A sweeping 40-year analysis of United States government spending reveals that federal science and research programs received more funding when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and the presidency. The new research, which challenges common assumptions about political support for science, was published in the journal Science.
The study was motivated by a need to better understand the relationship between political power and science funding in an era of increasing polarization. The United States government is the largest single funder of research in the world, and its investments set a precedent for other nations. Scientific progress often requires decades of consistent support, a timeline that can conflict with the short-term nature of political cycles.
While high-profile political battles over funding for specific fields like climate science or gun violence research have occurred, there has been no systematic, large-scale evidence showing how partisan control broadly affects the full scope of federal science investment over time. Researchers sought to fill this gap.
To conduct their investigation, a team led by researchers at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management examined public records from the U.S. Government Publishing Office and the Congressional Budget Office from 1980 to 2020. They focused on appropriations bills, the legislation Congress passes annually to fund the regular operations of the government. This approach allowed them to capture the direct funding decisions made by policymakers for 171 different federal science and research accounts across 27 different agencies.
This method provided a comprehensive view of science funding. It included not only grants awarded by agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, but also the scientific work conducted directly by federal agencies and research performed by private companies through government contracts. The team analyzed data from four key stages of the yearly budget process: the president’s initial budget request, the separate funding bills developed by House and Senate committees, and the final version of the bill enacted into law. This multi-stage analysis allowed them to see how the priorities of each institution shaped the final funding levels.
One of the study’s initial findings was that competitive grants, which are often the focus of discussions about science funding, represent a relatively small portion of the total federal investment in science. The analysis revealed that from 1980 to 2020, grants made up between 7% and 24% of total science and research appropriations. A much larger share of the funding is directed toward contracts with private firms and for research conducted within government agencies themselves, such as at national laboratories or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The central finding of the study emerged from statistical models that compared funding levels under different political configurations, while also accounting for the overall size of the federal budget. The analysis showed that when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, the average science and research account received approximately $150 million more in funding than when Democrats held the majority. Similarly, when a Republican was in the White House, these accounts received about $100 million more on average compared to years with a Democratic president. Control of the Senate did not show a similarly strong association with funding levels.
This pattern of increased funding under Republican leadership was not confined to a single area like defense. While the Department of Defense did see significantly higher science appropriations under Republican presidents, the trend extended to other major research bodies. For example, the researchers found that Republican control of the House was associated with more funding for science at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The researchers suggest the larger influence of the House and the presidency may be due to institutional structures. The House majority party has significant procedural control over the agenda, allowing it to more directly shape spending bills. The president, as a single executive, can set priorities in a budget proposal without needing to negotiate internally. In contrast, the Senate’s rules often require broader, bipartisan support to pass legislation, which may temper the influence of the majority party alone.
The study also examined a separate dataset of federal grants to see if political control affected how money was distributed across different fields of research. Using data that tracked over a trillion dollars in grants from 1952 to 2019, the researchers confirmed that the total amount of grant money disbursed was higher when Republicans controlled the House.
However, they found no substantial difference in how that money was divided among broad scientific fields. The proportion of funding going to areas like life sciences, physical sciences, or social sciences remained remarkably stable regardless of which party controlled Congress. This suggests that while politics may influence the total size of the science budget, the internal processes of funding agencies, such as peer review, help maintain consistency in the allocation of research grants across different disciplines.
The authors propose several possible explanations for their main finding. One is that Democratic lawmakers may have more competing priorities for discretionary spending, such as social programs, education, or healthcare, leading to difficult trade-offs when budgets are set. Another possibility is that Republicans may be more inclined to support science funding because a large portion of it is directed to private companies through contracts, which aligns with priorities of economic growth and private sector innovation.
The study has some limitations. The analysis identifies a strong association between party control and funding levels, but it cannot definitively prove a cause-and-effect relationship. The 40-year period studied offers limited instances of shifts in political control, which can make it difficult to isolate the precise impact of any single factor. The authors also caution that their findings are historical and may not predict future trends, especially given recent shifts in political rhetoric around science. They note that the observed historical support from Republicans is not a guarantee of future funding priorities.
For future research, a deeper investigation into the specific mechanisms driving these funding patterns is needed. Understanding the motivations and trade-offs that legislators from both parties face during the budget process could provide a more complete picture. The researchers suggest that their findings could inform how science advocates communicate with policymakers. Instead of assuming partisan division, advocacy could focus on shared priorities that appeal across the political spectrum, such as economic competitiveness, national security, and technological advancement, which have historically attracted bipartisan support for science.
The study, “Partisan disparities in the funding of science in the United States,” was authored by Alexander C. Furnas, Nic Fishman, Leah Rosenstiel, and Dashun Wang.
