A Democratic senator is delivering a marathon speech in the US Senate in protest against Donald Trump.
Cory Booker, 55, took to the floor at 7pm local time on Monday (midnight in the UK), saying he would remain there as long as he was “physically able”.
As of 5pm in the UK, Mr Booker was still going – more than 17 hours after he started.
The senator for New Jersey said his goal is to “uplift the stories of Americans who are being harmed by the Trump administration’s reckless actions, attempts to undermine our institutions, and disregard for the rule of law”.
During his speech, Mr Booker has only taken brief breaks from speaking, giving the floor instead to questions from his Democratic colleagues, according to Sky News’ US partner network, NBC News.
According to the rules of the Senate, as long as he stays at the podium Mr Booker will hold the floor – meaning he cannot leave at any point, even to go to the toilet or to eat.
So who exactly is the Democratic senator, and what is his multi-hour speech all about?
Image: Mr Booker has criticised the Trump administration during his speech. Pic: Senate Television via AP
Rising star of Democratic Party
Mr Booker was born in Washington DC and moved to northern New Jersey when he was a boy.
He is a graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law and started his career as a lawyer for charities.
Entering politics, he was considered a rising star in the Democratic Party. He was elected to serve on the city council of New Jersey’s biggest state, Newark, and then as mayor, a position he held until 2013.
He was first elected to the US Senate in 2013 during a special election held after the death of politician and businessman Frank Lautenberg.
He went on to win his first full term in 2014 and was re-elected in 2020.
2020 presidential bid
In February 2019 Mr Booker launched his bid for the US presidency from the steps of his home in Newark.
At the time, he played on his personal ties to the “low-income, inner city community” and urged for the US to return to a “common sense of purpose”.
He later dropped out of the race after struggling to raise the money required to make a bid for the White House.
Image: Senator Cory Booker. Pic: AP
Why is he speaking in the Senate?
By holding the floor in the Senate, Mr Booker is protesting against the Trump administration.
Before he began, the senator said he had the intention of “getting in some good trouble”, NBC News reported.
He read letters from constituents about how Mr Trump’s cuts were already taking a toll on their lives.
The longest Senate speeches in history
As he reached 16 hours of speaking, Mr Booker already had the sixth-longest speech in Senate history.
However, he still has a while to go to beat the all-time record for the longest individual speech.
According to the Senate’s website, this belongs to Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
Only one other sitting senator has spoken for longer than Mr Booker.
In 2013, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, held the floor for 21 hours and 19 minutes to contest Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law.
As well as speaking about health law, Mr Cruz’s speech made headlines as he read the entirety of the Dr Seuss book Green Eggs And Ham, which he said at the time was a bedtime story to his children.
He claimed the US was giving up being a global leader, citing Mr Trump’s proposals to take over Greenland and Canada while feuding with longtime allies.
He also occasionally took aim at Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, who is advising Mr Trump and leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
“In just 71 days, the president of the United States has inflicted so much harm on Americans’ safety; financial stability; the core foundations of our democracy,” Mr Booker said on the floor.
“These are not normal times in America. And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate.”
Appearing to waver slightly on Tuesday morning, Mr Booker was accompanied by Senator Chris Murphy. In 2016, Mr Booker joined the Connecticut Democrat when he held the floor for almost 15 hours to argue for gun control legislation.
Some reports have referred to Mr Booker’s speech as a filibuster, but technically it is not.
A filibuster is a speech meant to halt the advance of a specific piece of legislation.
Mr Booker’s performance is instead a broader critique of Mr Trump’s agenda, meant to hold up any business scheduled to take place in the Senate and draw attention to what Democrats are doing to contest the president.
Democrats have been forced to use these types of opposition methods as they do not hold a majority in either congressional chamber.
Donald Trump has praised the Liberian president’s command of English – the West African country’s official language.
The US president reacted with visible surprise to Joseph Boakai’s English-speaking skills during a White House meeting with leaders from the region on Wednesday.
After the Liberian president finished his brief remarks, Mr Trump told him he speaks “such good English” and asked: “Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?”
Mr Trump seemed surprised when Mr Boakai laughed and responded he learned in Liberia.
The US president said: “It’s beautiful English.
“I have people at this table who can’t speak nearly as well.”
Mr Boakai did not tell Mr Trump that English is the official language of Liberia.
