This weekend, millions of people will “spring forward” as daylight saving time (DST) begins, moving clocks one hour ahead. The seasonal time change – in effect from March 9 to November 2 in the United States – brings an extra hour of evening light but also reignites a long-running debate about its necessity. Lawmakers and experts are questioning whether this practice still makes sense, citing research on its health effects and changing societal needs. As clocks change in 2025, many are asking: will this ritual stand the test of time, or is it time to stop changing the clocks?
2025: Clocks Change Amid Calls for Reform
At 2 a.m. on Sunday, March 9, most Americans will set their clocks forward by one hour to mark the start of DST.
(Most of Europe will follow on March 30 under a coordinated schedule.) Not everyone participates: Arizona, Hawaii and some U.S. territories do not observe DST, opting to keep standard time year-round.
In recent years, many states have proposed ending the twice-yearly clock changes in a growing push for reform. In Washington, the Sunshine Protection Act – a proposal to make DST permanent – passed the Senate in 2022 but stalled in the House.
“The twice-a-year clock change is disruptive and unnecessary,” argues Texas State Sen. Judith Zaffirini, who points to research tying clock shifts to more accidents and health problems.
Public opinion is increasingly supportive of ending DST switches. Surveys show a majority of Americans favor eliminating seasonal time changes.
In the European Union, an official 2018 consultation similarly found broad support for abolishing clock shifts (84% of respondents).
The EU was on track to end DST by 2021, but that plan is delayed amid coordination concerns.
Still, several countries have already acted: for example, Mexico abolished DST in 2022 (except in border regions) after concluding the practice was no longer beneficial.
Why Do We Have Daylight Saving Time?
Daylight saving time was introduced during World War I as a way to save energy and make better use of daylight. Germany pioneered a national DST in April 1916 to conserve coal, and Britain, France and others soon followed.
The United States and many other countries later adopted similar policies. The idea is simple: by shifting one hour of sunlight from morning to evening during the longer days of summer, people can enjoy more daylight after work and potentially use less electricity for lighting.
Over the last century, DST became a regular fixture in dozens of countries, affecting over one billion people each year.
However, it has never been universally embraced. Farmers often opposed it (morning chores in the dark), while retailers and tourism industries favored it for the extra evening commerce. The energy-saving rationale is also debated. During the 1970s energy crisis, the U.S. even tried year-round DST to save power, but the actual savings were minor.
Health and Social Impacts of the Time Change
Modern research has illuminated various health and safety impacts of DST transitions. Losing an hour of sleep in the spring can disrupt circadian rhythms and sleep quality. Studies have found the spring clock jump is followed by a spike in certain health risks: one study noted a 24% rise in heart attacks on the Monday after the switch, and others found higher rates of stroke in the days following.Many people feel groggy or “jet-lagged” for several days as their bodies adjust to the new time.
There are also short-term effects on safety and productivity. With darker early mornings and one less hour of rest, traffic accidents increase in the week after clocks go forward.
. Workplace errors and injuries tick up as well. Sleep experts warn that even temporary disruptions can have cumulative impacts on well-being. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has advocated ending DST changes in favor of a steady year-round time, calling seasonal clock shifts an unnecessary public-health riskp
Economic and Social Considerations
The original purpose of DST was to save energy, but today its economic benefits are questionable. Because of modern patterns of energy use, studies suggest DST provides little to no net electricity savings. In some cases it may even increase energy consumption slightly – for example, a study in Indiana found residential power usage rose about 1% when DST was adopted, due to extra heating on dark mornings and more air conditioning on warm bright evenings.
Certain industries do enjoy a boost from longer daylight. Retailers, restaurants, and outdoor recreation businesses often report higher sales during DST months, as people have more daylight hours for shopping and activities. On the other hand, the time change can impose costs: productivity dips have been measured after the spring shift, and schedules for transportation and broadcasting can become more complex around the change. Any benefit of extra evening commerce must be weighed against the health costs and accident risks associated with DST.
The Ongoing Debate and Future Outlook
Debate continues over whether to keep DST, and if so, in what form. The main question is which time should be permanent if clock changes end. Many business groups and some politicians prefer permanent daylight time (for year-round late sunsets), whereas sleep scientists and other experts tend to favor permanent standard time (for more morning light and better alignment with natural rhythms).
This divide has slowed agreement on reform in some cases.
As of 2025, daylight saving time remains in effect, but momentum for change is growing. More jurisdictions are passing measures urging an end to the clock adjustments, and public pressure is mounting. With increasing scientific evidence and popular support on the side of reform, the days of changing clocks may be numbered. For now, people will continue to adjust their clocks and routines – but the debate about DST’s future is brighter than ever.
