A 40-year analysis challenges common assumptions and contrasts earlier funding patterns with current Republican priorities.
Partisan debates over science funding often rely on a simple story. Democrats are portrayed as consistent supporters of research, while Republicans are treated as more skeptical of federal scientific institutions. A Northwestern Kellogg analysis found that the historical funding record was more complicated.
Published in Science, the underlying study found higher average science funding under Republican presidents and Republican-controlled Houses during the period researchers examined. Recent executive budget proposals moved in a different direction, creating a growing divide between the party’s historical record and current federal policy.
Researchers examined federal appropriations from 1980 through 2020 across 171 science-related accounts in 27 agencies. Their analysis included federal research grants, contracts with private entities, internal agency programs, and other spending connected to scientific or research activity.
Results showed that annual science funding averaged about $150 million more per account when Republicans controlled the House. Republican presidents were associated with about $100 million more annually per account, while Senate control produced no statistically significant overall funding difference.
Alexander C. Furnas, research assistant professor at Northwestern’s Center for Science of Science and Innovation.
Alexander C. Furnas, research assistant professor at Northwestern’s Center for Science of Science and Innovation summarized the historical finding.
“The narrative that Republicans are or have long been anti-science does not appear to be true, at least by this measure and during this time period.”
Republican House control also coincided with higher proposed funding during earlier stages of the appropriations process. That pattern suggests the final difference was not created only through last-minute compromises or changes made after the House completed its initial work.
|
Branch of Government or Leadership |
Average Annual Science Funding per Account |
Average Annual Science Grant Funding per Funder |
|
Republican-Controlled House |
+$150 million |
+$70 million |
|
Republican President |
+$100 million |
No significant presidential effect highlighted |
|
Republican-Controlled Senate |
No significant overall difference |
−$45 million |
Northwestern Kellogg Insight summarizes these estimated annual differences from the published study.
Agency-level findings showed that the Republican advantage was not confined to defense research. Republican House control was associated with more science funding for the CDC, NASA, NIH, and NSF, while the Department of Energy received more under Democratic leadership.
Distribution across scientific fields remained broadly similar under both parties. That result weakens the idea that the overall difference came only from Republicans concentrating money in a limited number of preferred research areas.
Higher historical funding under Republican control does not establish that Democratic lawmakers opposed science. Researchers found that science funding generally remained stable or increased over time regardless of which party controlled federal institutions.
Competing spending priorities were offered as one possible explanation for the difference. Democratic majorities also pursued education, health care, welfare, and social safety net programs, creating additional trade-offs within annual discretionary budgets.
Federal budgeting requires lawmakers to divide limited resources among many priorities. A smaller science appropriation can therefore reflect stronger competition from other programs rather than direct opposition to research or scientific advancement.
Grant funding produced a similar but less uniform partisan pattern. Across 103 federal science funders operating between 1952 and 2019, annual grants averaged about $70 million more per funder under Republican House control.
Republican Senate control moved in the opposite direction, coinciding with about $45 million less in annual science grants per funder. No comparable overall Senate advantage appeared in the broader appropriations analysis.
Campaign Now (Gemini), Republican control produced mixed grant effects
Mixed chamber results matter because they prevent the findings from becoming a simple claim that Republicans always spent more. Institutional control, bargaining power, program type, and competing priorities all shaped the final funding outcomes.
Recent executive budget policy departed sharply from the historical pattern. NIH’s official FY2026 budget request proposed reducing its program level from about $46.0 billion to $27.9 billion, a decline of roughly 39%.
NSF’s FY2026 request proposed $3.9 billion, compared with $8.826 billion in FY2025 appropriations. That request represented a reduction of approximately 56%.
Campaign Now (Gemini), proposed cuts versus enacted science funding
Congress rejected the deepest proposed reductions. NIH’s enacted funding reached $47.5 billion, which the agency described as a 1% increase over FY2025, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026.
Final NSF funding reached $8.75 billion, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee. That amount remained slightly below the previous year but was more than twice the administration’s request.
Current policy therefore contains two distinct Republican records. Executive proposals sought major reductions, while a Republican-controlled Congress joined Democrats in approving substantially higher final appropriations.
That divide makes broad party labels less useful on their own. White House requests, congressional negotiations, and enacted funding must be evaluated separately before describing either party’s present position on scientific research.
Public attitudes add another dimension to the funding debate. A Pew Research Center survey of 5,111 adults found that 77% of Americans had at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public interest.
Confidence reached 90% among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, compared with 65% among Republicans and Republican leaners. Pew noted that this partisan gap has remained broadly similar since 2021.
Campaign Now (Gemini), partisan confidence in scientists remains divided
Views of American scientific performance showed an additional divide. About two-thirds of Democrats said the United States was losing ground to other countries in scientific achievement, an increase of 28 percentage points since 2023.
Only about one-third of Republicans said the country was losing ground. Republican concern declined by 12 percentage points over the same period.
Broad support for research spending nevertheless remained intact. Pew found that 84% of Americans considered government investment in scientific research worthwhile, including 93% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans.
Funding preferences and institutional trust are therefore related but not identical. Republican confidence in scientists remains lower, yet most Republican voters still see government research investment as worthwhile.
That combination leaves room for disagreement within the party over oversight, spending levels, agency priorities, and the economic value of federal research. It also helps explain why sharp executive reductions encountered resistance in Congress.
Past evidence challenges the idea that science funding has always followed today’s partisan divide. Across four decades, GOP presidents and Houses were linked to more research funding, while Senate and grant findings were mixed. That record does not prove either party consistently supported or opposed science because chamber control, bargaining, and competing priorities shaped results.
Current policy looks different because the FY2026 White House request sought major NIH and NSF cuts, while Congress approved far more funding and gave NIH a modest increase. Most Americans still consider public research worthwhile, yet confidence in scientists differs sharply by party, placing science funding where fiscal restraint, competitiveness, trust, and congressional power meet. Historical patterns matter, but a fair assessment must separate past appropriations, executive goals, enacted funding, and the 2026 debate when campaigns, voters, and leaders judge which party now offers a firmer, clearer, more durable commitment to U.S. science leadership today and beyond, because research institutions need stable support beyond one election, one budget request, or one congressional bargaining cycle.