Trump says daylight saving time is 'popular,' but enough to be permanent?
But what if an extra hour of evening daylight could be squeezed out of every day?
That's what almost 20 states have advocated for by passing measures in recent years in favor of year-round daylight saving time. President Donald Trump expressed support for such a notion as recently as three months ago, calling it 'very popular,'' though he has also referred to the move as a '50-50 issue.''
The practice of changing clocks twice a year has few supporters, what with the confusion and sleep disruption it creates. The dispute lies on whether to stick with standard time, which in this country runs from the first Sunday in November until the second Sunday in March, or embrace year-long daylight saving time.
Here's what we know about the long-running debate:
Is Congress any closer to making a change?
It appeared that way in January when both chambers introduced legislation for a permanent DST, which in the Senate was known as the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025. Both bills were promoted by Republicans from Florida, at a time when the GOP grabbed control of the House and Senate.
But even though the measures have continued to gain sponsors, more than 40 altogether, no action has taken place, and lawmakers from some states have expressed reservations.
In 2022, the Senate unanimously approved a bill championed by then-Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for permanent DST, with exceptions for Hawaii and Arizona, but the measure died in the House.
What are the pros and cons of both sides?
Supporters of full-time DST promote opportunities for more after-school and after-work recreational activities in the daylight and amid warmer temperatures, which could improve the health of children and adults.
Advocates also say later daytime hours would lead to reduced energy use, thereby cutting down on the carbon footprint amid growing concerns about climate change.
Opponents point out the safety risks of children having to go to school and possibly wait for buses in the dark. They also say later daytime hours disrupt sleep and make it more difficult to wake up when it's dark in the morning.
Which states want yearlong DST?
Of the 18 states that have enacted legislation for year-round DST since 2018, seven are in the Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. Those are all Republican-leaning states, but the issue is not red and blue.
Washington, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware and Maine typically favor Democrats and they voted for the switch, and in deep-blue California voters authorized the legislature to ditch the clock-changing system, albeit requiring a two-thirds majority, if Congress allows it.
The other states that prefer a permanent DST are Idaho (for the Pacific time zone only), Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.
Only Hawaii and Arizona (most of it) observe standard time for the whole year, as do the U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico.
How did we get here?
DST was implemented as an energy-saving effort during both World War I and WWII. They were temporary measures, as was the adoption of year-round DST in 1974 during a severe energy crisis. In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Uniform Time Act to standardize timekeeping across a nation that had allowed states to observe DST inconsistently.
The law established specific periods for standard time and DST, and though it gave states the option to remain on standard time for the year, it did not allow them to go to permanent DST without congressional approval.
Until 2005, DST ended the final Sunday of October and began the first Sunday in April. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended the stretch to its current format of nearly eight months.
Now the question is whether legislators will 'lock the clock'' and make the later daylight hours permanent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries hammers Trump on Gaza, calls for increased aid
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized President Trump over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, calling for an immediate ceasefire, increased aid to the war-torn enclave and the release of all remaining hostages held by the Palestinian militant group. 'During the first six months of Donald Trump's time in office, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached a breaking point, hostages are still being held by Hamas despite the President's promise they would be released and the pre-existing ceasefire the administration inherited has been breached,' Jeffries said in a statement on Friday. 'The starvation and death of Palestinian children and civilians in an ongoing war zone is unacceptable.' 'The Trump administration has the ability to bring an end to this humanitarian crisis. They must act now,' he added. Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said on Thursday that the U.S. will step away from peace negotiations in the region and is now considering alternative ways to free the hostages taken by Hamas during the Oct. 7, 2023, surprise attack on Israel. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza,' Witkoff said in a statement. 'It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.' The Hill has reached out to the White House spokesperson for comment. Dozens of aid groups have warned that the Gaza Strip is on the brink of starvation, with one in five children being malnourished in Gaza City, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military while waiting in food lines, according to the UN. Israel has argued that Hamas, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist group, 'operates every day to create a perception of crisis.' U.S. allies, including Australia, the United Kingdom and France, have similarly sounded the alarm over humanitarian conditions in the strip and have called for more aid. The House Democratic leader also reupped his calls for a two-state solution in the nearly two-year conflict. 'It is imperative that humanitarian aid be surged into Gaza immediately, the remaining Israeli hostages be released and the ceasefire negotiated by the Biden administration restored. We need a just and lasting peace,' Jeffries said in his statement. 'Ultimately, that will only occur through a two-state solution that facilitates a safe and secure Israel living side by side with a Palestinian state that provides dignity, self-determination and prosperity for its people,' the New York Democrat added. To help out the Palestinians, Israel is allowing Jordan and the United Arab Emirates to air-drop aid packages into Gaza. The 2023 terrorist attack left some 1,200 Israeli's dead and roughly 250 hostages were taken captive. Nearly two years later, the Israeli military has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to local health affiliates. That number does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters.
