The House Rules Committee voted 6-4 on Monday to advance the Sunshine Protection Act to a full chamber vote, moving Congress one step closer to ending the twice-a-year clock change that most Americans have grown to resent. The bill, authored by Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, would let states lock their clocks on Daylight Saving Time year-round, with an option to opt out.
President Trump threw his weight behind the measure in a written statement after it cleared committee. The bill had already sailed through the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May on a lopsided 48-1 vote, Fox News reported. Now it faces the full House, and the question of whether this time, unlike 2022, the effort can survive the full legislative gauntlet.
This is not Congress's first attempt. The Senate unanimously passed a version of the Sunshine Protection Act in 2022. That bill died in the House after lawmakers raised concerns about darker winter mornings in northern states. The idea has lingered ever since, backed by polling that shows broad public support and roughly 20 states that have already passed their own laws making Daylight Saving Time permanent, contingent on federal authorization.
Only Hawaii and most of Arizona currently skip the biannual clock change. Alabama, South Carolina, Oregon, Maine, and Florida are among the states that have passed legislation waiting on Congress to act.
The Rules Committee vote on Monday was the procedural gate the bill needed to clear before reaching the House floor. Chairman Brett Guthrie, a Kentucky Republican, opened the hearing by framing the issue in practical terms.
"Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of this policy and want to end the practice of 'springing forward' and 'falling back.' Locking the clock all year long would have positive impacts on sleep schedules, energy conservation, motor vehicle safety, and our economy."
Guthrie added that the change would mean "more time for people to exercise outside, visit family, attend concerts and sporting events, attract customers to their retail businesses, and more."
The president has repeatedly urged Congress to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, and his statement following the committee vote left no ambiguity about where he stands.
"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. It will also be a very nice WIN for the Republican Party. Take it! 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!"
That kind of presidential enthusiasm matters in a chamber where leadership must weigh floor time carefully. The earlier 48-1 committee vote signaled overwhelming bipartisan appetite for the bill, a rarity in a Congress that struggles to agree on much of anything.
Not everyone lined up behind permanent Daylight Saving Time. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania Democrat, proposed an amendment drawn from her co-sponsored Sunshine for Our Kids Act, which would have made standard time, not Daylight Saving Time, permanent nationwide. The Rules Committee rejected her amendment.
Scanlon argued that permanent Daylight Saving Time would pose health and safety risks by leaving more Americans, particularly children, in darkness during morning hours. She pointed to the nation's brief experiment with year-round Daylight Saving Time in 1974, which Congress abandoned after widespread public backlash.
Rep. Nanette Barragán, a California Democrat, was the lone vote against the bill during the Energy and Commerce Committee markup in May. She cited concerns about children's health and sleep schedules, echoing the arguments several unnamed medical organizations have made that permanent standard time better aligns with the body's natural circadian rhythms and provides more morning sunlight.
The health debate is real, and it cuts against the bill's supporters in ways they have not fully addressed. But the political momentum is clearly on the side of Daylight Saving Time. The question is whether the same concerns that sank the bill in 2022 will resurface on the House floor.
The opposition is not only coming from Democrats worried about morning darkness. Some conservatives question whether House leadership should be spending floor time on clocks when larger fights remain unresolved.
Rep. Keith Self, a Texas Republican and member of the House Freedom Caucus, issued a blunt written statement Monday.
"Republicans are majoring in the minors, fiddling with the clocks while the country burns."
Self's frustration reflects a broader tension within the GOP conference. The recent procedural clashes in the House have exposed fault lines between leadership's legislative calendar and the priorities of the party's most conservative members. Spending political capital on a clock bill, however popular, risks drawing fire from members who want the majority focused on spending, border security, and the broader Trump agenda.
That tension does not make the Sunshine Protection Act unworthy. It does mean leadership will have to manage the floor carefully.
Even if the House passes the bill, the Senate remains a question mark. The upper chamber passed the measure unanimously in 2022, but that vote famously caught some senators off guard, several later said they had not fully understood what they were voting for. Whether the current Senate would repeat that unanimous consent is unclear.
The House has already passed versions of the SAVE America Act multiple times, but that measure has struggled to overcome the Senate's legislative filibuster. The Sunshine Protection Act could face similar procedural headwinds, even with broad public support.
Buchanan, the bill's author, framed the case in a May news release.
"Floridians and Americans across the country are tired of the biannual time change, and the evidence is clear that permanent daylight saving time can improve public health, reduce traffic accidents, lower crime and encourage more outdoor activity. Ending the clock change is a commonsense reform that will improve everyday life for millions of Americans."
The pattern of House bills clearing one chamber only to stall in the other is familiar enough to temper expectations. But the combination of presidential support, a near-unanimous committee vote, and two decades of growing state-level momentum makes this the strongest position the Sunshine Protection Act has ever occupied.
The history here is worth remembering. In 1974, Congress tried year-round Daylight Saving Time and reversed course after the public revolted over dark winter mornings. In 2022, the Senate passed the bill and the House let it expire. Now, in 2026, the bill has cleared two House committees by overwhelming margins and has the explicit backing of the president.
Roughly 20 states have already done their part, passing laws that sit dormant until Washington acts. The federal government remains the bottleneck.
The arguments on both sides are legitimate. Proponents point to economic benefits, reduced traffic accidents, and longer evening daylight. Opponents, including some medical groups, warn that permanent standard time better matches human biology. The 1974 experiment lends credibility to the skeptics.
But the core question is simpler than the health debate. Most Americans want to stop changing their clocks. Congress has the votes. The president is on board. The only thing that has stopped this before is institutional inertia and the Senate's procedural maze.
If Republicans can't deliver a bill this popular with a willing president, a near-unanimous committee vote, and 20 states already in line, it will say more about Congress than about clocks.
