Cory Booker to expand record-breaking Senate speech into book
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) will expand his record-breaking Senate floor speech into a forthcoming book titled 'Stand,' to be published by St. Martin's Press in November.
'This book is about the virtues vital to our success as a nation and lessons we can draw from generations of Americans who fought for them,' Booker said in a statement, according to The Associated Press.
The news comes about two months after Booker's 25-hour Senate floor speech, which broke then-Sen. Strom Thurmond's (S.C.) oration opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
In the book, Booker will reiterate points from his speech, which spanned March 31 and April 1, focusing on the damage being done by Trump administration policies.
The senator and former presidential candidate previously published three books, including 'Cory Booker's Speech of the Century: The complete text of the inspiring speech that broke the record.'
Booker is up for reelection in 2026 and has amassed more than $11 million in his campaign war chest. He has been evasive on the possibility of a 2028 run for president.
NBC News's Kristen Welker asked Booker about potential White House aspirations during a 'Meet the Press' interview last month.
'I'm focused on today and my reelection in '26,' Booker said. 'I've already announced to the people of New Jersey. I'm hoping they'll allow me to be their senator for another six years.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Vice President JD Vance Just Delivered Incredible News to Bitcoin Investors
Vice President JD Vance gave the keynote speech at the Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas. Vance highlighted recent moves by the White House to create pro-crypto policies. Vance also emphasized that Bitcoin is a long-term strategic asset for the government, as well as a potential source of competitive advantage. 10 stocks we like better than Bitcoin › On May 28, Vice President JD Vance gave the keynote speech at the Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) 2025 conference in Las Vegas. He offered a broad overview of what's coming next for crypto, as well as a few insights into how the White House is thinking about Bitcoin right now. Last year, President Donald Trump attended this same event, outlining the major pro-Bitcoin policies of his 2024 campaign platform. So now that top political leaders are openly embracing crypto, what should Bitcoin investors expect? A major focus of Vance's speech was a reiteration of the pro-crypto regulatory approach of the Trump administration. In just five months, the White House has already taken a number of big steps -- including a major shakeup at the Securities and Exchange Commission to make it more crypto-friendly, and the creation of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. All of this is good news for Bitcoin investors, of course. It opens the door to more innovation, economic growth, and wealth for everyday Americans. As Vance pointed out in his keynote, millions of Americans now own Bitcoin. So any moves that can help Bitcoin grow and prosper will help everyday Americans as they save for the future. And there's more good news on the way. Next up, says Vance, is new legislation for dollar-pegged stablecoins, as well as a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto that will help to establish the official rules of the road for Bitcoin. Once that's in place, the mainstream adoption of crypto can really start. Institutions will no longer have an excuse not to get involved with Bitcoin. Vance also emphasized that the White House is thinking about Bitcoin as a long-term strategic asset. That was the stated purpose of creating the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve back in March. The next major step, says Vance, is new legislation that will codify the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in law. Otherwise, the next administration could just as easily reverse the existing executive order with a new executive order of its own. There's a key reason the White House is thinking about Bitcoin as a "strategically important asset" these days. And that's because Bitcoin represents the sort of American values -- innovation, entrepreneurship, freedom, and lack of censorship -- that are anathema to countries such as China. In fact, as Vance pointed out, the U.S. should look to use Bitcoin as a source of competitive advantage against China. All of that should give hope to current Bitcoin investors. There's simply too much invested in Bitcoin for the U.S. government to back off now. The government is going all-in on Bitcoin. As a result, crypto has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. All of that sounds great, of course. It's great to hear that the government is embracing Bitcoin. It's fantastic to hear that Bitcoin could become the answer to some of the economic and strategic problems currently facing the Trump administration. However, it has become impossible to ignore the potential conflicts of interest that may exist. Vance, by his own admission, holds close to $500,000 worth of Bitcoin. Just days before the conference, Donald Trump's media company announced that it was planning to buy $2.5 billion worth of Bitcoin. And Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. (both of whom showed up at the Bitcoin 2025 conference) are engaged in Bitcoin ventures of their own. Even if there is no wrongdoing involved, the optics aren't great. It's the reason many people now think that tighter safeguards should be imposed on politicians to prevent them from enacting certain policies or taking certain actions that could be used to enrich themselves. The White House has given a strong signal of its support for Bitcoin. Crypto investors no longer need to worry about regulatory overreach, or about government policies specifically designed to limit innovation in the crypto sector. All of that is incredible news for Bitcoin. Suddenly, all the sky-high price forecasts for Bitcoin no longer seem so unattainable. As long as you are willing to buy and hold for the long haul, investing in Bitcoin right now might be the best way to turbo-charge the performance of your entire portfolio for years to come. Before you buy stock in Bitcoin, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Bitcoin wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $651,049!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $828,224!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 979% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2025 Dominic Basulto has positions in Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Vice President JD Vance Just Delivered Incredible News to Bitcoin Investors was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Than 9 in 10 Americans Say Corporate Landlords Make Home Ownership Harder — and Two Things Homebuyers Can Do
The U.S. has seen a sharp rise in the number of institutional investors buying single-family homes over the past decade, giving corporate landlords much more power over the housing market. This, in turn, has made it harder for many Americans to own a home, mainly because they have to compete against entities with a lot more buying power. Read More: Find Out: A report published last year by the Government Accountability Office revealed that as recently as 2011, no investor owned 1,000 or more single-family rental homes in the U.S. By 2015, institutional investors collectively owned an estimated 170,000 to 300,000 homes. Seven years later, that figure had ballooned to 450,000 single-family homes, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. This rapid increase in corporate landlords has created a challenging environment for both tenants and house hunters, according to a recent survey of 1,000 Americans from JW Surety Bonds. The report, released in late March, found that more than 9 out of 10 (93%) Americans believe corporate ownership of homes makes homeownership less accessible. One in 20 lost a bid to a corporate landlord, while roughly 20% know someone who has. So, how can house hunters improve their chances of owning a home in the current environment? Here are two things you can do. As JW Surety Bonds noted, there's a general lack of awareness on the part of many Americans about the scale of corporate home ownership. About 10% of those surveyed didn't know that businesses managing multiple rental properties were acquiring single-family homes. One of the best moves you can make is to research the housing market and learn where corporate ownership tends to be highest. This will at least let you know where you're likely to run up against institutional investors, which means you could face stiff competition and inflated home prices. Avoiding markets with a high concentration of corporate landlords makes it easier to find affordable homes. Discover Next: Bidding wars against corporate buyers are 'pushing many people out of the market,' according to JW Surety, because they can't compete on price. Keep in mind that corporate landlords have a lot of financial might, so getting into a bidding war puts you in a tough position. No matter who you compete against for a home, make it a point to stick to your budget. Going above your comfort zone on price could lead to years of financial stress if you spend more on a home than you can afford. It's better to avoid bidding wars with corporate landlords altogether so you're not tempted to pay more than you should. More From GOBankingRates Surprising Items People Are Stocking Up On Before Tariff Pains Hit: Is It Smart? 4 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025 This article originally appeared on More Than 9 in 10 Americans Say Corporate Landlords Make Home Ownership Harder — and Two Things Homebuyers Can Do Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
