Cory Booker slams Dem colleagues as 'complicit' with Trump in angry 'wake-up call' floor speech
Booker accused his fellow Democrat senators of aligning themselves with Trump because they are in favor of passing legislation, which, void of amendments Booker just began pushing, still allows the president to pick winners and losers in terms of who receives the benefits, he says. "This to me is the problem with Democrats in America right now," Booker complained while objecting to the package of pro-police bills.
Booker's objection to the bill, which he says boosts Trump's use of federal funding as leverage to get jurisdictions and entities to change their behavior, comes as the president has threatened to repeal funding and resources from cities and other jurisdictions that push sanctuary city policies, fail to adequately address homelessness, or refuse compliance with other federal directives.
"The Democratic Party needs a wake up call. I see law firms bending a knee to this president … I see universities that should be bastions of free speech bending at the knee to this president … I see businesses taking late-night talk show hosts off the air because they dare to insult a president. I see people who want mergers suddenly think they need to pay tribute to this president," Booker complained from the Senate floor. "And what are the very people here elected to defend the constitution of the United States saying?" he asked. "'Oh well today lets look the other way and pass some resources that won't go to Connecticut, that won't go to Illinois, that won't go to New York, that will go to the states [Trump] likes.'"
"That is complicity with an authoritarian leader who is trashing our country," Booker argued to his fellow Democrats. "It is time for Democrats to have a backbone, it's time for us to fight, it's time for us to draw a line, and when it comes to the safety of my state being denied these grants that's why I'm standing here."
Booker's objection stemmed from a call from Democrats to pass a package of law enforcement-related bills aimed at boosting resources for police, including resources to help shore up death benefits for police officers lost in the line of duty, resources for greater mental health support for officers, resources to address child exploitation, and more. The bills, eventually passed Tuesday, were discussed and approved in committee before reaching the Senate floor.
Democrat leaders, including Sens. Catherine Cortez-Masto, D-Nev., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Mass., urged passage of the legislative package amid Booker's objection, noting it went through the proper bipartisan procedure and obtained bipartisan support.
"We have committees for a reason, and we have hearings for a reason," Klobuchar said in response to Booker's objections. She added that "We need to have [law enforcement's] backs and that is what this package of bills does."
Cortez-Masto noted that the bills, which she helped sponsor and bring to the floor for a full vote, slammed Booker for attempting to tank a package of bills deemed critical by both parties.
"I don't need lectures about the urgency of this," Booker shot back in response to his party colleagues' criticism. "I am tired of when the President of the United States violates the constitution, trashes our norms and traditions, and what does the Democratic Party do? Comply? Allow him? Beg for scraps? No! I demand justice!"
"NOT ON MY WATCH!" Booker added during his objection, while also urging Democrats to be more cohesive in their fight against Trump. "If we don't stand as Democrats we deserve to lose."
Booker's criticism of his fellow Democratic Party members lays bare Democrats' intra-party fighting between the more radical wing of the party and the more moderate wing.
The New Jersey senator's criticism also comes as the party is seeking to find the best strategy forward following big GOP gains during the 2024 election.
Former President Barack Obama spoke to the matter at a party fundraiser earlier this month, reportedly telling leaders of the party and major donors to "stop looking for a quick fix" and start supporting candidates who can really win and produce results. As an example, the former president pointed particularly at the upcoming elections in New Jersey and Virginia.
Later this year, Virginia will face a major gubernatorial battle between incumbent GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin's Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and former long-time Virginia Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va. In New Jersey, Democrat Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who was reportedly in attendance at the fundraiser Obama spoke at, is running for her state's open gubernatorial seat against GOP candidate Jack Ciattarelli.
