Cory Booker’s 25-Hour Senate Speech: A Powerful Call for Collective Action Amidst Trump’s Disruptions

At 7 p.m. on Day 71 of Donald Trump’s presidency, U.S. Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, took to the Senate floor to speak. He retained his right to speak for a remarkable 25 hours, concluding his address at 8:05 p.m. the following day.

Though his speech resembled a filibuster—traditionally used to delay or block legislation—Booker’s intention was not directed at any specific bill. Instead, he voiced his concerns over what he termed a “time of crisis” in the nation.

In his eyes, the crisis stems from actions taken by the Trump administration, including executive orders and policies that he believes are undermining democracy, worsening the climate emergency, and dismantling critical programs that provide essential support to both Americans and people globally.

By speaking for 25 continuous hours, Booker set a record for the longest uninterrupted address in the U.S. Senate, surpassing the previous records held by Ted Cruz in 2013 and Strom Thurmond in 1957. He managed to continue without breaks for food, bathroom use, or even sitting down.

This monumental speech was both a physical achievement and a rallying cry. While the content and its call for bipartisan cooperation have been widely praised, it is equally important to examine the unique delivery of his address.

Booker’s method highlights his plea for a participatory democracy—one in which everyone actively engages. He employed two primary strategies: disrupting the typical norms and encouraging collaboration.

Two Forms of Interruption

Two contrasting types of interruption are significant in this context: the kind that encourages contemplation and the kind that stifles it.

The German philosopher Walter Benjamin introduced the concept of interruption in the 1930s as a means to stimulate thought during crises. Certain types of theatre, for instance, intentionally break away from conventions to remind the audience that they are witnessing a performance.

Building on Benjamin’s premise, I explore how interruption can play a role in our current political landscape.

The Trump administration exemplifies the latter form of interruption—one that hampers critical thinking. Techniques such as “flooding the zone,” where new actions are introduced rapidly, leave no room for reflection.

Trump’s favored communication style, particularly through social media, is characterized by brevity and immediacy. This approach—combining rapid-fire messages with a constant stream of news—diverts attention and complicates the public’s ability to process events comprehensively.

A Shift in Communication?

Historically, the U.S. Democratic Party has not significantly altered its communication strategies or political practices. However, Booker’s actions last week signify a potential change.

By rising in the Senate, Booker embraced Benjamin’s conception of interruption by altering the form of his address. His extended continuous speech stood in stark contrast to the rapid influx of information, demanding the audience’s full attention.

This 25-hour address was a call to focus, underscoring the essential values of listening: stopping, paying close attention, thinking critically, and taking action.

Working Together: ‘We, the People’

While Booker stood alone at the podium for over 25 hours, he emphasized the importance of collective action.

His speech powerfully embodied the spirit of collaboration, evident in his repeated refrain of “we, the people.”

Critically examining how speeches open and close is important; his opening words recognized his gratitude towards “the pages …the folks that work the door, the clerks, the Parliamentarians.” He concluded with another expression of thanks, emphasizing shared responsibilities in the process.

Throughout his address, he made it abundantly clear that unity strengthens their cause. He asserted that while his words alone may not halt the decline of democracy, “we, the people” can make a difference.

His address was an inclusive act, incorporating audience engagement, personal letters, poetry, and historical references, all of which reinforced a sense of connection and shared purpose.

Two central questions guided his remarks: “Did you speak up?” and “What can I do?” The first was reiterated in various forms 52 times, while the second appeared 36 times. Such inquiries foster engagement and encourage participation. Booker’s response was straightforward: “stand up, speak up,” emphasizing collective action.

By reading constituents’ letters, he amplified voices that often go unheard, thereby broadening representation and inclusivity in Congress: “I am trying to elevate the voices,” he shared, “that don’t get to come to this place—voices from both sides of the aisle.”

His recitation of poetry and literature further enriched the sense of inclusivity, featuring works that underscore the interconnectedness of society. He highlighted sentiments from Langston Hughes, Alice Walker, and various cultural translations, echoing the belief in shared human experience.

Bending the Form

In essence, Booker creatively altered the nature of a congressional speech to inspire “thousands of ignition points”—unique, actionable ways for collaboration. He united his voice with those of constituents, historical figures, and activists worldwide, echoing the call, adapted from Martin Luther King Jr., to “bend the arc of our nation… toward justice.”

The enduring impact and substance of Booker’s speech are significant, but its form was pivotal in interrupting the current political turmoil, urging listeners to notice, reflect, and unify in support, amplifying the message that we can indeed be “stronger together.”