14 December—One of the changes Donald Trump wants to force on the United States is well worth forcing. It may have to be forced. And let’s hope that Trump’s likely complaisant majorities in both houses of Congress will do his bidding at least in this instance.

President-elect Trump announced yesterday on his website that he wants to end Daylight Saving Time, because it’s “inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.” In other words, he wants to make Standard Time permanent, thus eliminating the ridiculous practice of moving the clock ahead in the spring and back in the fall—spring ahead, fall behind—allegedly to make better use of natural daylight.

Permanent Standard Time may have to be forced through Congress and on the country because, as Trump acknowledges, Daylight Saving Time has “a small but strong constituency.” It shouldn’t, he maintains, and assures us that “the Republican party will use its best efforts to eliminate” it. The small but strong constituency is actually a two-thirds majority of Americans, according to a Monmouth University poll. Or a minority, according to other polls. But who cares?

One wonders whether Trump has actually spoken with the Republican Party about dumping DST. But one doesn’t really care about that either and instead hopes that Congressional Republicans do as their leader orders. Because even Trump can be right.

Advocates of permanent Daylight Saving Time insist that brighter evenings year round, especially for commuters, would reduce crime, conserve energy, reduce road accidents, and, of course, benefit the economy. On the other hand, a professor at the London School of Economics found that DST has had “detrimental effects on sleep and physical health, and on feelings of fatigue, stress, time stress and mental health.”

On the other side, according to various experts, Permanent Standard Time benefits our health by allowing us to wake up on brighter mornings from less disorienting sleep schedules and cycles, as well, of course, as benefiting the economy. In fact, the same LSE professor found that ending DST would lead to increased economic output.

Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly is preferable to wake up to natural light.

Back in March 2022 the Democrat-majority Senate unanimously—i.e., with full Republican support—passed the Sunshine Protection Act, introduced by incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It would have made Daylight Saving Time permanent, so it’s good that it didn’t get anywhere in the House. “It’s time to lock the clock and stop enduring the ridiculous and antiquated practice of switching our clocks back and forth,” as Rubio put it. Right on, Marco!

Not that it would have made much of a difference, to be sure. Because even the existing Uniform Time Act of 1966, which standardized the dates for DST and mandated that states change their clocks twice a year, allows states to opt out of Daylight Saving Time and remain on Standard Time all year. And Hawaii and Arizona (except for the Navajo Nation) have done just that

A bit of history: The United States began changing its clocks seasonally in 1918 during the Great War in an effort to conserve fuel. Understandably unpopular with farmers (and presumably other early risers), it was repealed after the war. But DST returned during World War II and was made permanent in 1966.

And a little more history in Waking up in darkness. And the hopefully soon-to-be-repealed DST is Daylight Saving Time, without the S at the end of Saving . . .