The clocks fall back this Sunday, marking the end of Daylight Saving Time for 2026.

This is despite a concentrated effort by some in government to end the practice that continues the 108-year tradition that began in 1918 during WWI.

Clocks will fall back one hour at 2 a.m. on Nov. 1, and while most Americans will gain an hour of light in the morning, many believe losing the hour in the afternoon isn’t worth it.

Here’s the status of the effort to lock the clock.

Previous Attempts to End DST

Legislation to end the biannual clock change has floated around Washington for years. In 2022, the Senate voted unanimously to approve a bill called the Sunshine Protection Act.

That bill would have made Daylight Saving Time permanent, but the House of Representatives did not advance it.

Backed by legislators from every state, even those that don’t participate in the time change, the legislation would have locked clocks on Daylight Saving Time, or the “spring forward” position.

States would have been allowed to opt out and remain on standard time year-round.

In the mid-1970s, a temporary repeal to the clock change was cut short due to concerns about dark mornings for schoolchildren.

The planned two-year experiment was cut short after less than a year because of the public’s negative reaction.

Current Effort

President Donald Trump’s push to lock the clock has continued. In a social media post on Oct. 26, he called out the Senate for “letting the Daylight Saving Bill die.”

“Most people are demanding light in the evening, but ALL want not to change their clocks anymore. TAKE A VOTE!” Trump said.

Despite Trump’s calls, some Republicans are still resistant to the idea.

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) said he believes the House bill is a “non-starter” for Senate Republicans.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) voiced the concern of many, saying, “You’d be sending kids to school in the dark.”

“No one likes changing the clock, me included,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). “But Congress has enacted permanent Daylight Savings Time multiple times before and repealed it each time once Americans experienced absurdly late sunrises in the winter.”

The positions have now been reversed, however. In July of this year, the House of Representatives passed legislation to end the clock change, with a solid margin of 308–117.

Before it hit the floor, the bill passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee by a 48–1 vote in May, with almost total support.

The Senate, however, has failed to bring the legislation before the upper chamber of Congress to allow it to be signed into law.

At the time, the bill’s sponsor Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) said: “My Sunshine Protection Act will bring us one step closer to ending the outdated and unpopular practice of changing our clocks twice a year.

“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.”

Health Concerns

Scheduling and economic concerns aside, some medical professionals believe the clock change has negative health implications.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the change can disturb the body’s circadian rhythms, also finding a positive correlation between time changes and heart attacks.

Dr. Karin Johnson, a practicing sleep medicine physician, testified before Congress late last year about the negative health effects of the changing clocks.

“The sun is one of the most powerful drivers of health and well-being,” she said.

Johnson strongly advocates for permanent standard time, saying that daylight saving time would deprive Americans of critical morning light and that although the spring clock change is bad, “permanent daylight saving time is worse.”

“Permanent daylight saving time is a hidden mandate to wake Americans up an hour earlier, rather than [using] alarm clocks or the sun.

“If we called it the ‘Go to Work an Hour Earlier Act,’ rather than the ‘Sunshine Protection Act,’ no one would be voting for it.”