An End to “Springing Forward”: The Case for Permanent Standard Time
On Dec. 13, 2024, then-President-Elect Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, “The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time… Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.”
On Dec. 13th, 2024, then-President-Elect Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, “The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time… Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.” Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy also voiced support on X for abolishing the “annoying” biannual time changes.
It is unclear whether President-Elect Trump aims to make Daylight Saving Time (DST) permanent, a position he has supported in the past, or to abolish DST entirely in favor of permanent Standard Time (ST). Below, I review the history of DST and argue that permanent ST would yield better health outcomes. However, either option would be an improvement over the current approach.
History of DST
Modern DST began with the Standard Time Act of 1918, which aimed to conserve energy during World War I. This first attempt lasted for about 18 months, concluding alongside the war’s end. During World War II, Congress re-adopted year-round DST to reduce electricity use.
After the war, Congress repealed the act and allowed states to set up their own time schedules.
However, inconsistent state practices for setting time schedules disrupted interstate commerce and travel. To resolve this, Congress passed the Uniform Time Act in 1966, which standardized the DST period from April to October. A 2007 amendment to the Uniform Time Act extended DST to its current timeline from March to November.
Health Benefits of Permanent ST
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the National Sleep Foundation, the American Medical Association, and other professional societies have endorsed eliminating time changes in favor of permanent ST.
The biannual time shifts from ST to DST and back have well-documented negative health effects. Research links the ST to DST transition to reductions in sleep and mental wellbeing, as well as increased rates of cardiovascular events, suicides and drug overdoses, emergency room visits, and medical errors, among other effects. The days following the ST to DST transition also demonstrate a significant increase in traffic accidents, likely due to impaired judgment and decision-making capacity following sleep disruption.
Permanent ST is preferable to permanent DST, because it better aligns with the human sleep-wake cycle. The circadian rhythm relies on light in the morning to induce alertness and darkness in the evening to induce sleepiness. DST’s one-hour time shift exposes individuals to more darkness in the morning and light in the evening, disrupting the natural cycle.
Proponents of permanent DST, however, highlight potential benefits, such as reduced crime, energy savings, and increased evening activity. Indeed, one analysis found a 7 percent decrease in robberies after the shift to DST and estimated that this leads to $59 million in annual social cost savings. Yet, criminal activity can be ameliorated through other methods, and historical evidence challenges the potential energy savings and public interest in permanent DST. Studies have found minimal energy savings from the current DST approach. Moreover, Congress attempted permanent DST during the 1973 OPEC oil embargo and did not observe meaningful energy savings. This policy was reversed after only eight months due to public backlash, motivated in part by a rise in early morning traffic accidents during darker winter mornings.
Federal and State Legislative Action
The idea of eliminating time changes is not a new proposition. In 2018, Florida Senator Marco Rubio introduced the Sunshine Protection Act to make DST permanent. A reintroduced version of the bill in 2021 gained bipartisan support and passed the Senate after a motion to skip debate and pass the bill by unanimous consent succeeded. Such motions typically fail, because they are superficial attempts by bill sponsors to show constituents that they tried all means possible to pass a losing bill. In such cases, bill sponsors typically inform other senators in advance so the senators are prepared to oppose the bill. In this case, several senators claimed they had been unaware of the bill’s inclusion on the docket — perhaps because their staff considered the issue too trivial to bring to their attention — and would have raised objections if notified by their staff. The bill ultimately stalled in the House of Representatives. Since then, subsequent attempts to pass a version of the Sunshine Protection Act have failed.
Despite Congress’s recent inaction, many states have signaled a readiness to abolish time change. Arizona and Hawaii already observe permanent ST. At least 20 other states have enacted legislation for permanent DST. However, current federal law only allows states to enact permanent ST on their own; a shift to permanent DST requires new Congressional action. This suggests that enacting permanent ST would not only produce better health outcomes but would also be easier for states to achieve unilaterally.
Conclusion
The debate over DST reform continues, but the science is clear: Eliminating time changes would benefit public health, whether it is permanent ST or DST. Because permanent ST aligns best with circadian rhythms, permanent ST is preferable. With unified Republican control of the Senate, House of Representatives, and the Presidency, the Trump Administration has a unique opportunity to end the disruptive practice of “springing forward” and “falling back” for good.
About the author
Rupa Palanki is a PFC student fellow and law student (J.D. 2026), whose research interests include innovative medical technologies and chronic disease policy. She is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, where she studied Economics and interned for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Louisiana Department of Health. Prior to law school, she worked as an analyst at ClearView Healthcare Partners.
