Cory Booker Wasted Everyone’s Time; Especially His Own

On March 31, 2025, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey delivered a historic speech on the Senate floor that lasted 25 hours and 5 minutes, surpassing the previous record held by Senator Strom Thurmond in 1957. Booker initiated his address at 7 p.m. ET, aiming to protest President Donald Trump’s policies and the operations of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. ​

Throughout his marathon speech, Booker criticized various actions of the Trump administration, including proposed cuts to social programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. He expressed concerns over the administration’s disregard for the rule of law and its impact on democratic institutions. Booker also read letters from constituents, highlighting their struggles and emphasizing the need for governmental accountability. ​

The problem is that the speech was not a filibuster and, thus, it accomplished practically nothing other than theatrics and headline grabs.  The speech did not block specific legislation or nominations. Instead, it served as a platform for Booker to voice his opposition to the administration’s policies, which we already knew, and to raise Booker’s Democratic “Q rating” as he eyes another Presidential run in 2028.

Some of the key criticisms of Booker’s speech include:

1. Symbolic but Lacking Concrete Action: Booker’s 25-hour speech was more symbolic than substantive. While it was a “dramatic protest” against the Trump administration and its policies, it lacked concrete actions that could directly influence legislative outcomes. Instead, it was a performance, which could detract from efforts to produce tangible policy changes.
2. Political Grandstanding: The speech was designed to enhance Booker’s political profile.  Given its timing, it was a political stunt aimed at reinforcing his image as a progressive leader rather than a genuine attempt to shift policy or legislative decisions.
3. Effectiveness: Speeches like Booker’s often fail to influence the political agenda in a meaningful way. The Senate is still proceeded with its regular business; the speech did little to alter the trajectory of the policies Booker opposed.
4. Lack of Direct Engagement: Instead of engaging in a traditional filibuster or directly blocking legislation, Booker’s speech was more of an extended monologue.
5. Political Polarization: Speeches like Booker’s contribute to the growing political divide. Rather than bridging gaps or bringing about consensus, Booker’s speech deepened partisan polarization, as it failed to meaningfully address the concerns of those on the other side of the political spectrum.