Daylight Saving Time: The Ongoing Debate, the Legislation, and What It Means for You

Daylight Saving Time, The Ongoing Debate, and What It Means for You

“The twice-yearly time warp serves little purpose in modern life.”

BY STEPHNIE @the Brimly Test Kitchen

March 9, 2025

Image Source/Andrej Lišakov

20 minute Read

INFO CONTENT

FEATURE ARTICLE

Objective VIEW

"Daylight saving time was introduced as an energy-saving measure, but its effectiveness in modern society is still debated."– U.S. Department of Energy Report

Twice each year, Americans “spring forward” or “fall back,” adjusting their clocks by an hour. But this decades-old ritual may be on the brink of change. Lawmakers across the United States – from Congress to state capitols – have renewed efforts to “lock the clock” and end the biannual switch.

view:

LISTEN

“As Congress debates the future of Daylight Saving Time, the fate of ‘spring forward’ and ‘fall back’ remains uncertain.” — Image courtesy of Getty Images.

Current Legislative Efforts on DST

Federal Action – The Sunshine Protection Act: In Washington, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators and representatives is again pushing to make daylight saving time permanent nationwide. In March 2022, the Senate surprised many by unanimously passing the Sunshine Protection Act to end the clock changes and keep DST year-round. Supporters argued it would lead to “brighter afternoons and more economic activity.” However, that bill stalled without a vote in the House, amid concerns about sending kids to school on dark winter mornings. The effort didn’t die there – in March 2023, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) reintroduced the Sunshine Protection Act for the new Congress. A companion bill was filed in the House by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL). As of early 2025, these bills remain in committee without a final vote, but their sponsors continue to advocate ending what Rubio has called the “stupidity” of changing clocks twice a year.

State Initiatives – Patchwork Proposals: While Congress deliberates, almost every U.S. state has weighed in on DST in recent years. Over 30 states have considered bills or resolutions to stop the clock changes. Since 2018, 19 states – including Florida, Washington, California, Oregon, and Tennessee – have enacted laws or passed resolutions signaling their intent to observe DST permanently. For example, Florida was the first state to pass a law (nicknamed the Sunshine Protection Act at the state level) to lock the clocks on DST, pending federal approval.

On the other hand, a few states are pushing in the opposite direction – toward permanent standard time (the time observed in winter). States such as North Dakota have advanced bills to opt out of DST entirely (as allowed by current federal law) and stay on standard time year-round.

Why Do We Have DST? – A Bit of History

To understand the current debate, it helps to know why daylight saving time exists in the first place. The U.S. introduced DST during World War I as part of the 1918 Standard Time Act, aiming to save energy by shifting daylight into the evening hours. However, that first experiment was short-lived – the DST provision was repealed in 1919 after widespread protests by farmers, who found that darker mornings disrupted their schedules and their livestock. DST returned during World War II: from 1942 to 1945 the country observed year-round DST (nicknamed “War Time”) to conserve fuel and resources.

After WWII, DST was optional for states, leading to a patchwork of local practices. By the 1960s, this patchwork had become chaotic for interstate commerce and transportation – one famous example often cited is a 35-mile bus route from Ohio to West Virginia that passed through seven different time changes due to local DST adoptions. In response, Congress passed the Uniform Time Act of 1966, standardizing the start and end dates of DST nationwide. From then on, most of the country “sprang forward” in April and “fell back” in October each year.

In the following decades, Congress tweaked DST’s timing a few more times. In 1986, DST’s start date moved to early April (extending the season by a few weeks) to purportedly save energy and allow more evening daylight. More recently, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended DST by another four weeks starting in 2007 – it now begins the second Sunday of March and ends the first Sunday of November.

As of 2025, no federal law has yet changed DST, so the U.S. continues to follow the 2007 schedule. But the flurry of state resolutions and the re-introduction of federal bills each session shows momentum is building behind some kind of reform, even if there’s no agreement yet on what that should look like.

Video courtesy of CNN 10 & Image courtesy of David Nieto.

This video, “Daylight Saving Time Explained” by CNN 10, provides a concise overview of the history and ongoing debate surrounding DST as the U.S. and many other countries prepare to set their clocks forward. Anchor Coy Wire explains how DST was first introduced during World War I as a fuel and power-saving measure, why certain U.S. states and territories do not observe it, and how research has linked the time change to disruptions in body rhythms, mental health effects, and overall well-being. The video also touches on past legislative efforts, including the 2022 Senate bill that sought to make DST permanent, and why the debate over keeping or eliminating the practice remains unresolved.

