Daylight Saving Time: Clocks Spring One Hour Forward Tonight—As Trump Suggests He Won’t Change It in 2025.
Daylight Saving Time: Clocks Spring One Hour Forward Tonight—As Trump Suggests He Won’t Change It
Table of Contents
As the seasons shift and the days grow longer, Americans across the country will once again engage in the ritual of adjusting their clocks—springing them forward by one hour—this Sunday, March 11, 2025. The twice-yearly event, known as Daylight Saving Time (DST), has been a fixture of American life since World War I, and despite ongoing debates about its necessity and effectiveness, it remains a largely unaltered part of the calendar for most of the country.
This year’s transition comes at a time of renewed political debate over the future of DST. Former President Donald Trump, speaking out against a growing movement to abolish or alter the system, has suggested that he will not support any changes to the practice, despite increasing calls for reform. The controversy surrounding DST is as old as the practice itself, and Trump’s comments are likely to spark further discussion on whether the time change should be kept or if the nation should consider adopting a more consistent time-keeping policy year-round.
In this article, we explore the history of Daylight Saving Time, the current arguments for and against it, the impact of the biannual time changes, and the political implications of Trump’s stance. Through examining the different facets of the debate, we seek to understand why this seemingly simple ritual continues to generate such a large amount of controversy.
The History of Daylight Saving Time Daylight Saving Time
Daylight Saving Time (DST) was first introduced in the United States during World War I as a way to conserve energy. The theory behind it was simple: by moving the clocks forward in the spring, people would be able to take advantage of longer daylight hours in the evening, reducing the need for artificial lighting and saving fuel. The idea was pushed forward by the German Empire and quickly adopted by many countries, including the United States.
After World War I, DST was abandoned for a time, only to be reintroduced during World War II for similar reasons. Following the war, the practice continued in some states but was not universally applied. It wasn’t until the Uniform Time Act of 1966 that the United States established a standardized schedule for DST, setting the clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday of April and back on the last Sunday of October.
Over time, the schedule was adjusted. In 1986, Congress moved the start of DST to the first Sunday in April, and in 2005, the Energy Policy Act extended it further, making it last from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November. The rationale behind these changes was, again, energy savings, with the assumption that longer daylight hours would reduce the need for artificial lighting in the evening.
However, as the years have passed, the effectiveness of DST in conserving energy has been questioned. Critics argue that modern lighting and climate control technologies have rendered the original purpose of DST obsolete. Furthermore, studies have shown that the energy savings attributed to DST are minimal at best, with the potential negative impacts on public health and productivity coming into sharper focus.
The Argument Against Daylight Saving Time Daylight Saving Time
The debate surrounding Daylight Saving Time has become more pronounced in recent years. Critics of the practice, including scientists, health professionals, and policymakers, point to several factors that suggest DST may no longer serve its intended purpose—or that its costs may outweigh any potential benefits.
1. Disruption to Circadian Rhythms
One of the most widely cited concerns with DST is its negative impact on human health. The transition to DST, particularly the springtime “spring forward,” has been linked to increased health risks due to the disruption of people’s circadian rhythms—the body’s natural internal clock. These rhythms are closely aligned with the natural cycle of daylight and darkness, and disrupting them can lead to various health problems, including sleep disturbances, increased stress, and a heightened risk of heart attack and stroke in the days following the time change.
Several studies have shown a spike in the number of heart attacks, strokes, and even workplace accidents immediately after the clocks are set forward. The shift to DST can be particularly jarring for individuals who already struggle with sleep disorders or for those who work in high-risk environments. As a result, many health experts argue that the time change is a public health issue that needs to be addressed.
2. Impact on Productivity
Another downside of Daylight Saving Time is its negative impact on productivity. The abrupt change in sleep patterns can lead to fatigue and reduced concentration, especially in the days following the transition. For businesses and workers, this can mean a temporary decline in performance, with potential effects on output, customer satisfaction, and overall efficiency.
While some studies have suggested that longer daylight hours may boost productivity during the warmer months by encouraging outdoor activities, the transition itself can be a significant disruption. In fact, some industries, including those in the healthcare and transportation sectors, have expressed concerns about the heightened risk of mistakes and accidents due to the shift in sleep patterns caused by DST.
3. Questionable Energy Savings
As mentioned earlier, one of the original justifications for DST was energy conservation. By shifting the clocks forward, people would supposedly use less energy in the evenings because they would benefit from more daylight hours. However, modern research has shown that the energy savings from DST are minimal, and in some cases, nonexistent.
In fact, some studies suggest that the energy savings are canceled out by the increased use of energy in other areas. For example, while there may be less demand for lighting, the extended daylight hours can lead to higher use of air conditioning, especially in warmer regions, thus offsetting any reductions in energy consumption.
4. Public Sentiment and Growing Calls for Change
Over the years, the American public’s sentiment regarding Daylight Saving Time has shifted. Polls have consistently shown that a large majority of Americans would prefer to do away with the time change altogether. According to a 2021 poll by YouGov America, nearly 70% of Americans expressed support for ending DST, with many advocating for a year-round standard time, as opposed to continuing the practice of switching the clocks twice a year.
Several states, including California, Florida, and Washington, have passed legislation to make daylight saving time permanent, though these changes have yet to be implemented because they require federal approval. Other states, such as Arizona and Hawaii, have opted out of DST entirely, maintaining the same time year-round.
Trump’s Stance on Daylight Saving Time Daylight Saving Time
In the midst of this ongoing debate, former President Donald Trump’s recent comments have added fuel to the fire. On March 9, 2025, during a public appearance in Florida, Trump suggested that he would not support efforts to end Daylight Saving Time. In a conversation with reporters, he said, “I don’t see any reason to get rid of it. I’ve always liked the idea of more daylight. It’s good for business, good for families. People enjoy it.”
Trump’s remarks come at a time when several states, including Florida, are pushing for federal legislation to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, effectively abolishing the practice of changing clocks twice a year. While Trump’s position is hardly surprising—he has long advocated for policies that support businesses and the economy—it highlights the political complexities surrounding the issue of DST.
The Political and Economic Implications Daylight Saving Time
While Trump’s comments may seem like a throwaway line, they are significant for several reasons. First, as a prominent political figure, Trump’s stance on DST could sway public opinion, especially among his supporters, who may view him as an authority on issues related to business and economics. His endorsement of DST may further entrench the status quo, making it more difficult for lawmakers to pass legislation that would abolish or reform the time change.
Second, Trump’s support for DST is in line with the views of many businesses, particularly in sectors like retail and tourism, which benefit from the extended daylight hours. Longer evenings mean more time for people to shop, dine out, and engage in recreational activities, leading to increased revenue. By keeping DST in place, Trump is aligning himself with businesses that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
However, his comments could also alienate those who are pushing for a change, particularly health experts and advocates for workers’ rights. The growing movement to end DST is fueled by concerns about public health, productivity, and the well-being of the general population. By dismissing these concerns, Trump’s stance could further deepen the divide between those who favor DST and those who want to see it abolished.
Conclusion: A Time for Change or Tradition? Daylight Saving Time
As the clocks spring forward once again this weekend, the question of whether Daylight Saving Time should continue or be abolished remains unresolved. While Trump’s recent comments suggest that he is not in favor of making changes to the system, the growing public and political pressure to end the time change is undeniable. Whether or not DST will be permanently abolished or reformed is still uncertain, but one thing is clear: the debate over timekeeping will continue to be a topic of discussion for years to come. As we move further into the 21st century, it may be time to reconsider whether the benefits of Daylight Saving Time outweigh its costs, or if a new approach to timekeeping is needed.
