Which political party provides more federal funding for science? Given climate-denial rhetoric, attacks on expertise, the size of government, and culture-war battles over research, many Americans may believe that Democrats support science and that Republicans don’t.
But this is not what we have found. In research published last fall in Science with our colleagues Nic Fishman and Leah Rosenstiel, we analyzed a comprehensive database of federal science appropriations, collected from presidents’ budget requests, from House and Senate committee bills, and from final, enacted annual appropriations from 1980 to 2020. The data include 171 budget accounts across 27 agencies, such as National Institutes of Health, NASA, National Science Foundation, and CDC, as well as Pentagon R&D programs.
When Republicans controlled the House or the presidency, science funding was substantially higher—on average, about $150 million more per budget account under a Republican House than a Democratic one, and $100 million more under a Republican president than a Democratic one. These differences held up across dozens of statistical tests and weren’t explained by the overall size of the budget or economic conditions. We found significantly higher appropriations for NIH under Republican control, higher funding for CDC under Republican presidents, and marginally higher support for NASA and NSF.
For the past year, we have wondered if our paper had documented something purely historical—a pattern from a Republican Party that no longer exists. The Trump administration proposed slashing NIH by about 40 percent. It attempted to cap indirect-cost recovery—the portion of federal grants that reimburses universities for expenses such as facilities, compliance, security, and equipment—at 15 percent, threatening billions in research infrastructure. It stalled grants; cleared out agency leadership; imposed political approval requirements on funding decisions, such as requiring senior political appointees to sign off on grants before they could be awarded and terminating programs addressing racial health gaps; and implemented targeted funding freezes at particular universities. The postwar compact between government and science appeared to be collapsing.
[Listen: Defund science, distort culture, mock education]
But Congress—under Republican control in both chambers—has systematically rejected the administration’s most extreme proposals.
In the funding bill that President Trump signed into law this month, lawmakers not only declined to cut NIH’s budget by 40 percent; they instead increased it by roughly $415 million. They added targeted funding for cancer research, Alzheimer’s disease, and the BRAIN Initiative for the development of neurotechnologies. The final number: $48.7 billion—virtually unchanged from the prior year.
Just as important, Congress included detailed language constraining executive overreach. It reiterated that NIH cannot unilaterally change how indirect-cost rates work. It limited the agency’s ability to shift funds toward multiyear awards that crowd out new grants. It required monthly briefings to Congress on grant awards and terminations to ensure the allocated money is actually being distributed. And it directed NIH to continue to professionalize the hiring of institute directors, with external scientific input and congressional oversight.
Similar patterns hold elsewhere. NASA faces a 1.6 percent cut rather than the 24 percent the administration sought. The NSF budget dropped 3.4 percent instead of 57 percent.
The budget accounts in the database we analyzed track the recurring operating expenses allocated across all parts of the federal government for science and research, including science done through grant-making and contracting with corporations. They don’t follow outgoing grants to researchers directly, so the numbers do not capture the kinds of funding freezes the Trump administration imposed on universities including Harvard, Columbia, and Penn.
Even so, the Republican-led Congress behaved much more like our data predicted than like what Trump requested. The appropriators funded science, protected research infrastructure, and asserted control over how agencies operate. In this regard, they did what Republicans in Congress have done for decades.
The Trump administration’s hostility to science is real and deeply concerning. But it has not—so far—reset the Republican Party’s position on science funding in the way that Trump reshaped GOP stances on trade, immigration, or foreign alliances.
[Read: So much for the ‘best health-care system in the world’]
Science funding in the United States has been sustained not just by partisan enthusiasm but also by institutional structure. In our data, funding tracked with control of the House and the presidency, but not the Senate. That’s because the House majority controls the appropriations process. And Republican appropriators seem to have once again funded science not despite their priorities but because of them. Economic competitiveness, technological leadership, and national security all rest on a foundation of scientific advancement.
This outcome appeared improbable six months ago—to many, including us, it looked nearly impossible. This wasn’t a normal policy disagreement. It was a stress test. And the institution is holding. The 2026 funding package highlights the commitment of the Republicans in Congress to consistently fund science.
Staffing losses are real, leadership vacancies create drift, and political interference in grant decisions remains a serious threat. Budgets alone don’t guarantee a functioning research system. But treating the GOP as monolithically anti-science risks alienating a coalition that has historically sustained federal research. Scientists who want to protect funding should spend less time lamenting Republican hostility and more time engaging Republican appropriators—particularly in the House, where the funding decisions get made.
Science came under attack, and a Republican Congress pushed back. That’s not an aberration.
The post The Republicans Made Peace With Science appeared first on The Atlantic.
