Trump’s daylight saving push stalls with Senate Republicans

Where the bill stands

The Sunshine Protection Act passed the House on July 14 in a bipartisan 308-117 vote, after being introduced in January 2025.³ Its central effect would be to make daylight saving time permanent in most of the country, ending the annual return to standard time each fall.

The measure is now stuck in the Senate. Reuters reported that Cotton is not the only Republican senator opposed. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana called the measure “dead as disco” and said he did not think Thune would bring it to the floor.² Thune has previously expressed uncertainty about whether the bill could reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, with Republicans divided over the policy.²

The calendar adds to the White House’s problem. The Senate adjourned last week and is not set to return until Nov. 9, after the midterm election and after clocks are scheduled to fall back on Nov. 1.³ That makes Trump’s demand for an immediate vote more of a political pressure play than a realistic legislative timetable.

Why Cotton is resisting

Cotton’s objection is not to ending clock changes. He has said he also dislikes changing clocks twice a year. His argument is that permanent daylight saving time shifts the burden to winter mornings, when sunrise would come later across much of the country.¹

In Cotton’s view, the trade-off is safety: darker mornings for schoolchildren waiting for buses and for parents commuting to work. After Trump’s post, Cotton reiterated that Arkansas families should not have children going to school “in the pitch dark.”¹

Other opponents have made a similar case. The United States has tried permanent daylight saving time before, including during the 1970s energy crisis, only to abandon it after public backlash over dark winter mornings.¹ Cotton has repeatedly invoked that history, arguing that Congress reversed course after Americans experienced late sunrises.¹

Supporters see the trade-off differently. Trump and the White House argue that Americans would benefit from more evening light, especially for recreation, business and public safety. Trump has described the current clock-changing routine as disruptive and has argued that longer evening daylight would benefit golfers, tennis players, hunters and farmers.²

Public opinion does not clearly favor the status quo. An AP-NORC poll cited by the Associated Press found that only 12% of U.S. adults favored changing clocks twice a year, while 47% opposed it and 40% were neutral. If forced to choose, most preferred more evening daylight.¹

Pressure tactic draws GOP discomfort

Trump’s decision to post Cotton’s number pushed the fight beyond daylight saving time policy and into Senate Republican politics. The Associated Press described the move as a sharp escalation of a long-running disagreement between the two men.¹ It also echoed Trump’s 2015 decision to publicize then-Sen. Lindsey Graham’s phone number during the Republican presidential primary.¹

Kennedy, a Trump ally, criticized the tactic while defending Cotton. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Kennedy said Trump should not have shared Cotton’s cellphone number and said he did not think it would help persuade him.⁵ The Louisiana Illuminator reported Kennedy’s additional defense of Cotton, including his description of the president as sometimes “tempestuous.”⁶

The pressure also produced an immediate online backlash. The Daily Beast reported that Cotton was flooded with calls and texts and that users found a Venmo account linked to the number before it was no longer available. The same report said Cotton’s refusal to support the bill continued despite the pressure.⁴

For Senate Republicans, the episode illustrates a familiar dilemma. A discussion on ABC’s “This Week” used the Cotton episode as an example of the risk Republicans face when they try to create distance from Trump: The president can publicly attack even a Republican senator who otherwise shares much of his agenda.⁷

Has Trump changed leadership’s calculation?

So far, there is little evidence that he has.

Thune has not scheduled floor time for the Sunshine Protection Act, and the Senate calendar makes action before the next clock change effectively unavailable.³ Kennedy’s public assessment that the bill is unlikely to come up for a vote points to continued leadership caution, not a scramble to satisfy Trump.²

The reason is partly procedural and partly political. A bill that cannot clearly secure 60 votes risks exposing divisions inside the Republican conference, particularly on an issue that cuts across geography more than party ideology. Senators from northern or western states can be more sensitive to late winter sunrises, while supporters emphasize evening activity and voter frustration with clock changes.

The White House’s pressure may still matter after the midterms if Trump continues to frame the bill as an easy bipartisan win. The House vote gives supporters a clear talking point, and public dislike of clock changes gives the issue broader appeal than its narrow policy footprint might suggest.³

But Cotton’s resistance shows the limit of that leverage when a senator believes a position is locally defensible. Arkansas is not expected to be a competitive Senate race for Cotton, reducing the electoral pressure Trump can bring to bear.¹ And because Cotton is not alone in opposing the bill, moving him would not necessarily solve the Senate math.²

For now, the Sunshine Protection Act remains a House-passed bill without a scheduled Senate vote. Trump has elevated it into a loyalty fight, but Senate leadership has not treated it as a must-pass priority.