As millions of voters prepare to cast ballots on November 3, the outcome of the US mid-term elections could trigger significant changes for the nation's scientific landscape. Currently, Republicans hold a majority in both chambers of Congress, granting President Donald Trump unified control over the federal government. However, polling data suggests Democrats are favored to reclaim the House of Representatives and have a chance of taking the Senate as well.
Since assuming office last year, the Trump administration has terminated thousands of research grants, reduced the federal scientific workforce, and sought unprecedented political oversight of agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Shaughnessy Naughton, president of the advocacy group 314 Action, notes that the Republican-controlled Congress has largely ceded its oversight role during this period. Many researchers hope a new Congress will intervene to protect funding and investigate these administrative actions.
The administration has requested deep budget cuts for federal science, including a proposal to slash the NSF budget by more than 50% for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. While both parties in Congress have blocked these cuts so far, the final budget for fiscal year 2027 remains unapproved. Even if Democrats win control of both chambers, passing major funding increases would still require President Trump's signature. Consequently, advocates primarily aim to prevent further cuts and stop the administration from squeezing research through other means.
Without congressional approval, the White House has utilized impoundment, a tactic involving the refusal to distribute congressionally approved funds or terminating active grants mid-cycle. This approach contributed to the NSF closing fiscal year 2026 with $1.4 billion in unspent funds, resulting in the lowest number of new research grants issued in decades. Although the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has rarely pursued action on such violations, a Democratic-controlled Congress could change this dynamic by asserting its budgetary power.
A key battleground involves a controversial White House plan to overhaul US science, which would place political appointees in charge of federal grant reviews, allowing them to override peer reviewers. Ellie Dehoney of Research!America warns that giving control to political appointees threatens global biomedical progress. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defends the plan as a measure to improve transparency and accountability. However, a recent stopgap funding bill passed by Congress temporarily blocks this initiative through December 11. Representative Rosa DeLauro expressed confidence that future spending bills will continue to block the OMB plan.
Beyond budgetary measures, a Democratic victory would enhance congressional oversight capabilities. Zoe Lofgren, the senior Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, stated that her party has been working to hold the administration accountable but lacks sufficient tools without majority control. If Democrats win, Lofgren could lead the committee and utilize subpoena powers to compel administrators to testify regarding actions such as grant terminations, addressing the lack of responses received from agencies like the NSF and the Department of Energy.
Sources: Nature.