Elissa Slotkin had the eyes of the nation on her as she gave the Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s first joint congressional address of his second presidential term on Tuesday night. “It’s late, so I promise to be a lot shorter than what you just watched,” the first-term Michigan senator said after Trump spoke for about 100 minutes, the longest annual presidential address in modern history. Slotkin was announced for the role by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries last Thursday. Schumer described Slotkin as a “rising star” who will “offer a bold vision of hope, unity, and a brighter future for everyone, not just the wealthy few at the top.” Slotkin promised she would take the opportunity “to level with” the public “on what’s actually happening in our country.” Her rebuttal comes at a time when Democrats are struggling to present a unified opposition strategy to Trump. Slotkin began her 10-minute rebuttal by explaining her own path to politics before addressing Americans’ economic concerns, admitting that changes are necessary after a “fraught election season.” She said: “Americans made it clear that prices are too high and that the government needs to be more responsive to their needs. America wants change, but there’s a responsible way to make change and a reckless way, and we can make that change without forgetting who we are as a country and as a democracy.” On the economy, Slotkin said prices of “groceries, housing, health care” need to be brought down, manufacturing needs to be brought back to America, businesses need certainty to invest, and Americans who aren’t billionaires need a fair tax system. “Look, the President talked a big game on the economy, but it's always important to read the fine print,” she said. “Do his plans actually help Americans get ahead? Not even close,” she added, arguing that Trump is trying to deliver “an unprecedented giveaway” to the wealthy. “And to do that he’s going to make you pay in every part of your life.” Slotkin said Trump has no credible plan to lower grocery and home prices and that his tariffs are likely to raise the price of energy and trigger a trade war that could hurt U.S. manufacturing and agriculture. She also claimed that Trump would raise the costs of premiums and prescriptions “because the math on his proposals doesn’t work without going after your health care” and that “in order to pay for his plan, he could very well come after your retirement,” referencing social security and Veterans Affairs benefits at risk. “If he’s not careful, he could walk us right into a recession,” Slotkin said of Trump. Slotkin also raised concerns about billionaire Elon Musk’s status as an advisor to Trump, pointing to his attacks on social security, Medicare, and VA benefits as well as the Department of Government Efficiency’s mass terminations of federal employees and programs that have upended Washington and the world. “Change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe, the mindless firing of people who work to protect our nuclear weapons, keep our planes from crashing, and conduct the research that finds the cure for cancer only to rehire them two days later,” she said. “No CEO in America could do that without being summarily fired.” Addressing border security, Slotkin said that “every country deserves to know who and what is coming across its border” but that “securing the border without actually fixing our broken immigration system is dealing with the symptom and not the disease.” She said that the U.S. needs “a functional system” that allows vetted immigrants to come legally and contribute to the economy, before seemingly facetiously adding: “I look forward to the President’s plan on that.” Slotkin offered a sharp contrast to Trump’s more isolationist America First approach to foreign policy, declaring: “Today’s world is deeply interconnected—migration, cyber threats, AI, environmental destruction, terrorism—one nation cannot face these issues alone. We need friends in all corners, and our safety depends on it.” She argued that Trump quotes former President Ronald Reagan when he calls for “peace through strength” but that Reagan “must be rolling in his grave” after Trump’s clash in the Oval Office last week with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “Reagan understood that true strength required America to combine our military and economic might with moral clarity.” The Oval Office episode with Zelensky, Slotkin said, “summed up Trump’s whole approach to the world: He believes in cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends like the Canadians in the teeth.” Slotkin said Trump doesn’t believe the U.S. is “exceptional” and that he “would have lost us the Cold War.” Slotkin ended on a word of warning and a call to action. “Our democracy, our very system of government, has been the aspiration of the world, and right now it’s at risk. It’s at risk when the President decides you can pick and choose what rules you want to follow, when he ignores court orders and the Constitution itself, or when elected leaders stand by and just let it happen,” she said. “But it’s also at risk when the President pits Americans against each other, when he demonizes those who are different and tells certain people they shouldn’t be included.” But, she added, “as much as we need to make our government more responsive to our lives today, don't for one moment, fool yourself that democracy isn't precious and worth saving.” She told viewers not to tune out, to go to town halls and hold elected officials accountable, and to organize. “Pick just one issue you’re passionate about, and engage—and doomscrolling doesn’t count.” The post-presidential-address rebuttal is widely seen as an opportunity for emerging party leaders to take the spotlight, and even conservatives praised Slotkin’s performance. Commentary editor John Podhoretz called it “starmaking,” and Jewish Insider editor-in-chief Josh Kraushaar called it the “kind of focus that Dems have lacked since Trump took office,” adding “her worldview is what can lead the Dems back out of the wilderness.” Here’s what to know about Slotkin. From CIA analyst to congresswoman After graduating with a masters degree in international affairs from Columbia University, Slotkin was recruited to be a Middle East analyst for the CIA. Fluent in Arabic and Swahili, she served three tours in Iraq with the U.S. military. She then served in national security roles at the White House during both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. During the latter, her work ranged from combatting ISIS to U.S.