When Jerry Nadler announced his retirement this week, he opted to directly address a question that’s been roiling the Democratic Party since Joe Biden’s withering debate performance last year: How old is too old to run for office?

The 78-year-old congressmember cited his age as a factor in his departure plans from a safe seat in New York City. And in doing so, he earned praise from some of the party’s younger agitators — though based on interviews, it’ll take more than a handful of elderly lawmakers like Nadler heeding their calls to step aside to repair the intra-party rift.

As it is, the vast majority of Democrats who are 70 or older are publicly running for another House term.

Against that backdrop, a trend of acknowledging the party’s age problem — often tacitly — is beginning to emerge, even as other senior members of the party are likely to stay put.

Four House Democrats, including Nadler, and four Senate Democrats over the age of 65 have said this year that they are stepping down from Congress. A fifth House Democrat said he would retire from his home district if Texas’ proposed redistricting maps survive legal challenges. Democrats believe even more departures could be coming with a government shutdown deadline looming and lawmakers evaluating their futures after returning from their August recess.

“These retirements are a great example of maturity from these leaders to make the difficult decision for them of knowing even after you’ve served somewhere for decades that it’s time for somebody else to lead,” Leaders We Deserve co-founder David Hogg said in an interview, specifically responding to Nadler’s news.

But 25-year-old Hogg, who has become a leading voice for generational change within his party, also pledged to continue his plan to financially support some candidates who challenge older incumbent Democrats.

“There is still more of a need for us to bring in some fresh blood into this party and help rejuvenate it,” he said, “and show people how the party is changing in the wake of a pretty major loss last election cycle.”

More than 80 House members are 70 or older, a statistic younger Democrats like Hogg cite to underscore their argument that a party in turmoil needs generational change. Only one House member is in his 20s, and the vast majority of older congressional members are expected to run for reelection.

Still, some Democrats who have announced their retirement have explicitly cited age as a factor.

Nadler told the New York Times that “watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that.” Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 81, announced in the spring she wouldn’t seek reelection, saying, “It is now time for me to pass the baton” and this week praising the “new voices” as “so sharp, so articulate, so self-assured. It’s wonderful.”

Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, 67, likewise said earlier this year that “it’s important that people in my position do what they can to lift up the next generation of leaders” when unveiling her retirement. And 83-year-old Illinois Rep. Danny Davis told supporters in July when he decided to retire that “this would be a great time to try and usher in new leadership.”

As Democrats search for a path out of the political wilderness, they have faced a push for fresh faces from voters and activists who have urged their leaders to mount a more visible resistance to President Donald Trump. The impatience from younger Democrats has led several primary challengers to attempt to turn incumbents’ age into a liability. Three House Democrats have died in office this year, further fueling the contentious debate on the left.

“The boomer generation has held on to some of these seats for a long time,” said New York City-based Democratic strategist Evan Thies. “And we saw in the last election that even very accomplished, highly competent and productive elder electeds are now at risk of not winning their elections simply because they’re older.”

Even agitators like Hogg have carved out exceptions to their push to oust senior Democrats, which he insists is motivated by effectiveness and not solely age. Hogg, whose primary plans caused an uproar within the Democratic National Committee that culminated in his ouster as a party vice chair, has exempted Democratic luminaries like Nancy Pelosi, 85, from his anti-incumbent movement. And he has said the same of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 83, who still draws huge crowds even as he signals this term could be his last in the Senate.

“Generational change has been underway in the House Democratic caucus for the last several years, and it’s something that every caucus member, regardless of which generation they find themselves in, has embraced,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, 55, told reporters Tuesday when asked about generational change and Nadler’s decision. “What the record shows is leadership to rank-and-file-members to committee positions, and at all points in between.”

This year, House Democrats elevated a younger, rising star in the party, Rep. Robert Garcia, as their top member of the Oversight Committee, and Jeffries himself had participated in a changing of the guard when Pelosi stepped aside as speaker, along with her top lieutenants, Reps. Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, to make way for a younger trio.

Rep. Jared Huffman took over as the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee from Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who stepped aside amid a cancer battle and later died. And Rep. Angie Craig won a caucus-wide election to be the top Agriculture Committee Democrat after Rep. David Scott also dropped his bid amid health questions.

In a move that some younger Democrats have criticized, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has actively recruited older, well-known Democrats like former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper in his long-shot bid to flip the upper chamber. Other Senate Democratic candidates are younger, including Rep. Chris Pappas, 45, in New Hampshire and the trio of Democrats running in Michigan.

Some senior House Democrats are keeping others in the party guessing about their future plans. Two top members of the previous generation of House Democratic leadership — Pelosi and Hoyer — have been publicly noncommittal on their re-election plans, though Pelosi has filed for re-election. And others who have faced competitive primary challenges amid broader health questions, like Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), have said they’re still running for re-election.

