From state legislation to Capitol Hill coalitions, the movement to prioritize aging biology in health policy takes a confident step forward.
At a moment when US biomedical research funding faces fresh political pressures, a gathering in Washington DC last month quietly marked a significant turning point. The Alliance for Longevity Initiatives (A4LI), founded in 2021 to advocate for policies that support longevity science, hosted its first full-scale DC Summit – a measured yet meaningful advance in the effort to bring aging biology into mainstream political discourse.
While the summit’s agenda included familiar fare – Caucus meetings, keynote briefings, and Capitol Hill drop-ins – it was the atmosphere of alignment that stood out. Attendees included longevity scientists, biotech investors, Congressional staffers and high-profile figures such as Dr Mehmet Oz, the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, each lending weight to the idea that targeting the biological mechanisms of aging is no longer merely aspirational, but necessary. It is, as A4LI’s Founder Dylan Livingston put it, “a generational opportunity to transform how we think about health and aging in America.”
Longevity.Technology: The A4LI summit marks a decisive shift in longevity advocacy – from hopeful science to actionable policy. No longer content to wait for federal agencies to catch up, the longevity field is beginning to generate its own momentum, both legislatively and culturally. Montana’s ‘Right to Try’ law may prove to be more than a policy experiment – it’s a signal that regulatory innovation can originate at the state level, not just in Washington. By supporting safe access to investigational therapies, frameworks like SB 535 challenge the outdated binary of ‘approved vs illegal’ treatments – especially in a space where biology moves faster than bureaucracy. At the same time, the expanding Longevity Science Caucus shows that this is not a fringe concern. The biology of aging is increasingly seen as a public health lever and an economic imperative. If aging is the root cause of most chronic diseases, why is it still treated as a background condition in our health policy? The summit’s message was clear: it’s time to put aging biology where it belongs – at the center of the national health agenda. To understand how that message is resonating in Washington – and what the next steps look like – we sat down with A4LI’s Founder and President, Dylan Livingston.
Longevity as bipartisan policy
Livingston is upbeat about the political traction longevity science is beginning to gain, even in a polarized legislative environment. “Longevity science is uniquely positioned to resonate across the spectrum,” he explains. “At the end of the day, everyone wants to live healthier, longer lives.”
This pragmatic message appears to be landing. The Longevity Science Caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers committed to aging research, has expanded significantly – six new members joined during the summit, with nearly twenty additional offices expressing interest. Livingston anticipates the group will soon comprise 20 to 40 “steadfast champions for longevity policy.”
The idea, he says, is to keep building bridges. “We show how aging research and innovation can serve the priorities of policymakers from every political background – whether that’s cost reduction, personal freedom, public-health resilience or global scientific leadership.” That list, he adds, increasingly includes military readiness and national security – areas where healthy lifespan has measurable implications.
It’s a shift in tone as much as in substance. What was once seen as a niche scientific concern is being framed more broadly, as a lever for economic productivity, disease prevention, and even national security. “It’s no longer just an aspirational idea,” he says. “It’s becoming a serious policy priority.”
Montana as a model
One of the most intriguing developments discussed at the summit was Montana’s ‘Right to Try’ legislation, passed in two stages over recent years and operationalized by SB 535 in 2025. The law extends access to investigational therapies beyond terminally ill patients, making it possible for those with chronic conditions – or those seeking preventive interventions – to access early-stage treatments under physician supervision.
“This isn’t a free-for-all,” says Livingston. “It’s a thoughtfully regulated framework that expands access to promising interventions while maintaining high standards of patient safety and clinical oversight.”
The policy has been designed to function, in effect, like a Phase II clinical trial, generating real-world evidence that could inform future regulatory decisions. A4LI sees the Montana approach as both scalable and compatible with federal frameworks. “There’s absolutely a viable path to scaling this legislation to other states,” Livingston asserts. “Patients deserve supervised, ethical access to innovation here at home.”
This position – balancing scientific rigor with patient autonomy – may prove increasingly persuasive as public interest in experimental therapies continues to rise.
The challenge of funding volatility
Despite the momentum, challenges remain. The current administration’s reductions in NIH funding have not gone unnoticed in the longevity sector. Livingston acknowledges the risk: “The recent reduction and non-renewal of certain NIH grants is concerning – not just for longevity science, but for the entire biomedical research ecosystem.”
Yet he remains cautiously optimistic. “We hope these cuts represent a temporary recalibration, not a long-term shift away from the kind of science that saves lives.”
In the meantime, A4LI is focused on making the case that aging biology is not a luxury area of research, but one central to both cost control and quality of life. He points out that the largest risk factor for most chronic diseases is age itself; addressing the biology of aging could, therefore, be the most efficient way to prevent multiple disease pathways simultaneously.
Grassroots meets institutional
A striking aspect of A4LI’s model is its blend of institutional partnerships and grassroots energy. Despite operating with a core team of just three, the organization has coordinated more than 75 targeted meetings on the Hill and gained backing from over 60 companies, research institutes, and venture firms.
Still, capacity is an issue. “To sustain and scale this work, we urgently need additional lobbyists,” Livingston notes. “Professionals who can deepen relationships with lawmakers, monitor legislation, and keep our policy agenda moving forward day in and day out.” He emphasizes that deeper relationships with Congressional offices and more frequent educational briefings will require further funding and staffing. “If you’re in this field and believe in its promise, it’s time to put resources behind that belief.”
That call for investment is not just financial – it is also about alignment. A4LI’s advocacy is underpinned by close cooperation with biotech and academic partners, all contributing coordinated messaging to push a coherent policy agenda forward.
Changing the conversation
Perhaps the most significant shift the summit represents is rhetorical. Livingston and his team are working to ensure that longevity is not discussed only as a fringe interest or futuristic ideal – but as a realistic, urgent, and modifiable public health goal. “The car analogy works well,” he says. “Just like you’d service your engine regularly to avoid a breakdown, we can use aging interventions to reduce disease burden.”
But the real traction, he says, comes from drawing clear lines between aging biology and everyday concerns: cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, workforce participation, Medicare spending… “Once lawmakers see how longevity science aligns with their existing priorities, they start paying closer attention,” he says.
Looking ahead
The success of A4LI’s first major summit has given the longevity policy movement a foothold in the halls of Congress – but it is still early days. With shifting political winds and tightening research budgets, the work ahead will require persistence, precision and coalition-building. Yet there is momentum, and the vision is clear.
If longevity science can continue making the case that aging biology is not just modifiable, but vital to health system sustainability, its seat at the policy table may soon become permanent.
“If we want to see policy keep pace with science, we need to act decisively,” Livingston says. “This isn’t just a policy challenge – it’s a race against time.”