-Russia relations. Part of the Democrats’ hope in Slotkin may be due to her ability to win over more conservative voters. Slotkin ran for Congress in 2018, flipping a Republican-held seat and helping Democrats regain a House majority. Her campaign, she said, was inspired by watching her mother die from ovarian cancer in 2011, after her family struggled to afford life-saving care against insurance price gouging. Slotkin drew nationwide attention—including both protests and support—when she announced at a town hall in 2019 that she backed Trump’s impeachment. She nevertheless went on to win reelection in 2020 and again in 2022. In February, 2023, Slotkin threw her hat in the ring to succeed Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, Mich.). Her campaign targeted split-ticket voters, emphasizing affordable healthcare, costs of living, and jobs for working and middle class Americans, while taking a moderate stance on gun laws. She narrowly beat Republican Mike Rogers, becoming the youngest Democratic woman elected to the Senate. She was one of four Democrats to win Senate races in states won by Trump. “I personally think that identity politics needs to go the way of the dodo,” the 48-year-old, who describes herself as a third-generation Michigander, told NBC News after the 2024 election. “People need to be looked at as independent Americans, whatever group they’re from, whatever party they may be from.” Slotkin has broken from her party’s positions on several issues, and was scored as one of the most bipartisan House members. She has opposed abolishing the death penalty, reserving its use for rare cases; was one of 12 Senate Democrats to vote for the Laken Riley Act that mandates harsher detention rules for undocumented immigrants suspected of theft or violent crimes; and drew criticism after voting for an amendment in 2023 preventing Department of Defense facilities from displaying non-official flags, including Pride flags. (Slotkin said she wished to ban “hateful flags” like the Confederate flag and would “rather support a no-flag policy than allow hateful imagery above U.S. military bases”; she has been endorsed by the LGBTQ+ rights group Human Rights Campaign and voted in favor of gender-affirming care for military families.) “We’ve gone through periods of political instability before, and ultimately, we’ve chosen to keep changing this country for the better,” Slotkin said Tuesday night. “But every single time, we’ve only gotten through those moments because of two things: engaged citizens and principled leaders—engaged citizens who do a little bit more than they’re used to doing to fight for the things that they care about, and principled leaders who are ready to receive the ball and do something about it.”

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. That, right there, is how it’s done. Sen. Cory Booker, the New Jersey Democrat who has long been a believer that his party should not shy from a fight out of fear, held the Senate floor for more than 25 hours in a history-making show of defiance of President Donald Trump’s chaos-laced agenda. Booker, beginning Monday evening, owned the podium where he stood without any real break in a bold display that drew fellow Democrats to the floor to watch in admiration. They might have done well to take notes about how, even in the minority, their party still can find ways to inspire voters in the face of Trumpism. “I rise tonight because I believe, sincerely, that our country is in crisis,” Booker said as he began at 6:59 p.m. on Monday. When he wrapped up at 8:05 p.m. on Tuesday, he was visibly exhausted as he invoked the marching orders from civil rights icon and lawmaker John Lewis. “This is a moral moment. It’s not left or right. It’s right or wrong. Let’s get in good trouble. My friend, Madam President, I yield the floor,” he said as fellow Democrats erupted in applause. As his party has struggled to find footing in this second Trump term, Booker showed his colleagues that protest has power. His performance ended as Democrats were quietly losing twin special elections in deep-red House districts in Florida. Booker’s prescription for wayward Democrats seemed to be about showing up and using their present powers rather than chasing long-shot causes or hoping Republicans will bow to pressure from anyone but Trump. “I confess that I have been imperfect. I confess that I've been inadequate to the moment,” Booker said a little before noon on Tuesday. “I confess that the Democratic Party has made terrible mistakes that gave a lane to this demagogue. I confess we all must look in the mirror and say 'we will do better.'" Booker, in the Senate since 2013 and a promising but unsuccessful presidential candidate in 2020, broke the previous speech record of the modern era, one made by avowed segregationist Strom Thurman in 1957 while blocking a civil rights package. Lost on no one was that Booker is Black, a figure whose right to vote let alone serve in the Senate is in contradiction to the viewpoint that made Thurman a hero to the segregationist South. Since Trump’s re-election in November, Democrats’ fury has lacked a vessel, let alone a strategy. Some in the party began the year contemplating cooperation on some areas where they thought there could be common ground, such as infrastructure spending and trade deals. But that optimism has largely vanished and little else has emerged as a backstop in Washington beyond hope that states’ attorneys general and legislatures can stand in the breach. “Twelve hours now I’m standing, and I’m still going strong because this President is wrong, and he’s violating principles that we hold dear and principles in this document that are so clear and plain,” Booker said, holding a copy of the Constitution at roughly his halfway point. US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-SENATE-BOOKER Supporters of Senator Cory Booker hold signs outside the US Capitol as he speaks on the Senate floor in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2025. Roberto Schmidt—AFP via Getty Images Booker, a powerful orator and tough legislator, has often risen to the moment. During his 2020 presidential bid—which ended before Iowa even caucused—he found ways to push his party to reckon with tough realities. His campaign for a monument to Black Wall Street, where a race riot destroyed a prosperous neighborhood in Tulsa, recentered a big part of the conversation about identity in the United States. Similarly, his speech about gun violence and racial equity at Charleston, S.C.,’s Mother Emanuel Church laid down the 2020 campaign’s high-water mark for civil rights discourse. This week, it was a similar clarity that came from his podium—often speaking to just himself. Booker clearly did not mind. He felt he was on a righteous course. To be clear, no single speech—even a marathon test of endurance and intention—is going to throw Trump’s agenda completely off the rails. Just as surely as Booker held the Senate floor, Trump holds the Senate’s majority. If Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune play their cards carefully, they can wedge a whole lot of their agenda across the finish line with a bare majority, sidestepping the need for any Democratic votes. It’s a lot messier in the House, but Trump has yet to lose a major vote under Speaker Mike Johnson. It’s why, at their core, Democrats are slouching around the Capitol with a sense of irrelevance and contempt. Booker’s show gave those despondent Democrats reason to think that they still can muster some meaningful, dynamic opposition. It’s tough to overstate just how much heart his protest performance offered his party. “More Americans need to stand up and say enough is enough,” he said. The message, it seemed, was finding open ears. On TikTok, Booker’s live stream snagged more than 200 million likes. Even some Republican lawmakers expressed admiration, including Sen. Ted Cruz who took the floor hostage in 2013 over Obamacare. “As ⁦@CoryBooker⁩ approaches my 21-hour filibuster record, I’m contemplating pulling the fire alarm….” Cruz tweeted. But Republicans also understood that the show here was not going to derail their plans for a spending plan to get them to the Oct. 1 start of the federal fiscal year. The two chambers are on track to push through mismatched spending frameworks, both replete with spending cuts, and work out their differences later. That is likely to complicate things for Republicans, but they’ve shown plenty of pliability when the White House—and Trump, specifically—comes down hard on lawmakers who may balk at this novel approach. For his part, Booker only offered to stand and speak. “My voice is inadequate,” Booker said. “My efforts today are inadequate to stop what they’re trying to do. But we the people are powerful.” Perhaps. That power may find a hard limit against Trumpism, but at least someone is starting to test it inside the Democratic Party.

