The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 48-1 on Thursday to advance a transportation bill that includes the Sunshine Protection Act, the latest and most serious congressional push to end the twice-yearly clock change that most Americans say they despise. President Trump immediately celebrated the vote and pledged to fight for the measure's passage into law.
The bill, formally designated H.R. 139, was folded into the broader Motor Vehicle Modernization Act during committee markup and now heads to the House floor. If it clears the full chamber, it would still need Senate passage and a presidential signature before Americans could stop resetting their clocks every March and November.
But this time, unlike past efforts that fizzled in procedural limbo, the proposal has something it lacked before: a president openly pushing for it and a lopsided committee vote that signals broad bipartisan appetite. Only one member voted no.
Minutes after the committee acted, Trump took to Truth Social to frame the vote as a populist win. TIME Magazine reported the president's full post, in which he laid out his case in characteristically blunt terms:
"Big Vote today (48-1!) in the Energy and Commerce Committee on a Bill including The Sunshine Protection Act, which will be making Daylight Saving Time Permanent! This is so important in that Hundreds of Millions of Dollars are spent every year by people, Cities, and States, being forced to change their Clocks. It's time that people can stop worrying about the 'Clock,' not to mention all of the work and money that is spent on this ridiculous, twice yearly production. We are going with the far more popular alternative, Saving Daylight, which gives you a longer, brighter Day, And who can be against that, This is an easy one!"
Trump also said he would work "very hard" to see the Sunshine Protection Act signed into law. Breitbart reported that the president plans to attach the measure to the Highway Bill, a legislative vehicle that would give it real momentum, and that Trump called the proposal "a very nice WIN for the Republican Party."
That kind of direct presidential engagement marks a significant shift. Trump has been calling for an end to clock-switching since the beginning of his presidency, but his involvement now goes beyond social media posts. Attaching the measure to a must-pass transportation package would force the Senate to deal with it rather than let it die quietly in committee, as happened the last time permanent daylight saving time cleared one chamber.
The United States has tried permanent daylight saving time before. It didn't go well.
During World War II, clocks moved forward one hour under what was called "War Time." The change reverted after the war ended. Then in 1974, amid the energy crisis, the federal government implemented year-round daylight saving time again. Support collapsed within months. Parents grew alarmed about children heading to school in pitch darkness, and concerns about traffic accidents during late winter sunrises drove Congress to repeal the experiment.
That history looms over the current debate. In March 2025, Trump himself acknowledged the political complexity of the issue during remarks to reporters in the Oval Office.
"I assume people would like to have more light later, but some people want to have more light earlier because they don't want to take their kids to school in the dark. And it's very much, it's a little bit one way, but it's very much a 50-50 issue."
The president's candor about the divide is worth noting. Even as he champions permanent daylight saving time, he has not pretended the politics are simple, a degree of honesty that has eluded many in Washington on far weightier matters.
Trump has demonstrated the same direct, hands-on approach across his broader agenda, from energy policy wins to domestic reform. The daylight saving push fits a pattern: identify something that annoys ordinary Americans, find a legislative vehicle, and lean on Congress to act.
Public opinion data supports the case for ending the clock switch, even if Americans disagree on what should replace it. An October 2025 AP-NORC poll found that almost half of Americans oppose the practice of switching clocks twice a year. Just 12 percent favor keeping the current system.
Among those who want the switching to stop, 56 percent prefer year-round daylight saving time, while 42 percent prefer year-round standard time. A separate YouGov survey conducted earlier in 2025 found that roughly two-thirds of Americans want the practice abolished entirely.
Nineteen states have already enacted legislation to observe year-round daylight saving time, but only if Congress authorizes the change. Under current federal law, states may exempt themselves from daylight saving time and remain on standard time year-round, as Hawaii and most of Arizona already do. But states have no authority under the existing statute to choose permanent daylight saving time on their own. That asymmetry is precisely what the Sunshine Protection Act would fix.
The bill's House sponsor, Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, framed the measure in practical terms. He called it "a commonsense reform that will improve everyday life for millions of Americans." Sen. Rick Scott, also a Florida Republican, introduced the Senate companion bill, S. 29.
The New York Post reported that the bill has 32 bipartisan cosponsors in the House and 18 in the Senate, a sign that the idea has traction beyond the Republican conference.
Not every Republican is on board. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas has voiced opposition, warning that permanent daylight saving time would "again make winter a dark and dismal time for millions of Americans." Cotton pointed out that in some states, "people won't see the sunrise until 9 a.m." under permanent DST.
Cotton's objection is not frivolous. The geography of the issue matters. Support for permanent daylight saving time tends to cluster in coastal areas, where later sunsets are popular. In the middle of the country, where sunrise already comes later, the prospect of 9 a.m. darkness in January raises legitimate safety and quality-of-life concerns, the same concerns that sank the 1974 experiment.
This internal Republican tension will shape the bill's path through the Senate. The 2022 precedent is instructive: the Senate actually passed a version of the Sunshine Protection Act that year, but the bill stalled in the House and never reached the president's desk. This time, the House is moving first, and with a president who has publicly committed to the cause.
The question is whether Senate leadership will bring the measure to a vote, and whether members from northern and interior states will accept permanent daylight saving time for the sake of ending a practice that nearly everyone agrees is annoying.
Trump has shown a willingness to push through resistance on his priorities, whether the issue involves energy policy timelines or foreign policy negotiations. The daylight saving fight is smaller in scale but follows the same playbook: identify broad public frustration, find a legislative path, and apply presidential pressure.
The Sunshine Protection Act's immediate future depends on House floor scheduling. Folded into the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act, it has a better chance of reaching a vote than it would as a standalone measure. Newsmax reported that Trump hailed the committee's "big vote" and signaled he views the measure as a straightforward political winner.
If the House passes the bill, the Senate would need to act, and that chamber's track record on this issue is mixed. Passing it once in 2022 and then watching it die across the Capitol is the kind of performance that feeds public cynicism about Congress.
The broader legislative context matters, too. With Trump's agenda moving on multiple fronts, from key appointments to major policy packages, the Sunshine Protection Act offers Republicans a chance to deliver a tangible, widely popular reform that affects every household in America. It costs nothing. It requires no new agency. It simply removes a federal mandate that the overwhelming majority of Americans find pointless.
The arguments against permanent daylight saving time are real and deserve a hearing. Parents in northern states have legitimate concerns about dark winter mornings. But the status quo, a system that only 12 percent of Americans actively support, is hard to defend on democratic grounds.
Congress has a rare opportunity to do something almost everyone wants. The only question is whether Washington can manage to get out of its own way long enough to let the sun keep shining.