Time Magazine
6 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow
Donald Trump has been dealt a significant setback in his ongoing battle over sanctuary cities, after a U.S. federal judge threw out the Administration's lawsuit which looked to block legislation in Illinois that limits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The Trump Administration argued that existing so-called 'sanctuary laws' in the state run counter to federal laws because they restrict local officials from sharing information with federal agents, stopping immigration officials from identifying people who 'may be subject to removal.' But those concerns were dismissed by Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said finding sanctuary policies as 'impermissible regulation'would run counter to the Tenth Amendment. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' said the judge. Jenkins, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, added: 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects defendants' sanctuary policies, those policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' Trump's war with sanctuary cities began on day one in office, with an Executive Order, titled 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' In the Executive Order, Trump argues that sanctuary jurisdictions 'seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations,' and calls on the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from these cities. In April, Trump then signed an Executive Order asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identify cities and states that don't sufficiently comply with Trump's federal immigration laws within a month. It is a continuation of Trump's first term, during which he also signed an Executive Order that looked to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions did not receive federal funding. At the time, though, multiple cities sued Trump, and the courts subsequently upheld the legality of such provisions. Read More: What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them? Though Trump's battle might be lost in Illinois, his Administration continues to fight across the country. The day before the lawsuit in Illinois failed, Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new legal action against New York City for its sanctuary laws. Earlier this week, Louisville, Kentucky chose to acquiesce to the administration's immigration policies and cease its designation as a sanctuary city. As human rights organizations argue for the importance of sanctuary and some cities push back against what they view as federal government overreach, the question remains which cities are fighting back against the crackdown. Chicago's and Illinois leadership was very clear in its desire to challenge Trump's immigration policies. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, saying that, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety,' Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement responding to the ruling, saying he was 'pleased' with the decision. 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.' Chicago's status as a sanctuary city is just one iteration of the term—though the long-time Democratic city has been designated as such cities that limit information shared with federal immigration officers. Though there is no specific definition for a sanctuary city, the term refers to jurisdictions with a wide range of laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For Chicago in particular, their 'Welcoming City Ordinance,' argues that 'partnering with [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] would go against our mission to make Chicago the most immigrant friendly city in the country and turn ours into a community of fear for immigrants.' The Trump Administration, though, also has ongoing suits against not just New York City but also Los Angeles, Denver, Rochester, and four cities in New Jersey. Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border czar,' also has laid out the administration's plans to continue combat sanctuary cities. Read More: Sanctuary Cities Are Not New 'Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals—hard stop,' Homan said. 'And President Trump made a commitment a couple weeks ago that we're going to prioritize sanctuary cities.' Simultaneously, certain cities designated 'sanctuary cities' have been less strong in their pushback against the federal Government. Louisville's Department of Corrections will now notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before an inmate with an immigration detainer is scheduled to be released from custody. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg cited 'a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids' on cities designated as sanctuary cities—claiming that by taking Louisville off the designated sanctuary city list, he prevents risking ' the safety of our broader immigrant community.' While New York City has remained the country's largest sanctuary city, its status as such and Mayor Eric Adams' desire to push back against the federal government has come into question. Even before the latest lawsuit issued by the Trump government, Adams' Administration had been embroiled in a battle with the New York City Council and court system to allow ICE agents into Rikers Island. Though he has said he will 'without a doubt' keep the city's sanctuary status. Adams has called for changes to the city's sanctuary laws after the Justice Department suit, saying that they 'go too far' in some places. 'I think we need to tweak the current laws to allow us to coordinate with the federal government when it comes down to removing those dangerous people from our streets," Adams told CBS New York. Back in February, Adams' cooperation with the federal government came under questioning after the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the Mayor, stating that the case was interfering with the Democratic mayor's ability to follow through with the President's agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The move pushed Gov. Kathy Hochul to consider removing Adams from office.