International trading partners and U.S. consumers alike are watching closely for what President Donald Trump does on April 2, which he has dubbed “Liberation Day.” That’s when the President will announce a sweeping set of reciprocal tariffs—which involve levying taxes on imported goods at the same rate that U.S. exports are taxed. President Trump has claimed that such tariffs would increase domestic jobs and bring companies back to the country. But his policies could upend existing trade relations and will come at a hefty price for the American consumer. “This is a prelude to act one of a global trade war. Then, I think we will see the reality as not America first but America alone,” Brown University economics professor Şebnem Kalemli-Özcan told TIME. “Nobody will want to trade with the U.S. and nobody [will] want to do business with the U.S.” Typically, the cost incurred by companies hit with tariffs is passed down to the consumer. The price of electronics, for example, will rise by some 10% based on existing tariffs, according to the Budget Lab. Now, everything from apparel to wine is in Trump’s crosshairs. Low-and-middle-income Americans will face the brunt of the tariffs, research shows. Experts say that many families do not have enough financial income to smooth out the shock of the increased prices of goods. The expected tariffs come after Trump signed a presidential memorandum in February calling for fairness in U.S. trade relationships. “Gone are the days of America being taken advantage of: this plan will put the American worker first, improve our competitiveness in every area of industry, reduce our trade deficit, and bolster our economic and national security,” the White House fact sheet reads. The trade policies are also part of a broader effort by the Administration to raise funds to counteract the tax breaks given to the wealthiest Americans. But tariffs alone can’t fix the U.S. trade deficit. Kalemli-Özcan says that the tariffs will isolate American companies, making them lose access to foreign innovations and technological advances. Without policies to promote domestic manufacturing, industries would be disrupted. “Starting a whole industry, [and having] it come up to scale so that you really satisfy demand of all U.S. consumers—that's going to [take] nothing short of a decade,” she says. “At that point, we are going to have a very sluggish economy because we killed the dynamics of our economy.” The exact details of the new reciprocal tariffs remain unknown. But there are a few general ways they might hit the average person. Even before the new tariffs are announced, China, the world’s largest trading partner, is facing a 20% tariff, which increased from the initial 10% tariff imposed in early February. On the campaign trail, Trump teased a potential tariff of 60% or higher on all Chinese imports. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget U.S. Budget Watch, a nonprofit, estimated such a tax would eventually cause a loss in U.S. revenue as the high tax would likely decrease imports from China by some 85%. China is the largest supplier of goods to the U.S., sending telephones, computers, and electric batteries—meaning the prices of those products will increase. China has retaliated with a 15% tax on U.S. agricultural products such as chicken and wheat, while soybeans, pork, and fruit will see a 10% tariff. China’s government has also blocked a number of U.S. companies from operating in China, the New York Times reported. The actions put the livelihood of farmers at risk as local Chinese suppliers may seek alternatives to the goods imported from U.S. “This is not something the U.S. holds all the cards in,” Kalemli-Özcan says. Chinese traders can opt to purchase foreign fruit and poultry from other countries, while U.S. farmers may not be able to find other buyers as easily. Trump, however, indicated that he could decrease tariffs on China as a bargaining chip for the sale of TikTok, which must divest from parent company Byte Dance and find a U.S.-based owner by April 5. Meanwhile, Mexico and Canada—the two biggest trading partners of the U.S. which have historically been close allies—are facing a 25% tariff on all goods. The Budget Lab, which modeled the effects of such tariffs, estimates that the cost of fresh produce in U.S. grocery stores will increase by 2.9%. Avocados, about 90% of which come from neighboring Mexico, would certainly increase in price. And prior to the announcement of the 25% auto tariff, the report found that motor vehicle prices for U.S. car buyers could rise by 6.1%. In the end, consumers and companies will remain in limbo as the Administration continues its fluctuating tariff policy. “The uncertainties are telling the consumer ‘don't consume,’ telling the businesses ‘cut your investment…do not hire new workers,’ because [of] the outlook,” Kalemli-Özcan says. A recession might not come as a direct result of the tariffs, but she predicts a definite “slowdown in economic growth” from such policies.

