Feed aggregator

As momentum builds in Washington to make daylight saving time permanent, researchers say the long-held belief that the change would significantly reduce energy use is not strongly supported by decades of studies.

With fewer than three months remaining before Americans turn their clocks back to standard time, supporters of permanent daylight saving time—including President Trump—are intensifying efforts to push legislation across the finish line.

President Trump renewed his call Tuesday for year-round daylight saving time, arguing that the public overwhelmingly favors the idea.

“The vast Majority of Americans have asked to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, but no Administration has been able to get it done, until now,” Trump wrote.

The proposal has gained more traction than it has in years. Last month, the House approved the Sunshine Protection Act, sending the measure to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain after previous attempts to fast-track similar legislation failed.

Trump has described ending the twice-yearly clock changes as a rare issue capable of bringing Americans together across party lines, calling the current system “an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents can unite behind,” while also describing the seasonal time changes as “foolish, inconvenient and, in some cases, very costly.”

Ironically, one of the original reasons the United States adopted year-round daylight saving time decades ago was to reduce energy consumption by shifting more daylight into the evening hours, particularly during the winter months.

However, numerous studies conducted over the years have concluded that any resulting energy savings are relatively modest.

Research conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation during the nation’s experiment with year-round daylight saving time in the 1970s estimated energy savings of only 0.4% to 1.5%. A separate Department of Energy study later found that extending daylight saving time in 2007 reduced energy use by just 0.03%, according to a congressional report. That same report also cited additional research finding little or no measurable reduction in overall energy consumption and noted that one Indiana-based study actually found electricity demand increased after the time change.

The Department of Transportation also concluded in a separate report that there was insufficient evidence to show the extended daylight saving period “had any measurable impact on motor gasoline consumption for passenger vehicles or traffic volume in 2007.”

While energy savings appear limited, other analysts argue that the current practice of changing clocks twice each year carries its own financial burden. Studies released by the Independent Institute in 2008 and the American Enterprise Institute in 2013 estimated the annual economic cost of switching clocks at between $1.7 billion and $2 billion, citing the time Americans spend adjusting clocks and schedules—though far fewer clocks require manual changes today than in previous decades.

Researchers have also pointed to potential health consequences associated with the seasonal time changes. Experts say moving clocks forward or backward can disrupt sleep patterns for adults, children, and even pets for days afterward. Many sleep specialists have therefore advocated adopting permanent standard time instead of permanent daylight saving time because it provides more morning sunlight.

Any permanent change would also have broader implications beyond sleep and energy use. Experts note that year-round daylight saving time or standard time could affect religious observances for many Americans and temporarily require significant adjustments to airline schedules and other transportation systems.

For now, it remains unclear whether the Senate will take up the Sunshine Protection Act or bring it to a vote.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are also weighing several alternative proposals, including bills that would allow individual states to adopt permanent daylight saving time, establish permanent half-daylight saving time, or make standard time permanent while allowing certain exceptions.

The U.S. Postal Service reported a $2.5 billion net loss for the third quarter of 2026 on Friday, underscoring its continuing financial struggles as postal officials race to prevent the agency from running out of cash as early as next year.

Although the latest figures represent an improvement over the same period last year—when the Postal Service posted a $3.1 billion loss—the agency remains deeply in the red.

USPS attributed the smaller deficit in part to a $416 million reduction in workers’ compensation expenses, along with a $1.1 billion increase in operating revenue. Even with those gains, however, the agency continues to face substantial financial challenges.

Operating revenue totaled $19.9 billion during the quarter, reflecting a 6.1% increase compared with a year earlier, though it slipped from $20.2 billion recorded in the previous quarter.

“The Postal Service is today continuing to face a severe liquidity crisis, and our financial losses this quarter reflect systemic challenges inherent in our Congressionally established business model and regulatory framework,” Postmaster General David Steiner wrote in a statement Friday.

Steiner previously warned the Associated Press in March that, without significant changes, the Postal Service is projected to exhaust its cash reserves by early 2027.

The agency is currently limited by a $15 billion federal borrowing cap that has remained in place since 1990. As expenses continue to rise, postal officials say they have increasingly relied on operating revenue to offset mounting losses.

During a March 17 hearing before a congressional subcommittee, Steiner proposed increasing the price of a First-Class Forever stamp from 90 cents to 95 cents, arguing that postage remains one of the Postal Service’s most important sources of income.

