How the US mid-term elections could shake up science

US mid-term elections are national elections held halfway through a president’s four-year term. Voters choose all members of the House of Representatives and some senators. They do not elect the president. Because congressional seats are contested, either party can gain control of the House, the Senate, or both. That can change how the federal government operates, even though the president remains in office.

Congress sets federal budgets and can investigate executive-branch actions. In the article’s election, Republicans held both chambers, giving President Donald Trump unified control. Polling favoured Democrats in the House and suggested they might win the Senate. A Democratic majority could defend science funding, investigate agency decisions, and add conditions to spending bills.

A change would not guarantee higher research spending. Trump would still need to sign final budgets, and the administration could continue shaping science through grant decisions and spending controls. The election could therefore alter Congress’s willingness and ability to challenge those actions.

Federal science funding could be affected on several fronts, not only through headline budget cuts. The Trump administration requested that the National Science Foundation’s budget be reduced by more than 50% in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. It also terminated thousands of research grants and reduced the federal scientific workforce. Such changes could shrink the money and personnel available for research.

Congress has so far blocked the deepest requested cuts. Yet the NSF ended fiscal year 2026 with about US$1.4 billion in approved funds unspent. The administration also terminated active grants and withheld money Congress had already approved. These actions can reduce actual research support even when a budget appears stable on paper.

The final scale depends on Congress, the president, and agency spending decisions. Congress could keep budgets from falling and challenge impoundment. Major increases would remain difficult because final budget bills must be signed by Trump. The article does not give a total dollar value for all proposed science cuts.

Research grants support planned work, staff, equipment, and experiments. If an active grant is terminated mid-cycle, researchers may have to stop before reaching their scientific goals. If approved money remains unspent, agencies can fund fewer new projects. Both actions weaken the practical flow of research, even when Congress has approved the money.

The NSF closed fiscal year 2026 with about US$1.4 billion in unspent funds. The article links that shortfall to the agency’s lowest number of new research grants in decades. It also describes the White House refusing to distribute money Congress had already approved. This practice is called impoundment, and it can turn an approved budget into less research support in practice.

The effects could include delayed experiments, disrupted research teams, and fewer opportunities for scientists, although the article does not list specific projects affected. Congress could respond by investigating impoundment and demanding that agencies use funds as approved. The NSF said it has two years by law to spend its approved budget.

Congress does not directly run agencies such as the NIH or NSF. Instead, it controls their legal funding through appropriations and can set rules for how that money is used. Congress also has oversight powers. These allow lawmakers to examine agency decisions, question officials, and investigate whether the executive branch is following the law.

The article gives several examples. Congress blocked proposed science budget cuts and passed a stopgap bill that temporarily blocked a White House plan to overhaul science. It can also ask the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to determine whether funds were unlawfully impounded. In general congressional practice, committees may issue subpoenas for documents or testimony when investigations require them; the article does not describe a specific subpoena.

These tools could become more important after the elections. Most congressional oversight powers are reserved for the party controlling Congress. The article says the GAO has rarely pursued possible violations, but a new Congress could press harder against grant terminations, withheld funds, and political control of peer review.

Congress can challenge science-policy changes by linking money to specific requirements. A spending bill might block a proposed reorganization, restrict how grants are reviewed, or require agencies to report their actions. This gives lawmakers leverage because agencies need congressional funding to operate. The article describes this approach as attaching conditions to funding bills.

The clearest example is the stopgap bill funding government only through 11 December. It temporarily blocked a White House plan that would place political appointees over grant review and let them override scientists’ peer-review decisions. Congress can also investigate grant cancellations, withheld funds, and agency restructuring. Committees may seek documents and testimony, including through subpoenas under established congressional practice; the article does not report a particular subpoena.

A determined Congress could use investigations to expose violations and the GAO to assess impoundment. It could then write stronger restrictions into later spending bills. However, major funding increases would still require presidential approval, and the article says the final budget must be signed by Trump.

The president leads the executive branch and can direct federal agencies, propose budgets, and appoint officials. In this article, Donald Trump’s administration requested deep science cuts and sought greater political oversight. Congress, meanwhile, writes and approves federal spending bills. It can reject proposed cuts, attach conditions, and investigate executive actions, although the president must sign final budgets.

The Office of Management and Budget created the controversial plan to put political appointees in charge of grant review and allow them to override scientific peer reviewers. The NSF administers research funding and reported leaving US$1.4 billion unspent. The NIH is identified as another science agency facing unprecedented political oversight. The article does not detail the NIH’s specific funding decisions in this episode.

These roles overlap but are not identical. Congress supplies legal authority and money; the president and agencies implement policy; OMB coordinates executive priorities. The resulting balance can determine whether grants proceed, stop, or face political review. Elections can change Congress’s willingness to resist the administration.

The US research system divides responsibility. Congress authorizes and appropriates money through federal budgets. The executive branch, including agencies such as the NSF and NIH, administers programs and distributes grants. The president can propose priorities and direct administration-wide policy. This arrangement lets elected institutions set broad direction while agencies manage research programs.

Scientific peer review is a key safeguard in grant decisions. Scientists assess proposals for research quality and importance. The White House plan described in the article would put political appointees in charge of grant review and let them override peer reviewers. Ellie Dehoney of Research!America warned that this could threaten biomedical progress globally. OMB said the plan was intended to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Congress can protect the arrangement by funding agencies and attaching conditions that block political overrides. It can also investigate implementation and examine withheld funds. The president still signs final budgets, so the system depends on negotiation. The article presents the mid-term elections as a possible test of that balance.