logo
Opinion - Congress should put us on year-round standard time, not DST

Opinion - Congress should put us on year-round standard time, not DST

Yahoo20-05-2025

Most Americans hate seasonal clock changes. But it matters how we abolish them.
Sen. Todd Young's (R-Ind.) 'Make America Rested Again' amendment, which would put the U.S. on permanent standard time, was proposed during Senate Commerce Committee review of the deceptively named Sunshine Protection Act. The amendment aims to abolish the annual switches to and from daylight saving time, in order to improve Americans' health.
The Sunshine Protection Act, first proposed by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in 2018 and earlier this year by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), would do the opposite, putting the U.S. on permanent daylight saving time. That bill passed the Senate in 2022 in an unannounced unanimous consent vote, but some senators said afterward that they didn't realize what they were voting for.
The bill died that year in the House, whose Energy and Commerce Committee had just heard testimony from Vanderbilt University neurologist and sleep specialist Beth Malow about the potential harms of permanent daylight saving time, including increased risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and cancer.
Newer studies also show misaligned clocks are associated with a higher risk of motor vehicle crashes, depression and suicide. Daylight saving time forces us to start the day an hour earlier to go to work and school. It also creates a misalignment between our body clocks, which align with the sun, and our social schedules. Daylight saving time's harmful effects would be exponentially worse in the short days of winter, when it would cause months of sunrises after 8 a.m.
At a recent Senate committee hearing, Jay Karen, representing the National Golf Course Owners Association, suggested that the earlier sunsets of standard time might reduce revenue from golfing and other outdoor recreational activities. But standard time does not shorten the number of summer daylight hours. Golfing continues to flourish in states that already follow permanent standard time, including Arizona and Hawaii. If we were to adopt standard time year-round, workers' increased productivity would drive a stronger economy and generate increased income for workers' vacations and recreational activities. Children would not have to go to school in the dark throughout the winter months.
Most states that passed bills calling for permanent daylight saving time in the last few years saw it as the quickest way to end bi-annual clock changes. Some legislators were misled by false promises of alleged health benefits and energy cost savings.
Since recent efforts at the state level to address these misconceptions, only one bill calling for permanent daylight saving time has passed in the last two years. More state bills now call for standard time year-round. Public opinion in favor of standard time is growing. A recent Gallup poll found 48 percent of Americans favor standard time, whereas only 24 percent prefer permanent daylight saving time. More than seven in 10 Americans would like to end bi-annual clock changes.
The U.S. has tried permanent daylight saving time twice before, during World War II and in 1974. It quickly became unpopular and was reversed. Other counties have had similar experiences. Legislators in Paraguay are currently seeking to end the country's experiment with permanent daylight time.
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine and other health organizations back permanent standard time. That would bring our inner clocks more in line with sun time, with the sun overhead at noon. Permanent ST would foster improved sleep, workplace productivity, academic performance, driving safety, and mental and physical health. It would also reduce health care and utility bills.
The Senate Commerce Committee did not discuss Sen. Young's proposal to establish permanent standard time. It voted instead on an amendment of the Sunshine Protection Act by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asking for a start date of 2027 to give states time to decide whether they want permanent daylight saving time or permanent standard time. After the bill goes into effect, states would not be allowed to change to permanent standard time, even if permanent daylight time is unpopular, as history predicts.
The 16-12 vote in favor of this amendment did not advance because many of the votes were proxy votes, and 15 in-person Aye votes were required.
The close count is a big change from the unanimous support of the bill in 2022. Even Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who supported the measure, expressed concerns. The vote was not partisan. Senators from states with the latest sunrise times were most likely to vote against it. The close vote and expressed concerns signal an unlikely road for it to pass the full House and Senate.
Everyone who wants to end clock changes should get behind permanent standard time — the science-supported, history-tested, naturally healthy way to ditch the bi-annual switch.
Karin Johnson, MD, is a professor of neurology and a sleep medicine specialist. She is the co-chair of the Coalition for Permanent Standard Time and vice-president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Save Standard Time and creator and host of its educational video series, 'The Science of Clock Change.' Jay Pea is a former software engineer and the president of Save Standard Time. Lynne Lamberg is a medical journalist and editor who writes frequently on sleep, biological clocks, and mental health. She is the book editor of the National Association of Science Writers.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sea-Tac screenings to scale back as homeland security ends surveillance program
Sea-Tac screenings to scale back as homeland security ends surveillance program

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sea-Tac screenings to scale back as homeland security ends surveillance program

This story was initially published on The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is terminating the Quiet Skies program, DHS announced via a news release. Quiet Skies was a counterterrorism surveillance program through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), according to The New York Times. However, DHS stated the program 'has failed to stop a single terrorist attack' and cost taxpayers $200 million a year. The department believes the program was put in place to target political opponents. 'It is clear that the Quiet Skies program was used as a political rolodex of the Biden Administration—weaponized against its political foes and exploited to benefit their well-heeled friends,' DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said, via the release. 'I am calling for a Congressional investigation to unearth further corruption at the expense of the American people and the undermining of U.S. national security.' TSA will continue to vet security threats and reinforce REAL ID requirements, DHS noted. 'The Trump Administration will return TSA to its true mission of being laser-focused on the safety and security of the traveling public,' Noem added. 'This includes restoring the integrity, privacy, and equal application of the law for all Americans.' Follow Julia Dallas on X. Read her stories here. Submit news tips here.