“If we were to change the stamp price to 90 to 95 cents, which is still less than half of the cost of most foreign posts, that would largely solve our controllable loss,” Steiner told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Steiner has also opposed bipartisan legislation in the Senate that would establish more than 70 additional ZIP codes. In a December 2025 letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who also chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Steiner warned that the proposal would cost the Postal Service an estimated $800 million.

Earlier this year, USPS temporarily suspended its employer contributions to federal pension programs as part of broader cost-cutting efforts. The agency also approved another postage increase, raising the price of a First-Class Forever stamp by four cents beginning in July.

“We are taking responsible steps to conserve cash to extend our operating window, but we require thoughtful legislative and other actions to establish a financially sustainable Postal Service capable of serving the American public far into the future,” Steiner wrote in Friday’s statement.

The Senate voted early Shabbos morning to approve a temporary government funding measure that would keep federal agencies operating through Dec. 11, moving to avoid another government shutdown just months before the midterm elections. The legislation now heads to the House for consideration before lawmakers begin a five-week recess.

The continuing resolution cleared the Senate by a commanding 90-6 vote after several days of internal Republican negotiations over a White House-backed provision delaying enforcement of a ban on hemp-derived THC products until December.

Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.) voted “present” because the legislation contained a death benefit for the heir of her late brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Voting against the measure were Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

The spending package also contains a provision sought by Democrats and several Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee—including Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine)—that temporarily blocks a White House Office of Management and Budget rule expanding the authority of political appointees over the distribution of federal grant funding.

According to senators involved in the bipartisan negotiations, Democrats insisted that any short-term funding bill approved before September had to include language freezing the White House budget office’s proposed rule.

Collins sharply criticized the proposal, describing it as “deeply flawed.”

Last month, she formally urged Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought to withdraw the rule in a letter sent to his office.

The Senate did not reach final passage until early Shabbos morning after Republicans spent hours negotiating a package of floor votes that included government funding, the confirmation of Attorney General Todd Blanche, and legislation requiring voters to present photo identification in federal elections.

Progress on the continuing resolution was also delayed throughout Thursday and Friday because senators disagreed over how to handle separate bipartisan legislation authored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) establishing new rules governing the recruitment and compensation of college athletes.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) announced the funding vote only after Cruz agreed to postpone consideration of the Protect College Sports Act until September.

The legislation now moves to the House of Representatives, which is scheduled to reconvene on Aug. 31.

Without congressional action, federal funding would expire on Sept. 30.

Some House Republicans are expected to object to the provision suspending the White House budget office’s grant rule, arguing it weakens executive branch authority over federally appropriated funds.

Fiscal conservatives in the House may also oppose extending government funding without accompanying spending reductions aimed at lowering the federal deficit.

Even so, the overwhelming bipartisan Senate vote makes eventual House approval appear highly likely.

Congress traditionally waits until shortly before funding expires to pass temporary spending bills. This year, however, lawmakers in both parties sought to resolve the issue well ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline to avoid a politically damaging shutdown so close to the midterm elections.

Many senators also wanted to avoid repeating the lengthy budget battles that have plagued Congress in recent months, including the record 43-day government shutdown during October and November.

That shutdown was followed by another bitter funding dispute involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Border Patrol, which ultimately forced the Department of Homeland Security to temporarily shut down earlier this year.

“I think it’s the most important thing for us to do,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.). “Because I don’t think we need to have the harbinger of a possible government shutdown. So, take it off the table. I think we all want to do that.”

For months, some Republicans argued Democrats might allow a government shutdown shortly before Election Day in order to politically damage the GOP.

“I think my Democratic friends are going to shut down the government right before the midterms,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) warned in the spring.

Keeping the federal government funded beyond Election Day became one of Thune’s principal legislative goals before the Senate departed for its August recess.

He warned that if Democrats blocked the continuing resolution under normal Senate procedures, he would instead seek to fund the government through the budget reconciliation process, which would bypass the filibuster.

Ultimately, Democrats also concluded that avoiding another shutdown served their interests.

“For months, Democrats have been clear: we want to fund the government, avoid a shutdown, and pass strong, bipartisan appropriations bills that improve people’s lives,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.

