
Trump sparks lobbying battle on daylight saving time
President Donald Trump is sending mixed messages on the future of daylight saving time — and in turn sparking a renewed lobbying frenzy over how the U.S. sets its clocks.
After calling on Congress to 'eliminate Daylight Saving Time' back in December, Trump then called it a '50/50 issue' in March before suggesting this month that lawmakers should make daylight saving time permanent. That would mean more daylight in the evening hours and most Americans would no longer have to change their clocks twice a year.
'Very popular and, most importantly, no more changing of the clocks, a big inconvenience and, for our government, A VERY COSTLY EVENT!!!' Trump said in a Truth Social post.
Those latest comments, which came a day after Sen. Ted Cruz's Commerce Committee held a hearing on the issue, set off a flurry of activity among a small but highly engaged cadre of lobbyists and advocates for industries that would benefit from permanent daylight saving time — and those that want to stick with standard time. It's an issue that has pitted the golf industry and retail interests against sleep doctors and Christian radio broadcasters, as well as people pursuing passion projects on both sides.
These advocates are now planning new outreach to the Trump administration — including Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services — as well as to members of Congress who came close but fell short in advancing legislation to make daylight saving time permanent in 2022.
Activity is picking up around the issue among conservative influencers, too. Jack Posobiec, an influential MAGA podcaster with millions of followers on social media, is working to sell permanent standard time to his massive following. In one recent post on X, Posobiec called standard time — which means more morning sunlight — 'God's time.'
"I feel like this is all playing out just like it did in the 70s when people got sick of the time changes, but the extra darkness in the winter became extremely unpopular and unsafe,' Posobiec said in a text message. 'So we might end up just going back to where we started."
The U.S. briefly changed to permanent daylight saving time under President Richard Nixon but quickly reversed course, with education advocates raising concerns about darkness endangering children traveling to school.
Proponents for both daylight saving and standard time are in the challenging position of not just having to win Trump over, but having to decipher where he stands on the matter in the first place — and if he might be persuaded to change his stance. In interviews, advocates on both sides said they believe it's possible Trump actually backs their cause but is mixing up his terminology.
Ultimately, Trump's engagement will be key to congressional action on the matter. The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
Jay Pea, the president of Save Standard Time — a volunteer-run nonprofit that works with sleep medicine groups — said in an interview there was 'fear' among his allies that Trump's recent comments would give 'momentum' to permanent daylight saving time, 'and we need to stop that.'
'We have been hopeful for the president's Make America Healthy Again agenda,' Pea continued, adding that 'permanent daylight saving time might profit the special interest of golf but would undercut every single American's sleep health.'
Advocates for making standard time permanent argue it brings a host of health benefits because it avoids disrupting natural circadian rhythms — the body's 24-hour cycle that is key to sleep. They also point to Gallup polling from last year showing Americans prefer standard time.
'Many people link daylight savings time to summer, so they think it must be better because, you know, it's summertime,' said Karin Johnson, a sleep medicine doctor and member of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine's advocacy committee, in an interview. 'It was certainly disappointing to see [Trump] come out more clearly in theory toward permanent daylight saving time. That could certainly sway some politicians, but he also changes his position very often."
Johnson, who is also vice president of Pea's group, said she met with Cruz's committee staff in March, which she believes helped lead to the recent Commerce Committee hearing at which she testified. She's also been trying to spread the word to DOGE and HHS, making the pitch that adopting standard time could boost government employee efficiency. Spokespeople for HHS and DOGE didn't respond to requests for comment.
Backers of permanent daylight saving time counter that the increase in evening sunlight leads to more outdoor recreation and economic benefits, including for the golf and retail industries — sectors that matter to the president.
National Golf Course Owners of America CEO Jay Karen, who also testified at the Commerce Committee hearing, said he wasn't surprised to see Trump weigh in — though he added the group has yet to engage with Trump directly.
'He's a golfer and golf course owner, so he respects sunshine in many ways," Karen said.
The National Religious Broadcasters — which represents individuals producing Christian radio, television and internet programming — has opposed permanent daylight saving time. That's because the Federal Communications Commission requires AM stations to reduce the power of their signals at night, since radio waves travel further in the evening hours and could interfere with other stations. Permanent daylight saving time would reduce morning daylight, meaning stations would have less time at full distribution range and therefore reduced revenue opportunities.
Michael Farris, general counsel at NRB, said the group has up until this point engaged mainly with Congress but is now turning its attention to the White House. Trump has previously signaled support for another top NRB priority — making AM radios a required feature in all new cars — and Farris isn't ruling out seeing whether Washington Republicans would be willing to attach legislation accomplish that goal to one addressing how clocks are set.
"We're open to any deals that help AM radio," Farris said.
The question of whether to make standard time or daylight saving time permanent had long been something of a fringe debate until 2022. A bipartisan group of senators managed that year to get a bill passed on the floor by unanimous consent making daylight saving time the law of the land — except for those states that already adhere to permanent standard time, which wouldn't be required to make the change.
Many senators were surprised by the successful deployment of the unanimous consent maneuver, which is typically reserved for noncontroversial pieces of legislation. The House never took it up and the bill died.
But supporters in both parties and chambers have kept the fight alive. In the Senate, Republican Rick Scott of Florida has taken up the mantle, alongside Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington. In the House, Florida Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan is leading the charge.
At the hearing earlier this month, Cruz, a Texas Republican underscored there's general consensus that most Americans don't like to change their clocks, but there's debate about whether to choose standard or permanent time. Cruz didn't take a side, and his office did not respond to a request for comment to clarify his position or what next steps the panel might take.
Scott Yates, founder of the all-volunteer 'Lock the Clock Movement' who testified before the Commerce Committee, said Congress should adopt a two-year window for states to make their own decisions that could, in turn, allow states with multiple time zones a chance to end the 'patchwork.'
'When I meet with legislators, staff, or even directly with members of Congress, most of them tell me that they personally don't care. They just want to end the clock change,' Pea said. 'Very few people care enough, and the few that care are caring in the wrong way."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati

Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.