Cory Booker, the first African American to hold the New Jersey Senator position, broke the record for the longest filibuster in the Senate chambers on April 1. Although it was April Fool’s Day, this wasn’t a joke by any means. Booker held the floor for a just over 25 hours, discussing his thoughts on the president’s administration, his plans, and the Department of Government Efficiency, run by Elon Musk.
In the Senate, delaying work for this amount of time requires a substantial reason. Booker’s reason for executing this speech was an unprecedented form of protest and will go down in history.
What Is a Filibuster?
Simply put, a filibuster is a tactic used by the Senate of the United States to block or delay a piece of legislation from being voted on or confirmed. This is an old congressional tradition, usually utilized by the minority party in an attempt to stall or “talk a bill to death” to prevent something from going through. Imagine someone who continues yapping for what feels like forever: at some point, you get tired and don’t care anymore, and the same goes for politicians.
Technically, what Booker did wasn’t a filibuster: there wasn’t a vote being put in place, so a better description of what was happening is that it was a major form of protest within a high government institution. The idea was to stop the work being done, which is usually counterproductive, but it was the ultimate sign to the nation that people in government are desperate.
What Was the Purpose?
Before Cory Booker spoke for 25 hours, the record was held by late Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond, whose speech was given to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957 from being passed.
The 25 hours that Booker spoke were critical of the Trump administration and raised fears for the American public. Claiming that the government is turning into an oligarchy with descriptions such as chaotic, cruel, and corrupt is something no one wants to hear about their governing body.
In other words, this entire 25 hours Booker spoke was dedicated to criticizing the president. The dislike was focused on the administration, the plans, and the unfulfilled promises that were made to the American constituents. Whether poetic or ironic, this speech was right after Trump released a statement that he wanted to run for a third term.
What Did Booker Fill the Time With?
Fifteen binders, 25 hours. Much of Booker’s time was spent reading grievances from American citizens detailing the economic hardships they faced.
There was also added resistance from conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Manhattan Institute toward Trump’s economic policies. Interwoven with these testimonies were passages from the Federalist Papers and Civil Rights Era texts, all strategically chosen to underscore his deep distrust and disdain for the presidency.
Booker’s passion was unmistakable: he wasn’t concerned with breaking records; he was determined to make his point heard. Was this an awesome comeback to the previous racist filibuster? Yes! Yet when the record was announced, he responded simply: “I know now… I want to not quite wrap this up yet.“
The raw emotion in his delivery, amplified by the many personal stories he shared, made it clear that this was more than just a speech. Breaking the record was merely the cherry on top.
What Does This Mean?
Booker breaking Strom Thurmond’s filibuster record is greatly symbolic. Thurmond’s 24-hour speech was an attempt to block civil rights; Booker’s was an attempt to protect democracy itself. The contrast between these two historical moments is astounding: one was about resisting progress, the other about combating perceived authoritarianism.
This protest reflects a nation at a crossroads. If the country is so divided that a senator feels the need to halt the entire government for 25 hours just to sound the alarm, then we are looking at a political climate of instability. To what extent that instability lies is unknown.
Whether Booker’s concerns will translate into action is another question — will this speech gain opposition, or will it be dismissed as political uproar? Either way, this wasn’t just about slowing down government work; it was about making a desperate statement concerning the state of democracy.
Regardless of politics and your party affiliation, it’s intriguing to witness a historical moment in the Senate chambers through extreme actions like these.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and Pinterest!