"The most important thing you can do right now is to help the team, our candidate to win," Obama told attendees at the fundraiser.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump orders a 35% tariff for goods from Canada, citing a lack of cooperation on illicit drugs
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has raised the tariff rate on U.S. imports from Canada to 35% from 25%, effective Friday. The announcement from the White House late Thursday said Canada had failed to 'do more to arrest, seize, detain or otherwise intercept … traffickers, criminals at large, and illicit drugs.' Trump has heckled Canada for months and suggested it should become its 51st U.S. state. He had threatened to impose the higher tariff on Canada if no deal was reached by Friday, his deadline for reaching trade agreements with dozens of countries. Earlier Thursday, the president said Canada's announcement it will recognize a Palestinian state would 'make it very hard' for the United States to reach a trade agreement with its northern neighbor. Trump has also expressed frustration with a trade deficit with Canada that largely reflects oil purchases by America. Prime Minister Mark Carney had tempered expectations over tariffs, saying Ottawa would only agree to a deal 'if there's one on the table that is in the best interests of Canadians.' In a statement released early Friday, he said he was disappointed by Trump's actions and vowed to diversify Canada's exports. 'Canada accounts for only 1% of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes,' he said, pointing to heavy investments in border security. Carney added that some industries — including lumber, steel, aluminum and automobiles — will be harder hit, but said his government will try to minimize the impact and protect Canadian jobs. Canada was not included in Trump's updated list of tariff rates on other countries announced late Thursday. Those import duties are due to take effect on Aug. 7. Trump sent a letter to Canada a few weeks ago warning he planned to raise duties on many goods imported from Canada to 35%, deepening the rift between the two North American countries that has undermined their decades-old alliance. Some imports from Canada are still protected by the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, which is up for renegotiation next year. The White House's statement said goods transshipped through Canada that are not covered by the USMCA would be subject to a 40% tariff rate. It did not say where the goods might originate. President Donald Trump said Thursday that there would be a 90-day negotiating period with Mexico after a call with that country's leader, Claudia Sheinbaum, keeping 25% tariff rates in place.
CNBC
21 minutes ago
- CNBC
CNBC Daily Open: New Trump tariffs (August remix) have dropped
The first time U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his "reciprocal" tariffs on the rest of the world, the April 2 event had a cinematic, even grand, quality. It took place at the White House Rose Garden. There was a live band playing, according to The Wall Street Journal. Trump hoisted huge physical charts of his tariff rates, which were helpfully color-coded for visual clarity. This time, Trump's updated "reciprocal" tariffs, released the night before they come into effect on Aug. 1, seemed in comparison stripped of pomp and glamor. The White House's executive order popped up around 7 p.m. ET, just as people in the U.S. were getting off work. There was no live event, no big chart and certainly no entertainment — just a stern website with a black-and-white table. That austerity — and, one might even say, stealth — surrounding the recent announcement suggests two things. First, the White House could be aware that the dramatic shock of tariffs has less power to sway trade deals when staged a second time. The "90 deals in 90 days" that trade advisor Peter Navarro had promised in April are, after all, nowhere in sight. Trump, however, still left ajar the door to making "some kind of a deal." Second, the U.S. might actually be pleased with the effects of its higher-than-expected tariffs on countries without deals, and is willing to keep levies at those levels. In June, the U.S. Treasury Department reported an unexpected surplus thanks to tariff revenue, which were more than four times higher from a year ago. And economists aren't as alarmed by tariff-driven inflation as they once were. All that's speculation, of course. The order could have been released in this low-key fashion simply because the Rose Garden is now more like a Concrete Path. Or perhaps Trump doesn't want the penguins on the Heard and McDonald islands to hear about his levies this time. The U.S. rejigs tariff rates ahead of Aug. 1 deadline. Trump's executive order also imposed a 40% duty on all goods considered to have been transshipped to America. Here's how Asian leaders are reacting to the announcement, made Thursday evening stateside. The S&P 500 falls, retreating from an intraday high. Microsoft shares, however, rose around 4% to push the company's market cap above $4 trillion. Asia-Pacific markets — and tech giants, in particular — fell on Friday as investors digest latest tariff developments. Apple beats expectations for profit and revenue. The Cupertino-based company's iPhone sales grew 13% year over year, while overall revenue rose 10% in its fiscal third quarter, the fastest growth since December 2021. Amazon's gloomy guidance overshadows its earnings. Even though the company surpassed Wall Street's estimates for its second-quarter results, its expected operating income for the current quarter wasn't as high as analysts had hoped for. [PRO] Novo Nordisk's stock plunge isn't that surprising. On Tuesday, the firm's shares fell as much as 26% after it slashed its full-year guidance — and appointed a new CEO. Here's why companies tend to make both announcements simultaneously. Tariff turmoil: How global CEOs are shifting gears In interviews with CNBC this earnings season, CEOs across industries sent a clear message: tariffs are no longer just a political tactic. As trade rules grow more uncertain and tariffs resurface in policy discussions, business leaders say they're rethinking everything from where factories are located to how products are priced. The old "just in time" model is giving way to something more cautious: make goods closer to the buyer, ask for exemptions where possible, and stay alert to shifting consumer habits. —
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?
