As Nature reported, Washington, DC could experience a major political shake-up with significant implications for the nation’s research environment when tens of millions of citizens go to the polls to vote in the US mid-term elections on 3 November.
Republicans currently hold more seats than Democrats in both chambers of the US Congress. This gives the party and administration of President Donald Trump unified control of the federal government. However, polling data favor Democrats to win back the House of Representatives and suggest they have a chance of taking control of the Senate, too.
Ever since Trump assumed office last year, his administration has cut off thousands of research awards, sharply reduced the federal science workforce, and pursued unprecedented administrative oversight of research bodies like the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US National Science Foundation (NSF). A new Congress is viewed by numerous researchers and advocates as a potential check on the Trump administration that might safeguard research budgets and probe its decisions.
Shaughnessy Naughton and 314 Action Call Out Congressional Oversight
Nature reported that the Republican Congress has basically ceded their role in oversight for the last almost two years.
“The Republican Congress has basically ceded their role in oversight for the last almost two years,” says Shaughnessy Naughton, president of 314 Action, a political fundraising group in Washington, DC, that recruits and backs Democratic scientists, engineers, and health-care specialists running for office.
The Trump administration has requested deep cuts to federal science budgets for the past couple of years. It asked for the NSF’s budget to be cut by more than 50% in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress have staved off those cuts so far.
Official approval has not yet been granted to the budget for the 2027 fiscal year, a period that commenced on 1 October. Even if Democrats win control of both chambers of Congress and push for science spending boosts, passing major funding increases could prove difficult because final budget bills must still be signed by Trump.
Ellie Dehoney Warns Over White House Overhaul Plans
Keeping budgets steady on paper has not stopped the administration from squeezing research in practice. Without congressional approval, the White House has curbed spending by terminating active grants mid-cycle and refusing to distribute money Congress already approved—a controversial tactic known as impoundment.
By the close of the 2026 fiscal year on 30 September, the NSF was left holding roughly US$1.4 billion in unallocated money, resulting in the smallest volume of fresh research awards granted in decades. The agency stated that it has two years by law to spend its approved budget. Matt Dull, a specialist in government oversight at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has rarely pursued action over impoundment violations, but the mid-terms could change the situation.
Lawmakers passed a stopgap spending bill that funds the government up to 11 December because they haven’t agreed on a final budget for the 2027 fiscal year. This stopgap bill temporarily blocks a White House plan to overhaul US science.
Placing political figures in control of evaluating federal grants and granting them the authority to dismiss the verdicts of scientific peer reviewers is the goal of the contentious proposal put forward by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB stated it created the plan to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal funds.
“Giving control of grants to political appointees would threaten biomedical progress globally,” says Ellie Dehoney, who serves as the senior vice-president of policy and advocacy at Research!America, an Arlington, Virginia-based non-profit entity. Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic representative from Connecticut, stated last month that she was confident Congress would continue blocking the OMB plan in future spending bills.
Zoe Lofgren Pledges Accountability Amid Researcher Candidacies
While Congress does not run US science agencies, it holds oversight powers including launching investigations into agency actions. Democrats have pledged to use these powers if they win big in the mid-terms.
“We will continue the work we have been doing over the past two years to hold the Trump administration accountable,” says Zoe Lofgren, the most senior Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology (SST) Committee. “If we win, we’ll have more tools at our disposal to do exactly that.”
Regarding matters such as cancelled grants, Lofgren along with her Democratic peers have dispatched numerous inquiry letters to bodies like the US Department of Energy and the NSF, though answers have been scarce. Representing a California district, Lofgren could chair the SST committee if Democrats take control, granting her the authority to issue subpoenas forcing administrators to appear before Congress.
Federal Science Funding Questions Answered
What happens to unspent NSF funds if the fiscal year ends?
By the close of the 2026 fiscal year on 30 September, the NSF was left holding roughly US$1.4 billion in unallocated money. The agency stated that it has two years by law to spend its approved budget.
Why is the government currently running on a stopgap spending bill?
Lawmakers have not yet agreed on a final budget for the 2027 fiscal year, which began on 1 October. They passed a stopgap bill to keep the government funded only up to 11 December.
How does the White House plan to alter federal grant reviews?
A contentious initiative drafted by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) aims to place political appointees in charge of evaluating federal grants, giving them the power to overrule decisions made by scientific peer reviewers.