How Hakeem Jeffries’ marathon speech reframed the resistance for what’s next
By Michael Jones
I left the Capitol sometime after 1 a.m. last Thursday once it became clear that Speaker Mike Johnson and Donald Trump had flipped enough Republican holdouts to pass the procedural motion that would allow what will likely become the president’s signature second-term legislative achievement to be debated on the floor.
I hadn’t been home since 8 a.m. the morning before and figured I had enough time to change clothes and sneak in a short nap before GOP leadership called the vote on final passage.
When Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) began his floor speech, I threw on jeans instead of my usual black ankle pants, assuming, like most reporters, that he’d speak for maybe an hour. Then Republicans would call the vote. We’d be done just after sunrise.
By the time I returned to the Hill, it was clear Jeffries wasn’t wrapping up anytime soon.
Reporters in the press gallery started checking the record for the longest House floor speech. Once it became obvious he aimed to break then-Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s eight-hour, 32-minute record, the whole morning took on a different tone.
Members were mostly left in the dark and left to speculate with us about the method behind the madness. Some guessed he’d go five hours, seemingly picking numbers out of thin air. Others floated the idea that he’d speak until the morning news shows concluded, including Fox & Friends, to ensure President Trump saw it.
Turns out, Team Jeffries’ shift in strategy was surprisingly simple: a bill of this magnitude shouldn’t be voted on before dawn and most of the American people had risen. Republicans had made a habit of negotiating and advancing the megabill outside the spotlight in the middle of the night. Jeffries speaking past noon virtually guaranteed that the vote would occur in broad daylight.
“I’ve heard a lot from my Republican colleagues who have expressed pride in this accomplishment,” he said. “I ask the question: If Republicans were so proud of this one big ugly bill, why did the debate begin at 3:28 a.m. in the morning?”
But Jeffries’ floor speech wasn’t just a stalling tactic.
It began a sustained messaging war against the new law, offering a preview of the argument Democrats will present to voters in 2026.
Now that the bill is signed, Democrats are focusing on localizing the fight. They’re framing the law as a permanent windfall for the wealthy, paid for by shrinking access to health care, housing, education, and nutrition assistance for everyday Americans. They also plan to hammer Republicans for phasing out most of the so-called middle-class tax breaks just as Trump’s second term ends in what Democrats describe as an inevitable bait-and-switch.
Across the caucus, members told me the speech gave them a second wind after months of trying—and ultimately failing—to stop the GOP’s megabill.
“We have our marching orders,” one member texted me from inside the chamber.
Jeffries exercised the “magic minute,” a procedural privilege that allows House party leaders to speak for as long as they like without using more than one minute of allotted debate time. The minority party commonly uses this tool during the consideration of major legislation, especially when they lack the votes to block it.
He read testimonials from Medicaid recipients nationwide, including from districts “currently represented” by Republicans. Dozens of Democratic members sat behind him in solidarity, erupting into applause during his sharpest lines. He evoked the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement, invoking Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and the late Congressman John Lewis. And he closed by urging Americans not to give up, even in the face of certain defeat.
Republicans dismissed the speech as political theater. Speaker Johnson accused Jeffries of mischaracterizing the bill’s provisions and using the floor for partisan grandstanding rather than serious debate.
But inside the chamber, the speech landed differently.
“We might not win this battle, but we couldn’t go down without a fight,” Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.) told me. “And [Jeffries] stood up for the American people. He made sure they saw what was happening in the light of day.”
Several members saw the speech as a reminder of the stakes and the scale of the damage they believe the new law will cause.
“What’s important is still the American people don’t know how hard it’s gonna be,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said. “Some of them think, ‘Oh, they’ll get over it,’ but it’s not that. It’s gonna hit and it’s gonna hit hard.”
Last week wasn’t the first time Jeffries delivered a high-profile message against Trump’s agenda.
In April, he delivered a major speech marking the first 100 days of the president’s second term. In it, he laid out a forward-looking agenda for House Democrats and sharply criticized the MAGA movement.
But even with the spotlight, most Americans still don’t know who he is. A CNN poll from the same week found that just 20 percent of adults held a favorable view of Jeffries, while 27 percent viewed him unfavorably; more people who recognized his name said they disliked him than liked him.
It’s a sign that Democrats still face an uphill climb in getting their leadership and message to resonate beyond Washington.
They’re not the only ones trying to shape the narrative either.
Republicans believe key parts of the law—from work requirements to tax deductions on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits to expanded immigration enforcement—are broadly popular. And they aren’t ceding any ground in the race to define the law ahead of the 2026 midterms. Jeffries may have rallied his caucus, but the fight over public opinion is just getting started.
House Democrats aren’t waiting to test Jeffries’ message.
Their campaign arm—the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—launched a new round of digital ads this morning in 35 competitive Republican-held districts, slamming GOP incumbents for voting yes on the megalaw and warning that the law will wreak havoc on America’s rural hospitals.
According to internal DCCC research, the threat of rural hospital closures due to Medicaid cuts is among the most unpopular elements of the law. It’s a potent entry point for Democrats as they begin localizing the fight in key districts where access to care is already fragile.
DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said the vote would cost Republicans their jobs and the majority: “The DCCC is making sure that every battleground voter knows that instead of lowering costs for American families, Republicans are ripping away health care for millions and cutting funding for hospitals, all to pay for massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors.”
Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.