Hoyer spokesperson Margaret Mulkerrin said in a statement he was “focused on holding the Trump Administration accountable, protecting democracy at home and abroad, supporting federal employees and civil servants, and delivering for Maryland’s 5th District.”

Jumaane Williams, the 49-year-old New York City Public Advocate, applauded Nadler for stepping down after “watching what happened to the country, particularly around President Biden.”

“I think the party in general should be learning this lesson,” he said. “Hopefully, when it’s my turn, I have that lesson, too.”

With additional reporting by Jeff Coltin and Shia Kapos.

CORRECTION: This spelling of Margaret Mulkerrin’s name has been corrected in this story.

Republicans are preparing to change the Senate rules to confirm most of President Donald Trump’s nominees a lot faster.

GOP senators huddled behind closed doors Wednesday to talk through proposals for a party-line overhaul of how presidential nominations are handled — the first time they’ve been able to meet in person since frustration about the slow pace of confirmations boiled over earlier this summer.

Republicans are coalescing around a plan to allow multiple nominees to be confirmed with one vote instead of votes on each individual nomination. And they intend to move fast: Senators expect the plan to be enacted before a weeklong break currently scheduled to start on Sept. 22.

The change would not apply to Cabinet-level nominees or picks for the Supreme Court and courts of appeals, senators said. Republicans are discussing whether to include nominees to federal district courts but haven’t yet reached a final consensus as they work to refine the proposal.

“The consensus is … arriving around the idea of being able to confirm multiple nominees at the same time,” Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 GOP leader, said after the meeting.

Republicans are projecting confidence that they will be able to invoke the “nuclear option” in Senate parlance — that is, change the rules with a simple majority vote along party lines. But party leaders need to ensure the votes are locked down as they work through the fine details.

Three GOP senators could break ranks and still let Vice President JD Vance break a tie. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has already said he doesn’t support going nuclear.

It’s just the latest change over the past decade to the Senate’s rules on nominations. Democrats, under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, got rid of the 60-vote threshold for most nominations, and Republicans subsequently got rid of the same threshold for the Supreme Court.

Republicans also changed the rules during the first Trump administration to cut down on the amount of debate time required for most executive nominees as well as district court judges.

They’re also leaving the door open to allowing recess appointments, which would let the president bypass the Senate altogether, at least temporarily. But that idea is sparking unease in some corners of the conference, and some Republicans argue that a permanent rules change that would also apply to future administrations is the better option.

Even as Republicans move toward overhauling confirmation procedures, GOP senators reiterated this week that there is no appetite within the conference to get rid of the “blue slip” tradition, which allows senators to block district court and Justice Department nominees in their home states. Some Republicans said they’ve reached out to Democrats to see if there’s any appetite for bipartisan rules changes, but GOP senators anticipate they will need to act along party lines.

Democrats have defended their slow-walking of Trump’s nominees with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying last week that “historically bad nominees deserve a historic level of scrutiny by Senate Democrats.”

Rep. Thomas Massie is publicly pleading with his Republican colleagues to break rank with House GOP leaders and join his crusade to force a vote on the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

At a Wednesday press conference outside the Capitol alongside some of the late convicted sex offender’s accusers, Massie said he needed just two more members on his side of the aisle to sign onto the discharge petition that will allow him to bypass leadership and get his bill on the floor.

All Democrats are expected to put their names on the petition, meaning a total of six Republican signatures is necessary to reach the 218-member threshold.

“We demand real accountability,” said Massie, a Kentucky Republican. “I encourage my colleagues … there’s over 200 Republicans who have not signed this discharge petition. We only need two of them to sign it.”

Massie’s effort at one point seemed all but guaranteed to succeed, but it’s taken a hit amid pressure from the Trump administration to stand down — and as Republican leaders point to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s success so far in compelling the release of Epstein-related documents through a separate subpoena.

“This is the most comprehensive investigation into Epstein and Maxwell to date,” House Oversight chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said Wednesday morning at a GOP leadership press conference, regarding his panel’s probe.

He also said that Epstein’s estate would begin turning over materials on Sept. 8 in compliance with another subpoena that would, among other materials, compel the release of a “birthday book” that reportedly includes a letter from President Donald Trump to Epstein.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has called Massie’s measure “inartfully drafted” and said he believed the Oversight investigation will uncover new and relevant information as the Justice Department turns over more of the files in its possession.

But Massie countered that the Oversight Committee route is essentially “allowing the DOJ to curate all of the information that the DOJ is giving them.”

He noted that the first batch of materials unloaded Tuesday night included an overwhelming number of redactions and consisted almost exclusively of information that has already been made public. The Oversight Committee also sat on the materials for more than a week before releasing them publicly, allowing staff on both sides of the aisle to comb through documents to ensure that victims’ identities were protected and other criminal matters were not compromised.

Massie’s bill, in contrast, would provide fewer opportunities for the Trump administration and White House allies on Capitol Hill to slow-walk the process of making the Epstein files public.