James Thurber's famous book 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is yet another book I would recommend to readers, to continue a recurring theme of recent weeks. It is especially apt in the context of the US-EU trade deal. Walter Mitty appeared at the end of the 1930's, a decade that was shaped by Herbert Hoover's tariff policy, and that was marked by profound economic and geopolitical tensions. Mitty's fantasies were provoked by the reality of his pedestrian, harangued life – which will appeal to European leaders who care to dream of better days. Equally, the giddiness of Mitty's fantasies has its equivalent in the promises that Donald Trump has elicited from the EU – namely, to buy and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in energy. One week on, reaction to the US-EU trade deal is still mixed, and it is not quite clear who has 'won'. This may be because it is not a trade deal in the classical sense – at least in the sense of the laborious trade deals that the EU is used to striking, partly because a large facet of the 'deal' is based on a promise and also because the optics of the deal are quite depressing for Europe. At the headline level, EU exports into the US will be met with a 15% tariff to be paid by the US consumer, not unlike the Japanese 'deal'. Auto companies will not be displeased with a 15% tariff. Wines and spirits, steel and notably pharmaceuticals have yet to have tariff levels finalised and there will be some relief on the confirmation of 15% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, though the investigation into pharmaceutical exports back to the US is a tail risk. Interestingly, the EU has resisted attempts to water down its digital regulations. Politically the spin that the EU is putting on the agreement is that it was the best possible outcome in a difficult geopolitical climate (recall that the recent EU-China summit was a damp-squib). While there were some public expressions of dismay, notably from the French prime minister Francois Bayrou – these can be seen to be largely aimed at the public, rather than Brussels. Though Ursula von der Leyen is unpopular with EU governments for the singular way she runs her office – it is populated with officials who are close to national government (i.e. Alexandre Adam one of von der Leyen's key deputies is an arch Macronist) – there is no sense that the large countries were left out of the negotiation process, and any effort to isolate von der Leyen for blame, is ignoble. However, amongst the professional trade staff, there is still some despair at the humiliating optics of the deal, the fact that it is in many ways not binding, and the risk that there is no undertaking that it is final in the sense that another round of tariffs is imposed later. On the positive side for Europe, and flipping to the 'Mitty-esque' part of the deal, two of the key undertakings in the deal – that European companies invest USD 600 bn in the US, in addition to a commitment to purchase microchips, as well as a commitment from the EU to buy USD 750bn in energy from the US over the course of the Trump presidency – are not at all clear in their implementation, and very much open to a fudge, with the right accounting treatment. In particular the energy purchase commitment is unrealistic because it exceeds what the EU spends on energy in a given year and US energy firms do not have the capacity to service a commitment of USD 250bn in demand from Europe, whilst also serving other markets. In my view there are several aftershocks to watch for. The first is that the deal further damages trans-Atlantic relations, and the level of trust between the EU and the US is likely the lowest it has ever been, and this has strategic implications as far afield as Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East. One other implication may be a drift, by government and consumers, away from US brands – as this may well be an effect that is seen in other regions. Two financial market implications are that the dampening of growth in Europe will maintain downward pressure on rates in Europe. More importantly, in the context of a very oversold dollar, there is now an incentive for EU policy makers to try hard to talk down the euro, and we may see a short-term rebound in the currency pair. On the whole, if this is a 'final' deal and the topic of tariffs does not re-emerge in the next three years, it is not a bad deal for the semi's, autos and aerospace sectors in Europe, though the public optics are not good for the EU. The best parts of the deal for Europe are the fantastical claims of incoming European investment and energy purchases in the US. This is a Mitty style fairy tale that the Europeans hope Mr Trump believes in. The telling factor is that this deal has now emptied all goodwill from the trans-Atlantic relationship, and effectively completes another diplomatic rupture by President Trump. From a European point of view, this is yet another 'wake up call' and the best that can be hoped for is that it accelerates projects like the savings and investment union and 'strategic autonomy'. European leaders and the European policy elite keep talking about this, but until we see hard evidence (for example, German real GDP over the last five years is close to zero), they are the fantasists. Have a great week ahead Mike
