Congress Considers Permanent Half Hour Time Shift

For decades, Americans have endured the twice-yearly ritual of changing their clocks—springing forward in March and falling back in November—all in the name of daylight saving time. But now, a new proposal in Congress is aiming to end this tradition, and its solution is something no one quite saw coming: shifting the nation’s clocks forward by a permanent half hour. On February 17, 2026, Representative Greg Steube, a Republican from Florida, introduced the Daylight Act of 2026 to Congress, as reported by Nexstar Media Inc. The bill, now sitting in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, would permanently set U.S. clocks thirty minutes ahead of their current time, abolishing the need for the biannual change altogether. If passed, Americans would say goodbye to the confusion and inconvenience of adjusting their clocks twice a year—but they’d also find themselves living on a time offset that doesn’t quite match the rest of the world. This proposal stands apart from most previous efforts, which have focused on making daylight saving time permanent—essentially locking the clocks an hour ahead of standard time. That idea, known as the Sunshine Protection Act, has been championed by other Florida lawmakers and even saw a fast-track attempt in the Senate last October, only to be thwarted. Steube himself has previously supported making daylight saving time permanent, writing on X (formerly Twitter) that “it’s time to end this pointless ritual.” In November, he filed a discharge petition to bring the Sunshine Protection Act to a House vote, but so far, Congress hasn’t acted. So, why a half-hour adjustment? According to KMDL-FM, Steube’s Daylight Act of 2026 is a compromise solution: rather than choose between permanent standard time or permanent daylight saving time, the bill would split the difference. The idea is reminiscent of a parent dividing a cookie between two squabbling children—no one gets exactly what they want, but everyone gets something. “Medically, a half hour delay would be less harmful than a full hour delay of permanent daylight saving time and would have the benefit of ending the biannual change,” Dr. Karin Johnson, spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and co-chair of the Coalition for Permanent Standard Time, told Nexstar. However, she cautioned, “it would still lead to fewer morning hours of daylight, which health experts agree is better for us.” Permanent standard time, in her view, would be the healthiest option. Jay Pea, president of the non-profit Save Standard Time, echoed those concerns. “The design of Standard Time (when aligned properly to longitude) is to minimize misalignment between clocks and the sun to within 30 minutes or fewer,” he explained to Nexstar. Pea emphasized that even a half-hour offset could create “unintended complications for technology, transportation, and business.” That’s especially true for international services, which rely on coordinated time zones to keep schedules in sync across borders. The United States isn’t alone in considering unusual time offsets. As KMDL-FM pointed out, countries like Afghanistan and Iran operate on half-hour time zones—Afghanistan is +4.5 hours from Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), while Iran is +3.5. If it’s 3 p.m. in New York, it’s 12:30 a.m. the next day in Kabul. But for the U.S., adopting a half-hour offset would mean that American time would no longer align exactly with neighboring countries like Canada or Mexico, or major trading partners like the United Kingdom or the European Union. That could spell trouble for everything from flight schedules to stock market openings. Currently, many states—including Louisiana—have already passed laws that would allow them to opt out of daylight saving time, but only if federal law changes to permit it. As KMDL-FM noted, states are “waiting on Uncle Sam to make up his mind,” and until now, Congress has failed to act. The Daylight Act of 2026 is the first federal proposal in years to offer a concrete, if unconventional, solution. Public opinion on the issue is mixed. Some Americans are tired of the disruption caused by changing clocks and would welcome any plan that puts an end to it. Others worry about the health effects of less morning sunlight or the confusion of being out of sync with the rest of the world. And then there’s the question of whether a half-hour compromise is really what anyone wanted in the first place. As KMDL-FM quipped, “that’s a time solution that only an elected official could love.” The debate is further complicated by the patchwork of time-related bills circulating in Congress. Alongside Steube’s Daylight Act, another bill—introduced by Representative Celeste Maloy of Utah—would allow states to observe daylight saving time year-round. Meanwhile, state legislators across the country are considering their own proposals to end the twice-yearly time change, reflecting widespread frustration with the current system. For now, nothing is set in stone. As of February 17, the Daylight Act of 2026 remains in committee, with no immediate vote scheduled. Steube’s office did not respond to Nexstar’s request for comment before publication, and it’s unclear how much support the bill will garner among lawmakers or the public at large. What is clear, though, is that the U.S. is at a crossroads when it comes to timekeeping. The current system, established in the early 20th century to save energy and make better use of daylight, has become increasingly unpopular. Critics argue that the twice-yearly change disrupts sleep, lowers productivity, and poses health risks. Proponents of permanent standard time point to research suggesting that more morning light is better for our circadian rhythms, while advocates for permanent daylight saving time say it would give people more daylight in the evenings to enjoy outdoor activities. As Jay Pea put it, “I appreciate the congressman’s willingness to explore alternatives to [permanent daylight saving time]. However, [permanent standard time] remains both the simplest solution and the true compromise between ‘fast’ and ‘slow time,’ as supported by health science, historical precedence, and first principles.” For now, Americans will continue to spring forward and fall back, at least until Congress decides on a new approach. Whether that approach will be a half-hour compromise, permanent daylight saving, or permanent standard time remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the debate over how we keep time is far from over, and the clock is ticking.