Senator Cory Booker’s vigorous address opposing the policies of President Trump’s administration—supported by numerous Democratic colleagues—did more than set a new longest Senate floor speech record; it reignited interest in a longstanding Senate tradition. The New Jersey senator spoke continuously for 25 hours and 5 minutes from Monday night into Tuesday, engaging hundreds of thousands of viewers and significantly increasing Google searches for the term "filibuster."
Despite its length, Booker’s speech did not technically qualify as a filibuster, as it was not intended to block a specific legislative bill or nomination. According to the U.S. Senate’s definition, a filibuster involves action aimed at extending debate to delay or prevent a vote on legislative matters.
Casey Burgat, the Legislative Affairs Program Director at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, explains that such prolonged speeches can elevate awareness of the topics being discussed or allow more time for essential discussions regarding contentious bills.
The use of speaking tactics to delay legislative processes by engaging in extended debates is a longstanding Senate practice. Senator Strom Thurmond historically held a filibuster lasting over 24 hours against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, a record broken by Booker. This recent long speech by Booker has drawn renewed focus on the practice of filibustering. NPR’s "Word of the Week" segment traces how the term has evolved from its origins with swashbuckling piracy to modern legislative delays.
Initially, "filibuster" described rogue military activities, derived from the Spanish word "filibustero," meaning pirate. The mid-19th-century usage referred to Americans participating in unauthorized foreign military endeavors. As the term entered the English lexicon during the 1840s, it quickly transitioned to the political arena to describe obstructionist tactics in the Senate. It first appeared in this context in the 1850s when such practices became frequent enough to adopt this term.
Filibustering as a delaying tactic dates back to the first session of the Senate in 1789. Over time, its usage became widespread, earning it the metaphorical comparison to piracy—suggesting legislators were acting as political raiders for personal gain.
In popular culture, filibusters have been immortalized, notably in Frank Capra’s 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Here, James Stewart portrayed an idealistic senator who executed a solo filibuster to uphold his integrity against a corrupt political backdrop.
Real-life Senate examples include a 1917 speech by Senator Robert La Follette against U.S. entry into World War I and a 1953 speech by Senator Wayne Morse protesting the Submerged Lands Act, the latter now the third longest after Booker’s recent speech.
Historically, Southern Democrats, including Thurmond, used the filibuster to postpone civil rights legislation for roughly a decade in the mid-20th century. Burgat notes that the filibuster is often politically convenient, used to either hinder unwanted legislation or slow proceedings when in political opposition. Consequently, the filibuster’s evolution—from vocal opposition to silent procedural threat—has turned into a mere threat rather than physical demonstrations, as 60 votes are now needed to cease debate through cloture.
Booker’s prolonged speech spotlights this historical practice when public trust in government institutions is low. Despite not halting any specific legislation, it sparked conversations and drew public attention to the topic, resonating with the senator’s intended democratic discourse.
Such speeches, while rare due to their physical demands, may inspire other senators to use them strategically to gain public attention and provoke wider political discussion in the future.
