Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, a newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.
In today's edition, Scott Wong and Joe Murphy find that many of Congress' oldest members aren't planning on leaving anytime soon. Plus, Jonathan Allen explores how Vice President JD Vance's tiebreaking Senate vote on Venezuela could have political implications down the road.
Of the two dozen members of the Silent Generation now serving in Congress, more than half (13) have decided to run again in 2026, according to an NBC News review.
By the end of this year, the average age will be nearly 85. Ten members will be that age or older, and three will be at or knocking on 90's door.
The Silent Generation's ranks have dwindled from 39 members in 2021 to 24 in 2025, as Gen X and millennial politicians replace older lawmakers. Still, with at least 13 of them indicating plans to run for re-election, it creates the possibility of this generation's holding on to seats into the next decade and reigniting a debate about how long is too long to serve in office.
Some Silent Generation members in Congress, though, told NBC News they still love what they do and that their seniority and experience helps them effectively deliver results for their constituents.
"You got to like the job, and you got to have enough time to spend with your family, and you got to have your health, and if you've got your health and you're doing what you want to do, why not?" said 82-year-old Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is running for another six-year term this year.
"My work is not finished, and I don't know if it will ever be finished," said 87-year-old Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.
Votes go down on a politician's permanent record, and Vice President JD Vance just cast one in favor of U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.
Last night, as senators shuttled back and forth to parties and fundraisers, the vice president's siren-blaring motorcade streaked up Capitol Hill on Constitution Avenue so that Vance could cast a tiebreaking vote against an attempt to limit President Donald Trump's authority to use military force in Venezuela.
All of it was symbolic: the House wasn't going to take up the resolution on war powers, and Trump wasn't going to sign it into law -- even if senators had cleared the procedural thicket to pass it.
But for Vance, whose views on Venezuela have been a subject of niche 2028 presidential campaign fascination, there is no turning back now. Vance, a veteran of the Iraq War, has generally been more wary of war-making than some of his colleagues in the Trump Cabinet, and he has taken a back seat to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as a face of American policy in Venezuela.
He didn't stand with Trump at the news conference announcing the capture of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro -- touching off speculation on both the right and left about whether his heart was in the U.S. attack on a long-sovereign nation. Given that Rubio is mentioned only a little less often than Vance as a potential White House contender, there is reason for close observers to look for any daylight between them.
In his public comments, Vance has been clear that he supports his boss on Venezuela, which is de rigueur for any vice president on every topic under the sun. As Trump's No. 2, it's also a matter of survival -- imagine the Truth Social post that would accompany any Vance break from Trump.
But with his vote yesterday against limiting Trump's war powers Vance is now on the record, which is more indelible than the ephemeral video clips of the moment.
In other words, he now owns Venezuela, for better or worse, in 2028. But there's a certain asymmetry to voting for war (or to enable it).
If things go well -- if the Venezuela policy is seen as a net positive for the U.S. -- with or without the use of additional force, there's little marginal value in being the vice president who supported it. But if they go poorly -- if the U.S. gets locked into an expensive and dangerous military adventure or simply leaves the country a mess -- Vance could be vulnerable to both primary and general election opponents who point to his vote.
That's more permanent than even a tweet.
That's all From the Politics Desk for now. Today's newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner.
If you have feedback -- likes or dislikes -- email us at politicsnewsletter@nbcuni.com