In American politics, it is often assumed that the Democratic Party stands as the champion of science while the Republican Party remains skeptical of its influence. Yet a four-decade analysis conducted by researchers from Northwestern University produced a strikingly different narrative. Their findings, published on 18 September 2025 in Science, revealed that political leadership under Republicans frequently appropriated more money for scientific research than leadership under Democrats.
Budget Priorities and Political Power: A Forty-Year Study of Science Funding in the United States
Background
The research was led by Professor Dashun Wang and Assistant Professor Alexander Furnas. Both scholars spent years tracing federal appropriations data between 1980 and 2020. They sought to uncover how congressional control and presidential leadership translated into tangible levels of funding for scientific institutions and research-oriented government programs.
About 171 appropriations accounts across 27 government agencies were inspected. These agencies ranged from the National Institutes of Health to the Census Bureau. Nevertheless, by mapping trends across decades, the researchers constructed a picture that blends political history with the quiet but powerful narrative of national scientific investment and prioritization.
Moreover, unlike earlier studies that fixated mainly on grants, the research expanded the scope of investigation. It included in-house agency research, large-scale institutional projects, and contracts awarded to private entities. That broader scope revealed the full machinery of federal science support, ensuring no significant stream of funding went unnoticed.
Key Findings
What the researchers found challenged popular assumptions. Instead of Democrats consistently directing more resources toward science, Republicans often did so when controlling either the House of Representatives or the presidency. This suggests that partisan politics that shaped scientific investment are more complex. The following are the specific findings:
• Presidential Leadership: Republican presidents were also associated with approximately USD 100 million more each year in funding related to different scientific pursuits compared to Democratic presidents. This trend demonstrated that executive leadership exerted a clear influence over federal investment in research.
• Civilian Institutions: Additional funding under Republicans reached beyond defense into agencies like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These increases broadened the reach of research support into medical, social, and educational fields.
• Democratic Emphasis: When Democrats were in control, significant increases appeared primarily in the Departments of Energy and Transportation. Support for other faces of scientific pursuits remained more limited, thereby highlighting a narrower focus compared with the broader appropriations patterns under Republicans.
• Federal Support Types: The analysis showed that most federal support for science was delivered through federal government contracts and in-house or internal government projects rather than external grants. This revealed how earlier studies that concentrated on grants alone missed crucial streams of national investment.
Implications
The explanation may lie not in indifference but in priority setting that shapes fiscal choices. Wang and Furnas reasoned that Democrats often advance extensive social welfare programs that compete for limited funds. Republicans, meanwhile, may view technological progress and scientific research as vital to economic security and national defense.
Note that the findings do not mean Democrats ignore science. On the contrary, earlier research shows Democratic lawmakers cite scientific studies more often and express stronger trust in experts. However, when budgets are divided among competing programs, science does not always receive the same margin of emphasis under their leadership.
It is also worth mentioning that the findings reflect long-term historical patterns rather than current circumstances. Under the second Trump administration, science budgets have faced proposed cuts and significant debate. Contemporary appropriations battles illustrate that the relationship between party control and science funding is noy universally consistent.
The researchers pointed to encouraging moments of bipartisan cooperation. They cited the CHIPS and Science Act, passed with support from both parties, as evidence that scientific progress can transcend ideological divides. Similarly, debates within Republican circles occasionally feature strong defenses of funding for the National Institutes of Health.
FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES
- Furnas, A. C., Fishman, N., Rosenstiel, L., and Wang, D. 2025. “Partisan Disparities in the Funding of Science in the United States.” Science. 389(6766): 1195-1200. DOI: 1126/science.adx5154