Rahm Emanuel wants a retirement age for government. Should the private sector consider it?

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is calling for mandatory retirement age for the federal government, including elected officials. That's raised the question of whether or not it would be a good idea for the private sector.

Emanuel — a former congressman and White House chief of staff, and a possible 2028 presidential candidate — recently said he favors a mandatory retirement age of 75 for people serving in the federal government, including presidents, members of Congress, and judges.

"I would include in it, across all three branches of government, 75 years, you're out. Are you 75 years old? Done," Emanuel, 66, said in remarks last month. "And that would be in the legislative branch, it would be in the executive branch — including the cabinet. It would also apply to the Supreme Court and all federal courts. Up and out. And we can no longer look like a poor imitation of the Politburo."

Emanuel added that his call for a federal government age mandate would cover him if he ever ran and won as president, noting that the age ban would prevent him from serving a second term.

Would a mandatory retirement age work in the private sector?

While there’s no formal effort to ban government workers of any age, Emanuel’s comments sparked a major discussion on social media, with most opposing the idea. Now, employment experts are weighing in.

“The 75-year-old age limit is superficially appealing,” said Robert Bird, professor of business law at the University of Connecticut. “Such an age limit would allow younger government employees and politicians to serve in government. However, such a law would take away the right of voters to choose who they want to represent them.”

Bird noted that if voters don't like a politician because they’re too old, then the politician shouldn’t be re-elected in a free and fair election. “If voters want to keep a trusted politician in office who is over 75 years of age, they should have the right to do so,” he said. “Character, service, and how well a politician represents their constituents should be the criteria for remaining in office, no matter how old or young they may be.”

The private sector is a different story, as private-law employment laws squarely favor employees from a legal standpoint. Specifically, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals aged 40 or older from employment discrimination, including wrongful termination. 

There’s also little reason for a mandatory retirement requirement in the private sector, Bird said. “Companies in the United States, in most cases, have broad discretion as to when and under what conditions they hire and fire employees," he noted.

Even so, forcing an employee to retire simply because of their age forces productive employees out of the workforce. “Employees should be judged on how well they perform the requirements of their job, regardless of their age,” Bird added.

It might not be good for business

While Washington has its share of pragmatists, it’s nothing compared to the private sector, where outcomes aren’t measured in votes but in dollars.

“In the private sector, a hard age limit has little merit and significant risk,” said Isaiah Hankel, founder and CEO of Overqualified, a career consultancy helping experienced professionals compete in the job market. “Companies already have performance metrics, succession planning, and governance structures.”

If ever triggered, an age mandate would mostly serve as legal cover for cost-cutting and consolidation of power and, again, would make ageism even worse. “A similar AARP report found that 64% of employees have experienced ageism already,” Hankel noted. “This proposal would substantially increase this percentage.”

Even with legal, ethical, and business risks, Hankel said a soft version of this proposal is already happening. “Many organizations are thinning senior ranks under the language of 'restructuring,' replacing experienced leaders with cheaper labor, offshore teams, or AI-driven systems,” he said. “This is often framed as innovation, but it is frequently short-term financial engineering.”

The optics of bumping up against retirement-age mandates within companies are already toxic. “This proposal would make it worse,” Hankel said. “Companies want fewer older workers while governments urge people to work longer to stabilize entitlement systems. You cannot shrink opportunity and extend obligation at the same time without social consequences.”

A 'silent bias' does permeate the private sector

Work and career experts say that in public safety fields where safety is paramount and consumer risk is high, age bans make sense. But that’s as far as it goes.

“Beyond those limited cases, I do not believe a 75-year age ban would be appropriate for most sectors,” said Jhanell Biggs, founder at lifestyle retirement company Moro. “Yet, there is a silent bias against mature employees.”

Biggs said older workers are often viewed as too expensive, likely to drive up insurance costs, or resistant to technology. “This is ageism framed as 'culture fit' or 'digital transformation,'” she said. “Companies that push out experienced workers overlook what these employees bring, including emotional intelligence, stability, a strong work ethic, and a long-term business perspective, all of which are critical to success.”

Companies also need better transitions for their experienced leaders, which can include phased retirement, leadership handoffs, mentorship roles, and opportunities for employees who want to stay engaged without managing day-to-day operations. “Work can be a meaningful way for older adults to maintain their cognition, and when work ends, many people struggle to find constructive ways to stay active and purposeful," Biggs said.