Expert Opinions and Public Sentiment

The push to stop changing clocks has drawn input from a wide range of experts – from sleep scientists and doctors to economists, business leaders, and educators. Perhaps the most vocal are health and sleep experts, who largely favor sticking with standard time year-round. Their reasoning: standard time (with earlier sunrise and earlier sunset) is more in sync with humans’ natural circadian rhythms. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) – representing many of the nation’s sleep doctors – has officially called for an end to the DST switches in favor of permanent standard time. “Standard time is a better option than daylight saving time for our health, mood, and well-being,” says Dr. Raman Malhotra, president of AASM. By aligning clocks more closely with the sun, permanent standard time would help our bodies stay in sync with the natural day-night cycle, which research suggests is optimal for sleep and daytime functioning.

Sleep scientists point out that DST – especially the spring jump – causes acute disruptions: studies have documented spikes in heart attacks, strokes, and general sleep deprivation in the days after we “spring forward” each March. One often-cited study found a 24% increase in heart attack risk in the week after the DST transition in spring. These experts argue that eliminating the twice-yearly change (and avoiding permanent DST’s late winter sunrises) could improve public health. In fact, a coalition of chronobiologists and medical professionals traveled to Capitol Hill in late 2023 to brief lawmakers on the negative health impacts of DST and to urge adoption of permanent standard time.

On the other side of the debate, business and economic interests tend to favor permanent daylight saving time, valuing that extra evening light. Industries like retail, tourism, recreation, and sports have historically lobbied for more daylight in the late afternoon and evening, believing it translates to higher consumer activity (and profits).

Many outdoor recreation and sports groups echo this sentiment – more usable daylight after work or school means more time for games, practices, and outdoor hobbies. Similarly, some law enforcement and public safety experts see upsides to later sunsets. The rationale is that crime rates tend to drop with more light in the evening: opportunistic crimes like robberies are less likely to occur in daylight. Research supports this – for example, a Stanford study found that following the spring clock change to DST, robbery rates fell by 7% overall, with a 27% drop during the evening hour of sunset that would have been dark under standard time. The researchers attributed this not to criminals sleeping in, but to the deterrent effect of daylight – people are less inclined to commit crimes when it’s light out and they might be seen.

What about public opinion? On this, Americans seem to overwhelmingly agree on one thing: the clock changes are unpopular. Multiple surveys show that a strong majority of people want to stop switching between DST and standard time. However, when asked which time to stick with, opinions are more divided. A 2022 CBS News/YouGov poll found 66% of Americans favored ending the clock changes, and when forced to choose, 46% preferred permanent DST versus 33% who preferred permanent standard time (about 21% weren’t sure). A more recent Gallup poll in March 2025 showed a similar story: 7 in 10 Americans would rather stick to one time all year – but they don’t all agree on which one.

This lack of consensus on standard vs. daylight time is one reason lawmakers haven’t simply rubber-stamped a change. Interestingly, preference can vary by geography: people in northern states or farther west in their time zone (who experience later winter sunrises) tend to be more wary of permanent DST’s dark mornings, whereas those in the south might prioritize the evening light. Nonetheless, the overall trend is clear – public patience with clock switching is wearing thin.

“Experts and the public debate the future of Daylight Saving Time—should we ‘lock the clock’ or keep changing it?” — Image courtesy of Getty Images

Potential Impacts of Eliminating (or Keeping) DST

If the U.S. does decide to stop changing clocks, what would the effects be? Experts have weighed various pros and cons of permanent DST versus permanent standard time. Here’s an overview of key impact areas:

Health and Sleep:

Eliminating the abrupt spring transition would likely reduce the short-term health risks that spike each March. Research has linked the DST jump to increased heart attacks, strokes, workplace injuries, and even a rise in traffic accidents due to grogginess. Year-round time could also improve sleep consistency – no more “losing” an hour in spring. However, the choice of DST or standard matters for long-term health.

Sleep physicians warn that permanent DST (late sunrise in winter) could lead to chronic misalignment of our internal clocks in those darker mornings, potentially impacting sleep quality, mood, and metabolism over the winter months. Permanent standard time is viewed as more natural – morning light is crucial for resetting our circadian rhythm each day, which can boost alertness and mental health. On balance, sticking to one clock (no switches) would remove the acute stress of transitions, but experts say choosing standard time year-round would yield the best health outcomes.

Safety (Crime and Traffic):

As mentioned, more evening daylight tends to correlate with lower crime rates for certain offenses. The Department of Transportation has long argued that DST contributes to public safety, citing lower robberies and safer driving during sunlit commute hours.