It wasn’t too long ago that Donald Trump relished taking credit for moving the stock market. During his first term he routinely told supporters to check the gains on their 401Ks. The day before he took office, Trump told political supporters at a rally, “I don't want to say this—it's too braggadocious—but we'll say it anyway, the Trump effect. It's you. You're the effect. Since the election, the stock market has surged.” That’s changed. Since Trump took office, the stock market has faltered. The uncertainty around Trump’s vows to move forward with punishing tariffs on imports has rattled investors; the S&P 500 and Nasdaq just finished out their worst quarter since 2022. And new polling shows that Americans are losing faith in how Trump is handling the economy. But Trump’s not backing down. On Wednesday, he’s expected to announce sweeping across-the-board tariffs on imported goods during a Rose Garden ceremony that he’s promoting as “Liberation Day” and the “rebirth of our country.” While Trump has promised that his new tariffs will pressure companies to open more factories inside the U.S. and lead to better trade deals with other countries, prominent economists and researchers for banks predict the new tariffs will lead to fewer jobs, a higher unemployment rate, and a drop in the U.S. gross domestic product. In mid-March, JPMorgan Chase lowered its prediction for GDP growth because of the uncertainty around Trump’s trade policy. Real GDP growth of the U.S. economy would be 1.6% in 2025, J.P. Morgan Research predicted, down 0.3% from its previous estimates. Part of the volatility in the stock market has been a response to the unpredictability of Trump’s stop-and-start tariff actions over the past few weeks. While announcing and then cancelling some tariffs, he has managed to impose a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports and a similar tariff on auto imports. Trump has telegraphed that his tariff announcement Wednesday would be broad and sweeping, with few exceptions. “You’d start with all countries,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday. Trump has acknowledged that Americans need to brace themselves for some economic pain. During Trump’s address to Congress in March, he said, “There will be a little disturbance. But we’re OK with that. It won’t be much.” A few days later, speaking with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News, Trump called the impact of his tariffs, “a little disruption.” “Look, what I have to do is build a strong country. You can't really watch the stock market,” Trump said. Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday was asked what Trump has to say to Americans who rely on their retirement accounts and have concerns about the fluctuations in the stock market. “Well, certainly they are legitimate concerns, and the president takes those concerns very seriously, and he’s addressing them every single day,” Leavitt said. Recent polling has shown that an increasing number of Americans are worried about the impact Trump’s actions are having on the U.S. economy. A Fox News poll conducted in mid-March found that 53% of voters thought tariffs harm the U.S. economy and 28% believed they help. The poll also found 69% of voters think tariffs make products more expensive, a view shared by mainstream economists. An AP-NORC pool conducted at the end of March found that 60% of US adults disapprove of Trump’s handling of trade negotiations. As Trump’s rolled out his economic plans, fewer and fewer Americans think his ideas will help them financially, according to a CBS News/YouGov poll. At the end of March, that poll found that 23% of Americans thought Trump’s policies would make them financially better off, a drop from 42% in January. The next several months will be a test for Trump’s theory that increasing tariffs will ultimately strengthen the American economy. “There is substantial disagreement about the effect of tariffs between most economists and some key people in the White House,” says Whit Ayres, a long-time Republican strategist and pollster. “We’re gonna end up finding out who’s right.”

Democrats have been struggling to energize their frustrated base since losing all three branches of government in the November 2024 election. Senator Cory Booker may have found a way. For more than 25 hours, the New Jersey Democrat stood at the Senate lectern speaking against President Donald Trump’s policies in what may be the most dramatic and sustained public challenge to Trump’s agenda since his return to the White House. By Tuesday evening, Booker, his voice hoarse but unwavering, broke the record for the longest speech in Senate history, which was previously held by Senator Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina segregationist who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Booker began speaking at 7 p.m. on Monday, determined to disrupt Senate proceedings and draw attention to what he described as the reckless dismantling of government programs and institutions under Trump. His speech—equal parts policy critique and moral call to action—was punctuated by impassioned readings from the Constitution, testimonies from constituents, and references to civil rights icons. “This is not a partisan moment—it is a moral moment,” Booker said around the 20-hour mark, gripping a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution. “Where do you stand?” Though not a filibuster in the technical sense—his remarks were not tied to a specific vote—Booker’s address ground the Senate to a halt. More significantly, his speech became an unexpected rallying cry for Democrats seeking to reinvigorate opposition to the President’s policies ahead of the next election cycle. Hundreds of thousands of viewers tuned in online to watch Booker’s historic stand. It was a remarkable display of stamina as he pushed through exhaustion to keep his protest alive. “I’m rip-roaring and ready,” he said at the beginning. “I’m wide awake. I’m going to stand here for as many hours as I can.” Booker remained standing throughout, refraining from bathroom breaks to maintain control of the floor. Occasionally, fellow Democratic Senators interjected with lengthy questions—allowing Booker to briefly rest his voice without yielding the floor. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a longtime ally who led a nearly 15-hour filibuster to advocate for gun control in 2016, was with Booker throughout his speech as he pressed forward. Booker fueled his speech with occasional sips of water but otherwise spoke uninterrupted. He invoked the words of Representative John Lewis, the late civil rights leader, who urged Americans to get into “good trouble” in the pursuit of justice. “How am I living up to his words?” Booker asked. A one-time presidential candidate, Booker denounced the Trump Administration’s attacks on Medicaid and Social Security, and assailed its handling of immigration, education, and national security. He argued that its policies had inflicted “harm after harm” on ordinary Americans and undermined the nation’s democratic institutions. As he neared the record Tuesday evening, Booker noted that he had long been troubled by Thurmond’s place in Senate history and saw his own speech as an opportunity to reclaim the record. "To hate him is wrong, and maybe my ego got too caught up that if I stood here, maybe, maybe, just maybe, I could break this record of the man who tried to stop the rights upon which I stand,” Booker said. “I'm not here though because of his speech. I'm here despite his speech. I'm here because as powerful as he was, the people were more powerful." