Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill (Sunshine Protection Act of 2025) repeals the temporary provision of the Uniform Time Act and amends the 1918 Calder Act to advance U.S. standard time zone offsets by one hour, effectively making daylight saving time permanent nationwide. It also provides that States or areas that previously exempted themselves from daylight saving time may choose either the new advanced standard time or their prior standard time.
Health concerns (liberal) vs convenience/economic gains (centrist, conservative).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory change that clearly amends specific provisions of existing timekeeping laws to make daylight saving time permanent and to preserve existing state exemptions.
The bill (Sunshine Protection Act of 2025) repeals the temporary provision of the Uniform Time Act and amends the 1918 Calder Act to advance U.S. standard time zone offsets by one hour, effectively making daylight saving time permanent nationwide.
It also provides that States or areas that previously exempted themselves from daylight saving time may choose either the new advanced standard time or their prior standard time.
The measure clarifies federal statutory time offsets and preserves a form of state exemption choice.
Substantively simple and low-cost, likely to pass lower chamber; significant Senate hurdles and state-specific opposition reduce final odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory change that clearly amends specific provisions of existing timekeeping laws to make daylight saving time permanent and to preserve existing state exemptions.
Health concerns (liberal) vs convenience/economic gains (centrist, conservative).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Health concerns (liberal) vs convenience/economic gains (centrist, conservative).
Mixed-to-skeptical.
Supportive of eliminating biannual clock changes, but worried about public health, child safety, and equity impacts from darker winter mornings.
Wants safeguards for vulnerable populations.
Generally favorable but pragmatic.
Likes reduced disruption, national consistency, and business predictability, while wanting evidence and safeguards about safety and health implications.
Cautiously supportive.
Appreciates ending clock changes and potential economic benefits, but wary of federal preemption and prefers strong state choice protections and minimal federal mandates.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively simple and low-cost, likely to pass lower chamber; significant Senate hurdles and state-specific opposition reduce final odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Health concerns (liberal) vs convenience/economic gains (centrist, conservative).
Substantively simple and low-cost, likely to pass lower chamber; significant Senate hurdles and state-specific opposition reduce final odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory change that clearly amends specific provisions of existing timekeeping laws to make daylight saving time permanent and to preserve existing sta…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.