One of the biggest sticking points in the negotiations involved language inserted into the bill at the White House’s request postponing implementation of a federal ban on hemp-derived intoxicants such as delta-8 THC, products commonly sold in convenience stores and gas stations without approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

Several Republican senators said they were caught by surprise when the provision was added late in the legislative process, and some openly criticized White House legislative officials during a tense Republican lunch meeting earlier in the week.

Other Republicans, however, backed delaying the ban in support of hemp producers in their states, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky as well as Montana Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy.

A group of Republicans led by Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) sought to remove the provision from the legislation, but the Senate voted 61-32 to table Budd’s amendment.

Before that vote, Budd argued that Congress had already acted last year to prohibit the sale of unregulated intoxicating hemp products.

“These products are made to look exactly like something a kid would want. Emergency Departments have seen a 461-percent increase in cases of pediatric cannabis poisoning. Most of those were children four years old or younger,” he said.

Sheehy defended hemp-derived products in a video posted to social media, arguing they have helped many Americans manage chronic pain.

“That’s been life-changing for a lot of people. A lot of them I know personally, which is why I’ve taken up this cause,” he said.

Elon Musk’s latest industrial venture could rewrite the record books, as Tesla and SpaceX move forward with plans to construct a semiconductor megafactory in Texas that is expected to span more than 100 million square feet—making it the largest building ever built.

Tesla and SpaceX announced Thursday that construction of the first phase of the Terafab semiconductor complex will begin in Grimes County, Texas, just outside Houston. The initial phase carries a projected cost of $16.8 billion.

Once fully completed, the sprawling facility is expected to exceed 100 million square feet, eclipsing every existing structure on the planet and becoming the world’s largest building by footprint.

Musk, who leads both Tesla and SpaceX, described the ambitious project as “the largest and most valuable building on Earth by far.”

To put its scale into perspective, the completed Terafab would surpass China’s New Century Global Center in Chengdu, which currently holds the title at approximately 18.9 million square feet and includes attractions such as an indoor beach and ski slope.

At more than five times the size of that complex, Terafab would also dwarf some of America’s most recognizable mega-structures, including the Pentagon, Apple Park, and the Mall of America combined.

Whether the project ultimately earns the title of the world’s largest building will depend on whether it is completed as currently envisioned. Concept renderings depict a massive wing-shaped structure stretching across the Texas landscape beneath an expansive translucent roof.

Musk has also emphasized the project’s architectural ambitions. “It will be stunningly beautiful,” Musk wrote on X. “Sci-fi city is what we’re aiming for,” he said in another X post.

Tesla said the factory is being driven by an urgent need for dramatically increased semiconductor production.

“Both Tesla & SpaceX will need far more chips than current & future global production can supply,” the company wrote, adding that the goal is “producing over 1 terawatt of compute per year.”

According to SpaceX, the facility will integrate nearly every stage of semiconductor manufacturing under one roof, including logic chip production, memory fabrication, packaging, and testing.

“The facility will be an advanced semiconductor fab that will bridge the divide between current global chip supply and the compute demand of the future,” the post read.

Semiconductors serve as the foundation of modern electronics, regulating electrical signals and powering everything from smartphones and computers to automobiles and advanced industrial systems.

The companies say chips manufactured at Terafab will be designed for much more than consumer electronics. According to Tesla, the facility “will produce chips optimized for edge computing and inference for use in hardware like Tesla’s Optimus robots and self-driving Cybercabs, along with high-power chips designed for operating SpaceX’s space-based data centers.”

The project is expected to generate at least 3,000 new jobs, with hiring focused primarily on residents of Grimes County and neighboring Brazos County.

Tesla and SpaceX noted that between 60% and 80% of employees hired at their existing Texas facilities have come from nearby communities, and they expect a similar pattern as Terafab expands.

Musk first introduced the Terafab concept in March, when the companies announced plans centered around a projected $25 billion investment.

The current first phase has been revised to a cost of $16.8 billion, although total investment across all planned construction phases could eventually reach as much as $119 billion.

The project will be built on the site of the former Gibbons Creek Reservoir, which previously supplied cooling water to a coal-fired power plant that ceased operations in 2018.

Recognizing concerns over water usage for large-scale computing facilities, SpaceX said it plans to use water from the existing reservoir rather than drawing from local groundwater supplies.