If DST were kept year-round, those safety benefits would extend through winter as well. However, a trade-off is darker mornings in winter under permanent DST – meaning kids going to school or people traveling to work before sunrise, which could increase risks early in the day. The 1974 experiment with year-round DST sadly saw an increase in morning traffic accidents in the dark hours, which was a major reason that trial was halted.

Permanent standard time, by contrast, would ensure morning light but give up the evening light advantage – potentially modestly increasing evening accident risk or crime in the late afternoon/early evening during winter. No clock change at all also eliminates the strange phenomenon of a sudden one-day spike in crashes each spring; studies found a 6% rise in fatal car accidents in the week after clocks advance.

In summary, permanent DST might improve evening safety at the cost of morning darkness, while permanent standard does the opposite – society has to decide which risk is easier to manage. Some suggest school start times could be pushed a bit later in winter to mitigate dark mornings.

"Power lines stretch into the sunset—just like the original promise of Daylight Saving Time. Is it time to rethink its impact?" — Image courtesy of Matthew Henry

Energy Usage:

Saving energy was an original rationale for DST, but modern evidence is mixed. With more efficient lighting and more energy used for heating/cooling, the gains from DST’s extra evening light are not as significant as they once were.

The extended DST implemented in 2007 was studied by the Department of Energy, which found a 0.03% reduction in total electricity use – essentially a rounding error. Some studies have even found DST can slightly increase energy consumption overall, due to higher air conditioning use on warm, lighter evenings and heating on dark, chilly mornings.

A 2017 analysis noted that while lighting use dropped in DST, household cooling costs rose, nullifying the effect. So, if DST were permanent, we might not see any net energy savings – people could just shift when they use electricity. Permanent standard time would mean lights might be on earlier in the evening but less in the morning; again, likely a wash.

Overall, experts do not expect a major energy impact either way today, unlike during WWI or the 1970s when energy savings were a driving force.

Economic and Lifestyle Effects:

This is where the choice of DST or standard really becomes a matter of public preference.

Permanent DST would deliver more daylight after typical work/school hours throughout the year. Supporters say this could boost retail sales, dining out, and local tourism – people may be more willing to go out shopping or to restaurants while it’s still light in the early evening.

It could also spread out evening rush-hour traffic, as people might linger outdoors or run errands later rather than all driving home before darkness. Additionally, some argue it could alleviate winter doldrums by providing a bit of evening sunshine when people need it most.

Permanent standard time, on the other hand, means earlier sunrise. This could benefit early risers, school children, and morning-dependent industries like agriculture. Farmers have historically preferred standard time since farm work aligns with solar time; DST was actually disruptive on the farm – cows don’t read clocks, after all.

From a business standpoint, many companies simply crave consistency – the actual hour of daylight matters less to them than not having to adjust schedules or deal with time confusion. Airlines, for instance, have to juggle complex schedules around DST changes (especially international flights when other countries change on different dates).

In sum, permanent DST might favor evening-oriented activities and commerce, while permanent standard might favor morning wellness and certain sectors – but both options remove the biannual disruption that currently causes confusion and minor economic loss.

“Brighter evenings, earlier mornings, or something in between? The way we use daylight is still up for debate.” —Image courtesy of Yns Plt

The Bottom Line:

The debate over daylight saving time in the U.S. has evolved from a quirky semi-annual gripe to a serious policy discussion. Lawmakers at both the federal and state levels are clearly responding to a public that is increasingly eager to do away with the clock switches.

On one hand, we have the promise of later sunsets year-round, backed by many businesses and some officials aiming to “save” daylight permanently. On the other hand, we have a strong call from sleep experts (and parents of groggy schoolkids) to stick with the natural rhythm of standard time. Both sides present compelling arguments – from health and safety to economic and social benefits – and both acknowledge that stability (not having to change clocks) would be an improvement over the status quo.

For now, nothing is set in law, and Americans will continue to “spring forward” and “fall back” each year. But the flurry of recent bills named things like the Sunshine Protection Act and slogans to “lock the clock” indicate that change could be on the horizon. It may take Congress resolving the DST vs. standard debate – or perhaps granting states more flexibility – to settle the issue.

Until then, each March and November we’ll carry on with the familiar ritual, even as more people question why. Regardless of which path is chosen, the growing consensus is that the twice-yearly time warp serves little purpose in modern life.

As this informational overview shows, daylight saving time’s future remains uncertain, but it’s a topic that illuminates the intersection of science, economics, and everyday experience. Whether we end up with brighter evenings, brighter mornings, or something in between, the conversation itself has shone a light on how we want to spend our most fundamental resource: daylight.