Permanent daylight saving time gains new momentum in Washington

A bill to make daylight saving time permanent has advanced to the US Senate, and the White House is pressing Congress to end the twice-yearly clock change for good, according to reports. President Donald Trump has expressed support for locking the clocks, giving fresh momentum to a cause that has repeatedly stalled in Washington. Under current practice, most Americans move their clocks forward one hour on the second Sunday in March and back to standard time on the first Sunday in November. The shift moves an hour of daylight from mornings to evenings. Arizona, Hawaii and several US territories do not take part, and polls have long shown the biannual switch is unpopular with the public. The stakes are practical as well as political. Permanent daylight saving time would mean brighter winter evenings but darker mornings — in Rhode Island, some winter sunrises would come slightly after 8 a.m. Scientists have documented public health and economic consequences tied to the change, and the debate has resurfaced in states such as Wisconsin, where supporters cite longer evenings and critics raise health and safety concerns.

A Senate bill and White House backing revive the push to lock the clocks

The campaign to end America's twice-yearly clock change has fresh political energy. Reports indicate that a bill to make daylight saving time permanent has advanced to the Senate, and that a legislative push is underway to block the scheduled return to standard time, with pressure coming from the White House — though these accounts remain unconfirmed.

Donald Trump has publicly expressed support for making daylight saving time permanent, lending the effort a high-profile champion. The idea resonates with a public that has grown tired of resetting clocks each March and November.

Either route would achieve that goal. Adopting permanent daylight saving time would keep the later-evening light year-round, while permanent standard time would do the opposite — but both would end the biannual switch. The debate now turns on which fixed time the country should keep.

How the twice-yearly clock change works now — and who sits it out

Twice a year, most Americans reset their clocks. On the second Sunday in March, clocks move forward one hour into daylight saving time; on the first Sunday in November, they move back to standard time. The effect is to shift an hour of daylight from mornings to evenings during the warmer months.

The practice is near-universal but not absolute. Most of the United States observes daylight saving time, while Arizona, Hawaii, and several US territories do not, keeping the same time year-round.

The ritual itself has few fans. The twice-yearly clock change is unpopular with the American public, and that frustration has fueled recurring efforts to pick one time and stick with it. Ending the switch, however, requires choosing between permanent standard time and permanent daylight saving time — two options with very different consequences.

Later sunrises and brighter evenings: what permanent DST would look like

Locking the clocks on daylight saving time year-round would shift an hour of light from mornings to evenings permanently. In practice, that means darker mornings in the fall and winter, with later sunrises across much of the United States. In Rhode Island, some winter sunrises would come slightly after 8 a.m. The trade-off is more evening light throughout the year.

That trade-off sits at the centre of the debate in Wisconsin, where a proposal to make daylight saving time permanent has revived discussion. According to reports, supporters point to longer, brighter evenings, while critics raise health and safety concerns tied to the darker mornings. Scientists have documented public health and economic consequences associated with permanent daylight saving time, though the specifics of those findings remain contested.

The health and economic case dividing scientists and lawmakers

The argument over permanent daylight saving time turns on a simple trade-off: more light in the evening means less of it in the morning. Scientists have documented public health and economic consequences tied to the shift, though the briefing available does not detail which specific outcomes they have measured. What is clear is the physical result. In Rhode Island, some winter sunrises would arrive slightly after 8 a.m., leaving commuters and schoolchildren starting their days in darkness while gaining brighter afternoons.

That divide shapes the political fight. In Wisconsin, according to reports, supporters of a permanent-DST proposal point to longer evenings, while critics raise health and safety concerns about darker mornings. The same tension runs through the national debate. Ending the twice-yearly clock change is broadly popular, and either permanent standard time or permanent daylight saving time would achieve it. The dispute is over which fixed time the country should keep.

Frequently asked questions