Not everyone in the surrounding community has embraced the project. Hundreds of Grimes County residents attended a county meeting Wednesday to voice concerns over millions of dollars in tax incentives awarded to the development and what they described as a lack of transparency surrounding the approval process.

The project has also secured support from the state. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s administration has approved a $30 million grant through the Texas Enterprise Fund, while Terafab also qualifies for assistance under the state’s Texas Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation program.

Local education leaders expressed optimism about the development. Consolidated Independent School District Superintendent Sarah Borowicz described the announcement as a defining moment for the district.

Intel has also confirmed that it will participate in the Terafab project, although the company has not yet disclosed the specific nature of its involvement.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s plan to create a new Business Advisory Council is drawing sharp criticism from prominent figures on Wall Street, with several business leaders dismissing the initiative as little more than a public relations effort after months of hostile rhetoric toward the financial community, the NY Post reports.

The proposed council is intended to give leaders from major industries an opportunity to advise the mayor and provide feedback on economic issues, according to City Hall. Bloomberg reported that those approached to participate include Robert Wolf, the former chief executive of UBS Americas and a longtime ally of President Barack Obama.

One senior Wall Street executive blasted the proposal, calling it, “Phony. A pretend effort to fool reasonable people into thinking [Mamdani] is willing to be reasonable towards business.”

Another chief executive in the financial industry was equally skeptical, describing the panel as “probably a waste of time,” while dismissing Wolf as “a bag of air.”

A Wall Street attorney, when asked about Wolf’s reported involvement, was similarly blunt, saying of the prominent Democratic donor, “The old UBS guy? He’s kind of a douche.”

The criticism comes shortly after Mamdani removed the advisory board overseeing the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City, a nonprofit that raises private-sector money to support city initiatives.

The 34-year-old mayor dismissed every member of the organization’s advisory board, replacing an established group of business leaders with a new approach that has already generated controversy.

The Wall Street attorney argued that the proposed Business Advisory Council is unlikely to fill that void.

“It only exists to get checks from appointees for the mayor’s pet projects,” the person said. “Mam is appointing many folks who can’t write checks, so I don’t get it.”

Wolf rejected the criticism, calling it “uninformed gossip.”

“If Mamdani or anyone else asks for my advice on how to make New York city thrive, I would raise my hand if they were Democrat or Republican,” he told The Post.

Wolf declined to say whether he had agreed to serve on the advisory council.

Another individual familiar with the discussions said there has been “no formal ask or acceptance” involving any of the names reportedly under consideration.

According to reports, the council is expected to advise the mayor on issues affecting the finance, technology, and real estate industries.

In addition to Wolf, Bloomberg reported that invitations have also been extended to former Lazard global investment banking chief Antonio Weiss and Bank of America New York City President Jose Tavarez.

“The administration is in the process of reaching out to business executives to form a Business Advisory Council,” a City Hall spokesperson said in a statement. “The purpose of the council is to engage with business leaders for their insights and input as we build an economic development strategy that improves life for all New Yorkers.”

Not everyone in the financial sector dismissed the effort outright.

“Wolf says he’s only doing stuff with Mamdani because he gives a s–t about NYC,” a friend of the former banking executive said.

Since taking office earlier this year, Mamdani has repeatedly clashed with some of New York’s most influential business leaders, drawing criticism from figures including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Citadel founder Ken Griffin.

Griffin also became the target of one of Mamdani’s more unusual political videos, in which the mayor stood outside the billionaire’s Manhattan residence while promoting his proposal to impose higher taxes on second homes.

Even so, one Wall Street executive said the formation of the advisory council only deepened his suspicions about the mayor’s intentions.

“Remember the Saul Alinksy formula — deception is a tool for amassing power,” he told The Post, referring to the late Chicago radical.

Mamdani’s shakeup of the Mayor’s Fund also removed several well-known business figures, including BD Hotels principal Richard Born, GFP Real Estate Chairman Jeffrey Gural, Blackstone senior managing director Alex Katz, Citigroup executive Edward Skyler, and Real Estate Board of New York President James Whelan.

The mayor has also undertaken a major restructuring of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, directing the agency—which oversees city-owned property and economic development initiatives—to prioritize economic justice and housing affordability with the goal of narrowing the city’s wealth gap and expanding financial opportunities for lower-income New Yorkers.