The upcoming U.S. midterm elections could change which political party controls Congress, which meets at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Credit: Finn Gomez/Getty
As tens of millions of Americans prepare to vote in the U.S. midterm elections on November 3, the outcome could reshape Washington’s approach to science. A change in control of either chamber of Congress would affect federal research funding, oversight of scientific agencies and the Trump administration’s plans to reorganize the nation’s research system.
Republicans currently hold more seats than Democrats in both chambers of Congress, giving President Donald Trump’s party unified control of the federal government. However, polling data supports Democrats retaking the House and suggests they could also win control of the Senate.
Since Trump took office last year, his administration has cut thousands of research grants, reduced the federal scientific workforce and called for unprecedented political oversight of agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Many researchers and science advocates hope a new Congress would protect science funding and investigate the administration’s actions.
“Republican Congresses have basically abdicated their oversight role for almost two years now,” said Shaughnessy Norton, president of 314 Action, a Washington, D.C.-based political fundraising group. The organization is recruiting Democratic scientists, engineers and medical experts to support their campaigns.
A continuing battle over research funding
The Trump administration has proposed deep reductions to the federal science budget, including cutting the NSF’s budget by more than 50% in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who determine federal spending, have so far blocked those cuts. The budget for fiscal year 2027, which begins on October 1, has not yet been formally approved.
Even if Democrats win majorities in both chambers, large increases in science spending could be difficult to enact because the final budget would still require President Trump’s signature.
At a minimum, researchers and science advocates hope Congress will continue blocking the deepest proposed cuts. But maintaining funding levels in legislation has not prevented the administration from restricting research spending. Without congressional approval, the White House has used other methods to reduce expenditures, including ending active subsidies before their scheduled completion and withholding funds that Congress has already approved. This controversial practice is known as foreclosure.
Science advocates hope Congress will assert its budget authority and challenge those actions. The NSF ended fiscal year 2026 on September 30 with approximately $1.4 billion in unspent funds and the lowest number of new research grants in decades. The agency said that the law gives it two years to spend its approved budget.
Matt Dull, a government surveillance expert at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, said the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress’s investigative arm, has the authority to determine whether funds have been unlawfully withheld. The GAO rarely files lawsuits over violations, he said, but that could change after the midterm elections.
Congress could also challenge the administration’s reorganization of U.S. science by attaching conditions to spending legislation. Because lawmakers have not agreed on a final fiscal year 2027 budget, they passed a stopgap bill that would fund the government only through December 11. The measure includes a provision that would temporarily block the White House’s plan to overhaul American science.
The proposal is controversial because it would place political appointees in charge of reviewing federal grants, allowing them to override the decisions of scientific reviewers. Giving political appointees control over grants would threaten biomedical progress worldwide, said Ellie DeHaney, senior vice president of policy and advocacy at Research! America, a nonprofit organization in Arlington, Virginia.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which developed the plan, announced it in a document titled “Improving transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal funds.”
Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut, said in a statement last month that she was confident Congress would continue blocking the OMB plan in future spending bills.
Expanded congressional oversight
Although Congress does not run the nation’s scientific agencies, it has oversight powers that include investigating the conduct of government departments and agencies. Most of those powers belong to the party that controls Congress, and Democrats have promised to use them if they make significant gains in the midterm elections.
“We will continue the work we have done over the past two years to hold the Trump administration accountable,” said Zoe Lofgren, the ranking Democrat on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. “If we win, we will have more tools at our disposal to do just that.”
Lofgren and her Democratic colleagues have sent numerous letters to agencies including the NSF and the U.S. Department of Energy, seeking information about actions such as terminating subsidies. They have received almost no answers, according to Lofgren.
Lofgren, who represents a California district, could become chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee if Democrats take control. In that role, she would have subpoena power to compel administration officials to testify before Congress.
Source: www.nature.com