The country was founded in 1822 with the aim of relocating freed African slaves and freeborn black citizens from the US.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Later asked by a reporter if he’ll visit the continent, Mr Trump said, “At some point, I would like to go to Africa.”
But he added that he’d “have to see what the schedule looks like”.
Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, promised to go to Africa in 2023, but only fulfilled the commitment by visiting Angola in December 2024, just weeks before he left office.
The Israeli government believes the chances of achieving a permanent ceasefire in Gaza are “questionable”.
The pessimistic assessment, in a top-level Israeli government briefing given to Sky News, comes as the Israeli Prime Minister prepares to leave Washington DC after a four-day visit which had begun with the expectation of a ceasefire announcement.
Benjamin Netanyahu will leave the US later today with the prospect of even a temporary 60-day ceasefire looking extremely unlikely this week.
Within “a week, two weeks – not a day” is how it was framed in the background briefing late on Wednesday.
Crucially, though, on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the framing from the briefing was even less optimistic: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement. But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:44
Netanyahu arrives in US for ceasefire talks
Sky News has spoken to several Israeli officials at the top level of the government. None will be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.
But I have been given a very clear understanding of Mr Netanyahu’s thinking.
More on Israel
Related Topics:
The Israeli position is that a permanent ceasefire (beyond the initial 60 days, which itself is yet to be agreed) is only possible if Hamas lays down its arms. “If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war],” said a source.
This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map “looks like a Smotrich plan”, a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.
My briefing of Mr Netanyahu’s position is that he has not shifted in terms of Israel’s central stated war aims. The return of the hostages and eliminating Hamas are the key objectives.
But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, it was clear from my briefing that no permanent ceasefire is possible in the Israeli government’s view without the complete removal of Hamas as a political and military entity.
Hamas is not likely to negotiate its way to oblivion.
On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, a senior Israeli official told Sky News: “We would want IDF in every square metre of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone.”
Image: Pic: Reuters
It was clear to me that Mr Netanyahu wants his stated position to be that his government has no territorial ambition for Gaza.
One quote to come from my briefing, which I am only able to attribute to a senior Israeli official, says: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas.”
Another clear indication of Mr Netanyahu’s position – a quote from the briefing, attributable only to a senior Israeli official: “You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.
“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”
On the future of Gaza, it’s clear from my briefings that Mr Netanyahu continues to rule out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.
The Israeli government assessment is that the Palestinians are not going to have a state “as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state”.
On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the briefing revealed that Mr Netanyahu’s view is that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave” but that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated.
“It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction,” a senior Israeli official said.
Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary”, is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.
Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz’s recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn’t be drawn, except to say: “As a permanent arrangement? Of course not.”
A senior Israeli official has issued a less-than-optimistic assessment of the permanency of any ceasefire in Gaza.
Speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, the senior official said that a 60-day ceasefire “might” be possible within “a week, two weeks – not a day”.
But on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the official said: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement.
“But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to conclude a four-day visit to Washington later today.
There had been hope that a ceasefire could be announced during the trip. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that it’s close.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:44
Netanyahu arrives in US for ceasefire talks
Speaking at a briefing for a number of reporters, the Israeli official would not be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.
This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map “looks like a Smotrich plan”, a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.
The official repeated Israel’s central stated war aims of getting the hostages back and eliminating Hamas. But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, the official was clear that no permanent ceasefire would be possible without the complete removal of Hamas.
“We will offer them a permanent ceasefire,” he told Sky News. “If they agree. Fine. It’s over.
“They lay down their arms, and we proceed [with the ceasefire]. If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war].”
On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, the official said: “We would want IDF in every square meter of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone…”
He added: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas…”
Image: Pic: Reuters
The official said the Israeli government had “no territorial designs for Gaza”.
“But [we] don’t want Hamas there,” he continued. “You have to finish the job… victory over Hamas. You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.
“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”
On the future of Gaza, the official ruled out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.
“They are not going to have a state in the foreseeable future as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state. It doesn’t make a difference if they are the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, it’s just a difference of tactics.”
On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the official predicted that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave”.
But he claimed that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated, adding: “It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction.”
Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary,” is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.
Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz’s recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn’t be drawn, except to say: “As a permanent arrangement? Of course not.”