Whereas the Justice Department is handing over materials piecemeal, Massie’s measure would require the DOJ to turn over nearly all of the information in its possession around Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell — who is now serving a 20-year prison sentence for her part in the sex trafficking scheme — within 30 days.

The bill would allow the DOJ to redact information that could compromise a victim’s identity or depict abuse, but it would have to formally justify its redactions to Congress.

“No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary,” the legislation states.

The Epstein saga has, in part, been complicated by President Donald Trump’s ties to the disgraced financier. Trump has maintained that he had a falling out with Epstein, who died by suicide behind bars in 2019 after new sex crimes charges.

Some attendees at the Wednesday press conference held signs that appeared to mock Trump, showing a photo of him and first lady Melania Trump beside Epstein and Maxwell or alleging that the President is on the so-called Epstein list. The Justice Department has said it did not find evidence of the sort of incriminating list.

“The Washington establishment is asking the American public to believe something that is not believable,” Massie said. “They’re asking you to believe that two individuals created hundreds of victims, and they acted alone, and that the DOJ has no idea of who else might’ve been involved.”

Epstein’s victims joined Massie, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to call for the full release of the files. Responding to Trump’s comments that the Epstein matter was a “hoax,” Haley Robson, one of the women who has accused Epstein of sexual abuse, invited Trump to meet with her in person to hear about her experience. She noted she was a registered Republican.

“Please humanize us,” Robson said. “I would like Donald J. Trump and every person in America and around the world to humanize us. To see us for who we are, and to hear us for what we have to say. There is no hoax. The abuse was real.”

Chauntae Davies, another accuser, said that Epstein would brag about his close friendship with Trump and “had an 8 by 10 framed picture of him on his desk with the two of them.” Davies also said she joined a trip to Africa with Epstein, former President Bill Clinton and others.

Brittany Henderson — an attorney who has worked for some of Epstein’s accusers — suggested at the Wednesday press event it was possible to withhold the identities of some victims without making wholesale redactions designed to shield those who should be held accountable.

“Protect these women while we seek transparency,” Henderson said.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

The GOP-controlled House has released the first tranche of documents in its investigation into convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein — a move intended to quash the mounting calls for answers around why the Justice Department allowed Epstein to continue to prey on victims for decades.

The trove of materials, however, is unlikely to satisfy those clamoring for more and new information about the case. This batch, subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, contains almost exclusively information that has already been released publicly; Oversight Committee Democrats say that, based on their initial review of 33,000 files, only 3 percent of the documents contained new details.

Many of the files appeared to be public court filings, including, for example, a 2021 motion from Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell to dismiss the superseding indictment against her in federal court in New York. Among materials unveiled Tuesday evening, however, are some video clips, including one that appears to feature a young woman recounting her experience as one of Epstein’s masseuses. Her image, and the image of the interviewer, are blurred.

These files were originally handed over to lawmakers last month, but Republicans and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee took more than a week to privately review them. The committee’s GOP majority said it was coordinating with the Justice Department to redact information that could compromise the victims or ongoing criminal matters.

It’s expected that the DOJ will continue to turn over information.

Democrats claim that the only new information in the materials are the flight logs from Customs and Border Protection. The files show Epstein’s travels to destinations such as Paris, New York, and St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.

“To the American people — don’t let this fool you,” said Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, in a statement. “House Republicans are trying to make a spectacle of releasing already-public documents. Pam Bondi has said the client list was on her desk. She could release it right now if she wanted to.”

Epstein died by suicide in 2019, after the Justice Department had levied new sex trafficking charges against him. Maxwell, his co-conspirator, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for her role in the scheme. The Justice Department recently released a transcript of its July interview with her.

The controversy surrounding Epstein ballooned in July when the Justice Department quietly released an unsigned memo that said there was no evidence that Epstein maintained an incriminating so-called client list or that he was murdered in his jail cell and that further information would not be forthcoming.

The move triggered an uproar, as members of both parties accused President Donald Trump and his allies of reneging on their promise to bring transparency to the longstanding allegations against Epstein. Facing an online fury, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to ask the courts to release additional information in the Epstein case. But several judges ruled that the administration could not release grand jury materials.

At the same time, House GOP leadership was fielding mounting calls from Republicans and Democrats to take action to compel the full release of the files — a political quagmire that continues to plague Speaker Mike Johnson this week after the monthlong congressional recess. In what appeared to be a surprise move forced by Democrats on a House Oversight subcommittee, a majority of members on that subcommittee voted to subpoena the information right before leaving Washington for the August break.

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) issued the formal subpoena accordingly.

It’s not clear what additional troves of materials could include. The Oversight Committee has also issued a subpoena to Epstein’s estate for more information and asked the Treasury Department for suspicious activity reports that could help with its investigation in the Epstein case.

Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida who also served as Trump’s Labor secretary during his first term, will sit with Congressional investigators Sept. 19. Acosta approved Epstein’s 2008 plea deal that has been widely criticized as far too lenient.