It's not just Medicaid: GOP eyes possible Medicare cuts in megabill
It's not just Medicaid: GOP eyes possible Medicare cuts in megabill

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

It's not just Medicaid: GOP eyes possible Medicare cuts in megabill

About a month into his second term as president, Donald Trump told Fox News interviews they shouldn't worry about Republican plans for the nation's largest health care programs. 'Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched,' Trump said. As the GOP's domestic policy megabill — the inaptly named 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' — took shape, the president's promise related to Medicaid quickly evaporated. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Republicans' reconciliation package would cut Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years. But as the party tries to advance the legislation in the Senate and GOP leaders scramble to make their arithmetic work, the other part of Trump's promise from February is suddenly in doubt, too. NBC News reported: Looking at new ways to pay for their sprawling bill for President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, Republicans are exploring ideas to slash 'waste, fraud and abuse' in Medicare, several senators said Thursday. And President Donald Trump has blessed the pursuit, they said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune didn't come right out and endorse Medicare cuts, but when asked whether his party would look for savings in the popular health care program, the South Dakota Republican told reporters, 'I think anything that can be — that's waste, fraud and abuse are open to, obviously, discussions.' At this point, some readers are probably thinking that topic this sounds vaguely familiar. After all, didn't The Washington Post already report recently on the GOP megabill and possible Medicare cuts? The answer is yes, but the details matter. The Post highlighted the fact that the Republicans' legislation would add so many trillions of dollars to the national debt that it might automatically trigger 'sequestration' changes that would force massive Medicare cuts. But there are budgetary tactics that Congress could, and likely would, take to prevent that from happening, which helps to explain why the Post's reporting from mid-May didn't have a greater political impact. This week's developments are qualitatively different: We're not just talking about the possibility of Medicare cuts being triggered by automatic budget constraints; rather, Republican senators are making a deliberate choice to look for Medicare savings as a way to pay for the massive tax breaks the party is eager to deliver to the wealthy. Time will tell what, if anything, comes of this, but Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas told the Post that the discussions among GOP members of the Senate Finance Committee have focused on Medicare Advantage, a program through which the federal government pays private insurers to enroll Medicare beneficiaries. The far-right Republican plan was already shaping up to be a political albatross for its proponents. Putting Medicare funding on the table probably won't help matters. This article was originally published on

Trump vs. Musk: Majority of Americans Side With Neither, Poll Finds
Trump vs. Musk: Majority of Americans Side With Neither, Poll Finds

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump vs. Musk: Majority of Americans Side With Neither, Poll Finds

Whose side are you on? When it comes to the suddenly erupted public feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, most Americans say they do not support either guy. That is according to a new poll released by YouGov on Friday, which found 52% of Americans polled the night before chose 'neither' when asked who they backed in the battle between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man. Still, Trump lapped Musk by comparison when it came to support, with 28% of respondents saying they sided with him — more than triple the amount of respondents (8%) who said they backed the Tesla boss. The approximately 12% of the rest of respondents said they 'don't know' who they support more between Trump and Musk. YouGov's poll included 3,812 Americans surveyed, ages 18 and older. The poll comes after Musk and the president set social media — as well as the media and political worlds — ablaze on Thursday, trading barbs that included Musk accusing President Trump of being named in the Epstein Files and saying he was in favor of impeaching the president. Trump, on his end, said he was 'very disappointed' in Musk and questioned whether the U.S. government should end its contracts with SpaceX, the rocket company Musk runs. The war of words started earlier in the week when Musk called Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' a 'disgusting abomination.' Meanwhile, Tesla's stock price took a massive hit as a result of the spat on Thursday, plunging more than 14% in what was the company's second worst drop since the COVID-19 pandemic rocked the market in 2020. Shares have rebounded a fair amount on Friday, climbing to $303 per share a few hours into trading, after dropping to $277 per share a day earlier. Politico late on Thursday reported a Musk-Trump phone call had been set up for Friday to help smooth things over between the two. But those plans went sideways, with President Trump telling ABC News he was 'not particularly interested' in speaking to his former head of the Department of Government Efficiency. As for what the future holds, respondents to YouGov were pretty much split on whether the two would reconcile and work together in the future; 28% of respondents said they believed Musk and Trump will be friends again, 31% said they will not, and 41% said they are 'not sure.' It will be worth keeping one eye on X, the platform Musk owns, and the other on Trump's Truth Social on Friday to see what comes next. The post Trump vs. Musk: Majority of Americans Side With Neither, Poll Finds appeared first on TheWrap.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store