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer then took a moment to mark the accomplishment. “Do you know how proud this caucus is of you?” he asked Booker, as Senators applauded. “Do you know how proud America is of you?” Booker said he would keep speaking, but only for a little longer. “Then I’m gonna deal with some of the biological urgencies I’m feeling.” His marathon speech came at a time when many progressive Democrats feel let down by recent compromises with Republicans, including a Trump-backed budget deal that ten Senate Democrats supported last month to avoid a government shutdown. A February CNN/SSRS poll found that nearly three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults felt congressional Democrats weren’t doing enough to oppose Trump. Booker’s speech, while not directly blocking any Republican attempts to advance Trump’s agenda, could serve as a direct response to those frustrations, signaling his willingness to challenge the status quo and take a stand against the compromises that many feel have weakened the party’s resistance to Trump’s agenda. "I've been hearing from people all over my state and indeed all over the nation calling upon folks in Congress to do more, to do things that recognize the urgency, the crisis of the moment," Booker said in a video posted to social media beforehand. "And so we all have a responsibility, I believe, to do something different, to cause — as John Lewis said — 'good trouble,' and that includes me." Speaking to reporters afterwards, Booker said that he hasn’t eaten food since Friday and that he stopped drinking liquids on Sunday night in order to maintain stamina for the 25-hour speech. By the end, he said his muscles were cramping up from a lack of water. He declined to answer when asked if he used a catheter or wore a diaper. When asked if he saw himself as the future of the Democratic resistance against Trump, the 55-year-old Booker demurred. “I'm just trying to step up, because we all should be thinking about doing this,” he said. “I’m really hoping that, as I said, a new generation of leaders in America can come. That generation is here.” Was this speech a filibuster? While Booker’s speech kept the Senate floor occupied for more than 24 hours, it does not qualify as a traditional filibuster. A filibuster is typically aimed at delaying or obstructing the passage of specific legislation or the confirmation of nominees. In contrast, Booker’s speech is a broader critique of President Trump’s policies rather than an attempt to block a specific vote. That said, the impact is similar. By taking the floor for such an extended period, Booker is disrupting the normal functioning of the Senate, drawing attention to what he and many of his Democratic colleagues view as a dangerous political climate under Trump’s leadership. Prior to Booker’s record, the longest individual speech belonged to the late Senator Strom Thurmond, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in a failed attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957. More recently, Republican Senator Ted Cruz spoke for 21 hours and 19 minutes in 2013 to protest the Affordable Care Act, which had been law for three years. Under Senate rules, a Senator recognized by the presiding officer can speak for as long as they wish, provided they remain standing and continue speaking. Booker, who appeared to have nothing more than two glasses of water and notes on his lectern, skillfully used the rules to his advantage, permitting colleagues to ask questions to give himself brief moments of rest while still maintaining control of the floor. Senator Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat, noted one of Booker’s tactics: “Cory had a Senate page take his chair away to eliminate any temptation to sit down,” Murphy posted on X late Monday night. What did Booker say? Through Monday night and into Tuesday, Booker laid out a wide-ranging critique of the Trump Administration’s policies, focusing on cuts to government services and its crackdown on immigrants. He argued that the Administration's agenda disproportionately benefits the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans, citing proposed tax cuts that he said would further enrich billionaires while threatening funding for essential programs like Social Security and Medicaid. Trump has denied that he plans to cut Medicaid benefits, which provides health care to low-income Americans, but the Administration’s broad cuts across the federal government have raised concerns that programs like Medicaid and Social Security will eventually see reduced services. Trump and his allies have asserted they only intend to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from programs like Medicaid. Throughout the night, Booker read letters from constituents worried about losing access to affordable health care, emphasizing that these concerns were not abstract but deeply personal for millions of people. “How much more will we take of this?” Booker asked on Tuesday morning, referencing potential cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. “How much more of these indignities will we take as [Trump] turns his back on our allies? How much more of a person that is doing tyrannical things—as he takes our Constitution and continues to trash it, as he's running into judge after judge after judge that's trying to stop him?” “This is not who we are or how we do things in America,” Booker added. “How much more can we endure before we, as a collective voice, say enough is enough? Enough is enough. You're not going to get away with this.” On foreign policy, Booker criticized Trump’s proposals to acquire Greenland and Canada, arguing that such efforts are undermining America’s credibility on the global stage and distracting from more pressing diplomatic and security challenges. Booker pointed to how U.S. relationships with traditional allies have quickly deteriorated under Trump. As Trump prepared to unveil more tariffs on his so-called Liberation Day on Wednesday, Booker warned: "It's going to hurt us more as a nation in the long run." Booker also took aim at billionaire Elon Musk’s leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency, arguing that placing one of the Republican Party’s biggest donors and the recipient of billions in government contracts at the helm of federal restructuring efforts raised serious ethical and governance issues. He brought up Musk’s pledge to fund primary challengers to replace any Republicans in Congress who voted against Trump’s agenda. “Here’s something that pains me to hear: that Elon Musk is calling Republicans up and saying, ‘If you take this stand, I’m going to put $100 million in a primary against you,‘” Booker said. “They are bullying people who dare to stand up and say, ‘Maybe this appointee is not the most qualified person to lead this Cabinet position.’ Or ‘Maybe it’s wrong to cut this agency we created together in Congress,‘” he continued. A symbol of Democratic frustration Since Trump’s election, Democrats have struggled to present a unified strategy against a White House that has frequently outmaneuvered them. The party’s progressive wing was particularly incensed last month when ten Senate Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a Trump-backed budget deal to keep the government open, a move that many on the left saw as a capitulation. Booker’s speech appears designed to reassure the party’s base that Democratic leaders are willing to fight. “The threats to the American people and American democracy are grave and urgent,” Booker said. “And we all must do more to stand against them.” The White House dismissed Booker’s speech as political theater. A spokesperson mocked the senator’s effort in a statement to Fox News, calling it “another ‘I am Spartacus’ moment,” referencing Booker’s remarks during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “When will he realize he’s not Spartacus—he’s a spoof?” the statement said. The effectiveness of the strategy depends on how it resonates with the public and whether it ultimately shifts the political conversation. Booker’s marathon speech, while powerful, is unlikely to directly impact the broader legislative landscape—but it could serve to embolden Democrats who feel increasingly sidelined in a Senate controlled by Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised Booker’s efforts, calling them a vital stand against the “huge dangers that face [Americans] with this Trump-DOGE-Musk Administration.” “Your strength, your fortitude, your clarity has just been nothing short of amazing and all of America is paying attention to what you’re saying,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “All of America needs to know there’s so many problems, the disastrous actions of this administration.” Who is Cory Booker? With some Democrats eager for new party leadership, the effort by Booker could elevate his status within the party and position him as a leading figure in the opposition to Trump. A former mayor of Newark, N.J., Booker, 55, was once seen as a fast-rising star in the political world, known for his charisma, optimism, and progressive policies. He served as Newark’s mayor from 2006 to 2013, earning national attention for his efforts to revitalize the city and his activism on issues of social justice. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2013. When he launched a presidential bid in 2019, he struggled to gain traction in a crowded field.

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday evening that he would be selling a “gold card,” allowing foreign-born potential immigrants a pathway to citizenship for $5 million. “You have a green card. This is a gold card,” the President told reporters in the Oval Office. “We’re going to be putting a price on that card of about $5 million and that’s going to give you green card privileges, plus it’s going to be a route to citizenship. And wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card.” The President said that cards would begin to be sold in “about two weeks,” though experts warn that the newly-announced program cannot be done by Trump alone. “A President can't create a visa. That's for Congress to do,” says Lori Nessel, a professor at Seton Hall University’s School of Law. The Trump Administration has been looking for ways to cut the U.S. deficit through new agencies like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and the “gold card” could be just one such way the President is hoping to increase revenue. An Oct. 28, 2024, analysis of the Trump Administration’s fiscal plan found that it would likely increase the deficit by $7.75 trillion over the next decade. Last year, the federal deficit reached $1.83 trillion, according to fiscal data by the U.S. Treasury Department. The announcement of the program also arrives as the Administration continues its crackdown on immigration, attempting to shut down asylum at the border and committing to enacting the “largest deportation operation” in U.S. history. On Tuesday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that, with “limited exceptions,” all undocumented immigrants aged 14 or older “who were not fingerprinted or registered when applying for a U.S. visa and who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer” have to sign up for an immigration registry. Experts say that the program shows the Administration’s priorities when it comes to immigration. “To say, on the one hand, we are going to deport everyone in this country who's here without permission and we are going to close down our borders. And then, at the same time, say we're going to dramatically increase the number of people that can come in—if they've got millions of dollars—it's very clear messaging in terms of who's wanted in American society,” says Nessel. While there are arguably more questions about the potential gold cards than answers at present, here’s what we know so far. What is Trump's "gold card" route to citizenship? Trump’s “gold card” would essentially allow wealthy foreigners to pay their way to American citizenship through a $5 million dollar fee. The “gold card” would replace the existing EB-5 immigrant investor visa program, which allows foreign investors to apply for lawful permanent residence if they invest in commercial enterprises and plan to create or preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for U.S. workers, according to USCIS. While the “gold card” visa may appear similar, experts warn that EB-5 has guardrails in place to specifically prevent the rich and wealthy from being able to purchase citizenship. “It's not about paying the government millions of dollars to get a visa. It's about showing that you have the capital available to actually improve our economy,” says Nessel. Even for those who are granted an EB-5, the green card they receive is conditional for two years “specifically, out of concern that it is not just buying your way in,” Nessel explains. “Within 90 days of that two-year period ending, the investor has to document and show that they actually have done what they said they would do, and they are creating jobs in the [U.S.] economy.” Nessel notes that similar visa programs in other countries have been shut down to a variety of concerns, including money laundering and tax evasion. A program that has drawn comparisons in Spain, which required incoming immigrants to purchase property, will officially close this April due to concerns it is making housing unaffordable for locals. During his first Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump said there was a “thirst” for the “gold card” visa and touted it as a way to attract entrepreneurs. “Companies can buy gold cards and, in exchange, get those visas to hire new employees,” the President said. “No other country can do this because people don’t want to go to other countries. They want to come here.” How might Trump's "gold card" work? It is not clear how Trump’s “gold card” would work. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said at the Oval Office that potential applicants for the “gold card” visa would have to go through a vetting process to ensure they are “wonderful world-class global citizens,” but did not give further details. When asked by the press whether Russian oligarchs could apply to the program, Trump said: “Possibly. I know some Russian oligarchs who are very nice people.” The legality of the “gold card” visa is also in question. The EB-5 program, which the Administration said they were replacing, was created by Congress in 1990. That program allows potential immigrants who invest $1,050,000, or $800,000 in targeted employment areas—meaning rural areas or areas experiencing high unemployment—to apply for a green card, though there are a number of other qualifications applicants have to meet and it can be a rather lengthy process. “The EB-5 program was created by Congress. It's in statute. The President doesn't have the authority to override [that],” says Jorge Loweree, the managing director of programs at the American Immigration Council. The EB-5 visa has an annual cap of about 10,000 visas a year, or some 7.1% of the 140,000 employment-based visas available every fiscal year, per the State Department. It's possible that there will be no caps on “gold card” visas like there are for all other visas to the U.S. “200,000 of these gold, green cards is $1 trillion to pay down our debt and that’s why the President is doing it,” Lutnick said during Trump’s first Cabinet meeting. “Because we are going to balance this budget and we are going to pay off the debt under President Trump.” Speaking to Fox News, Lutnick said the number of people waiting for such a visa was even higher, estimating it to be 250,000, though it is not clear where he got that number from. Lutnick has been a vocal critic of the program. On Tuesday, he called it “full of nonsense, make-believe, and fraud,” and referred to it as a “way to get a green card that was low-price.” How are government officials reacting to Trump's “gold card” proposal? Some officials have been critical of Trump’s newly-announced proposal. Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a Democrat, said that he thought immigration should follow a merit-based approach, and asked for reform to the H-1B visa, which allows U.S. employers to sponsor foreign-born workers in a specialty occupation. “We should welcome talented workers to America who will bring their creativity and productivity while also reforming the H1-B program to prevent abuses," Khanna said to Newsweek. Rep. Jake Auchincloss, a Democrat from Massachusetts, also called out Trump’s plan. “It's typical Trump policy in which he takes a kernel of a legitimately good idea which is that we do need immigration reform… and he takes it to a corrupt and counterproductive place,” he told CNN. “We were talking about having scientists come to America to cure disease and now he takes it to ‘let's have Russian oligarchs here,’ to come to America and play golf with him.”

A group of conservative influencers left the White House on Thursday afternoon, all holding white binders emblazoned with the Department of Justice seal. Some of them held up the binders to the cameras, which showed that they were labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1.” The unusual scene came just hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was confirmed earlier this month, vowed to release a cache of documents related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Bondi had promised that the files would include flight logs and the names of individuals involved, but she had cautioned that some information could not be disclosed due to the need to protect more than 250 victims. A review of the released documents found that they included heavy redactions and mostly information that had been previously reported. While the binders appeared to be marked “declassified,” questions remained as to whether they had ever been classified in the first place. The limited scope of the release drew criticism from some Republicans, including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, who leads a House GOP task force on government transparency. “I nor the task force were given or reviewed the Epstein documents being released today … A NY Post story just revealed that the documents will simply be Epstein’s phonebook,” Luna tweeted. “THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment. GET US THE INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR!” In a Thursday letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, Bondi suggested that the FBI had more documents related to Epstein’s investigation and indictment. She ordered the “full and complete” Epstein files to be delivered to her office by Friday morning, and also ordered Patel to “conduct an immediate investigation” as to why her previous order on delivering all the files wasn’t followed. As the Epstein documents were released, Patel posted on X that the bureau is “entering a new era.” He added: “If there are gaps, we will find them. If records have been hidden, we will uncover them. And we will bring everything we find to the DOJ to be fully assessed and transparently disseminated to the American people as it should be.” Among those carrying the binders outside the White House was political commentator Rogan O’Handley, known online as DC Draino, along with Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik, podcaster Liz Wheeler, and Jack Posobiec, among others. Some posted the same seemingly coordinated message on X, including the line: “This is the most transparent administration in American history.” Bondi discussed the release of the documents in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, offering a glimpse of what might be included—though she stopped short of confirming whether new revelations would emerge from the files, beyond what the public already knew. Epstein’s dark history, marked by his abuse of underage girls, has been extensively documented over the years, with multiple lawsuits, criminal dockets, and public disclosures laying bare the extent of his crimes. In January 2024, a court unsealed a large batch of documents from the lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s victims. The materials released at that time, including police reports and victim testimonies, had already been publicly circulated. Epstein’s predatory behavior spanned more than a decade, with allegations dating back to the 1990s. He was accused of abusing hundreds of children, some as young as 14, in a sprawling operation allegedly involving high-profile individuals, including politicians, celebrities, and royalty. Epstein’s death in 2019, ruled a suicide while in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial, only fueled conspiracy theories and renewed calls for transparency.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a tense showdown in the Oval Office on Friday—the likes of which many world leaders were able to watch unfold, thanks to the media being present with their cameras rolling. The pair, joined by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, interrupted each other repeatedly during a meeting initially intended to be about a key U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement. “You don’t have the cards right now,” Trump told Zelensky in the exchange, referencing Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelensky responded with a point of his own: “We’re not playing cards.” Trump made various other remarks about Zelensky and Ukraine’s current position, and the involvement the Biden Administration had in supplying support and funds to Ukraine after it was invaded by Russia. Zelensky remained steadfast on his point that a cease-fire agreement between Ukraine and Russia wouldn't be sufficient without security guarantees from the U.S., and that Putin cannot be trusted. “You’re gambling with [the] lives of millions of people, you’re gambling with World War III and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to this country,” Trump told Zelensky. Trump followed that up by saying: “Your men are brave, but they had our military. If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.” Shortly after the exchange, Trump canceled a planned press conference with Zelensky and cut off negotiations. He took to his own social media platform, Truth Social, where he wrote that Zelensky “is not ready for Peace if America is involved.” “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace,” Trump said. Following the Oval Office confrontation, many world leaders have spoken out, remarking upon what happened. Many have reified their support for Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s invasion. A few have supported Trump. Zelensky took to posting on X (formerly Twitter) to thank the world leaders who have come to his defense on the platform. The Ukrainian leader travelled to London and met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as planned, on Saturday. Zelensky remarked on social media that they'd had a "meaningful and warm meeting." "During our talks, we discussed the challenges facing Ukraine and all of Europe, coordination with partners, concrete steps to strengthen Ukraine’s position, and ending the war with a just peace, along with robust security guarantees," Zelensky said. Later on Saturday, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves and Ukraine's Finance Minister Sergii Marchenko signed the U.K.-Ukraine Bilateral agreement. The U.K. reinforced its support for Ukraine with a £2.26 billion ($2.84 billion) loan to bolster Ukrainian defence capabilities.

