replaced with novices. In fact, if it was in my power, I'd fire a bunch of them -- starting with those who are completely unaware of the fact that they really and truly are supposed to be working for Americans. Not globalists or the people of other countries, but for Americans.
Do I think it can happen? Do I think Term Limits for Congress is possible? No. No, I don't.
The proposal for Term Limits for Congress would require approval from two thirds of Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states before becoming law. That means many of the Congressmen and women would want to consciously relinquish the power that they have. And really, would they want to consciously want to give up their ability to accumulate wealth? And frankly, they would never let that happen.
For example, Bernie Sanders was mayor of a Vermont town before entering Congress. He's served in Congress for 35 years both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Can I see that old Leftist Bernie Sanders relinquishing his power and standing in the Democratic Party, or give up the wealth that he has accumulated for himself since entering Congress, just to make way for a new member who might be from Vermont, possibly not a Leftist, and maybe even believe in prioritizing the needs of Americans first before helping the rest of the world? I don't.
Bringing fresh voices into government is not easy because of the power and wealth of "Career Politicians" like Sanders. So no, I don't see such a thing ever happening -- especially if we left it up to Democrat members of Congress to limit their terms for the good of the nation. From what I can see, Democrats in Congress don't care about the good of the nation. In fact, I don't think Democrats like Americans. If they did, they wouldn't treat Americans with the disdain that they show us.
Democrat leadership and their party's policies and legislative priorities are disconnected from the everyday needs of ordinary Americans. That's why the Democratic Party as a whole is more focused on consolidating party power, advancing federal oversight, and catering to specific interest groups rather than serving the public good.
As for answering the question, why are Democrats so against mandatory Term Limits for Congress? They are against it because it would stop them from having power and wealth. And of course, they are against it because President Trump and a huge majority of the American people are for it. That's how Democrats roll.
That's just how I see it.
Tom Correa