It was evening in Kyiv when the news from the White House arrived. My dinner mate, a colonel in the Ukrainian armed forces, got a call on his phone while raising a toast, and I could hear a muffled voice urging him to watch the footage from the Oval Office. We pulled it up on the colonel’s phone and sat there, slack jawed, the fat coagulating on our plates, as my President and his President went at each other like a pair of feuding in-laws. A long moment passed before my companion rendered his verdict. Molodets, he said of President Volodymyr Zelensky. “Well done.” I had rarely heard the officer praise his commander-in-chief. But he seemed genuinely impressed. “He pushed back," he said of Zelensky. "You have to respect that.” Then he paused again, looking down at the screen, and added: “But now we’re f---ed.” It was evening in Kyiv when the news from the White House arrived. My dinner mate, a colonel in the Ukrainian armed forces, got a call on his phone while raising a toast, and I could hear a muffled voice urging him to watch the footage from the Oval Office. We pulled it up on the colonel’s phone and sat there, slack jawed, the fat coagulating on our plates, as my President and his President went at each other like a pair of feuding in-laws. A long moment passed before my companion rendered his verdict. Molodets, he said of President Volodymyr Zelensky. “Well done.” I had rarely heard the officer praise his commander-in-chief. But he seemed genuinely impressed. “He pushed back," he said of Zelensky. "You have to respect that.” Then he paused again, looking down at the screen, and added: “But now we’re f---ed.” But those closest to Zelensky knew the outburst had plenty of precedents—except, in the past, they played out behind closed doors. President Joe Biden had similar clashes with Zelensky early in the war. In the summer of 2022, the U.S. agreed to provide a massive package of military aid to Ukraine, including an advanced missile system that Biden withheld for months out of fear of drawing the U.S. deeper into the war. During a phone call to talk about the aid package, which was worth about a billion dollars, Zelensky took barely a minute to thank Biden before he began asking for more assistance. Biden lost his temper in response, chastising the Ukrainian leader for seeming ungrateful. About a year later, Zelensky received a similar dressing down from Ben Wallace, who was then the British Defense Minister. “People want to see gratitude,” Wallace said at a NATO summit in July 2023. “We’re not Amazon.” The U.K. had delivered so many de-mining vehicles to the Ukrainians, Wallace added, “that I think there’s none left.” After the spat, Wallace received so much blowback for his remarks that he issued an apology to Zelensky. On Friday night, it was Zelensky who faced pressure to apologize to Trump during an interview with Fox News, and he declined to offer one. “No. I respect [the] President, and I respect American people,” he said calmly. “I think we have to be very open and very honest, and I’m not sure that we did something bad.” To many Ukrainians, Zelensky was right. In the Oval Office and on Fox News, he spoke with all the conviction and self-respect that his citizens have come to expect from their leader. He has long internalized their collective pain and anger at the Russian invasion, and he has made an art of channeling those emotions as he seeks to win the support of the world. Maybe this time he chose the wrong setting to speak so freely with such a crucial ally. But the main response among my friends in Kyiv was pride in having a leader with such a backbone. “Every time he goes abroad, he carries with him what we feel here,” one of them told me on Friday night. “That’s part of his job. To express those feelings to the world.”

President Donald Trump is set to make a highly-anticipated speech at a joint session of Congress. The address to members of Congress will be Trump’s first since he was sworn in as President for the second time on Jan. 20. Presidents typically address a joint session of Congress soon after they take office and use it as an opportunity to go over their agenda. Trump began making moves on his agenda quickly after he was sworn in, signing a number of Executive Orders on his first day in office, including one withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) and another that aimed to redefine birthright citizenship (the latter has been blocked by multiple judges). In a Jan. 25 post shared on X, Republican House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson said: “It is my distinct honor and great privilege to invite President Donald Trump to address a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, to share his America First vision for our future.” Johnson also shared a letter of the invite. Where is the joint session of Congress taking place? Trump will address members of Congress in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. How can I watch Trump's address to the joint session of Congress? You can watch Trump’s address live on C-SPAN. Many radio stations and broadcast networks will also be airing or streaming Trump’s address live, including CBS News and CNN. Trump’s speech is reportedly set to begin at around 9 p.m. ET, but some news networks and outlets will start live coverage and analysis hours earlier.