‘Historic change’: what the 2026 US mid-term election results mean for science

The 2026 US midterm elections changed who controls Congress. Democrats secured at least 237 of 435 House seats and 54 of 100 Senate seats. That gave them decisive majorities in both chambers, ending nearly two years of Republican control of the presidency and Congress. The result matters because Congress shapes laws, budgets, and oversight of federal agencies.

When Democrats take charge on 3 January 2027, they will control congressional committees, including science committees. They can set hearing agendas, investigate officials, and use legally binding subpoenas to demand documents or testimony from the Trump administration. They can also introduce legislation that counters parts of Trump’s science agenda.

Their power will still have limits. Democrats did not win two-thirds of either chamber, so Trump can veto bills. Funding increases may also be difficult, because science budgets require agreement from Congress and the president. Researchers therefore see opportunity, but not immediate change.

US midterm elections are elections held during a president’s four-year term to choose members of Congress. Voters select all seats in the House of Representatives and a portion of Senate seats. The elections can change which party controls Congress, even though the president remains in office. That makes them a major test of the administration’s policies.

Presidential elections instead determine who leads the executive branch. They occur every four years and involve choosing a president and vice-president through the US electoral system. Midterms do not replace the president. They determine which lawmakers write legislation, approve spending, lead committees, and investigate executive officials.

The article focuses on the 2026 midterms because Democrats won decisive majorities in both chambers while Trump remained president. This creates divided control between the executive and legislative branches. Democrats can challenge Trump’s science agenda, but they cannot automatically enact every proposal or remove his veto power.

The numbers describe the Democrats’ minimum reported totals after the 2026 midterms. They had at least 237 of 435 House seats and 54 of 100 Senate seats. In each chamber, that is more than half the seats, so Democrats hold the majority. They can therefore organize Congress, control committees, and decide which proposals receive attention.

The majority matters because congressional control affects science policy directly. Democrats can lead science committees, schedule hearings, investigate officials, and use subpoenas. They can also write bills aimed at countering Trump’s policies. The Senate majority gives them control there as well, while the House majority gives them control over House proceedings and committees.

But these are not two-thirds majorities. The article notes that Democrats cannot overcome a presidential veto on their own. Their seat totals provide substantial oversight and agenda-setting power, not unlimited lawmaking power. Passing major funding increases would still require agreement across Congress and ultimately Trump’s signature.

Congressional control gives Democrats several tools over science policy. They will lead committees that oversee agencies such as NASA and the National Science Foundation. Committee leaders can choose hearing topics, question officials, examine agency decisions, and make government actions more visible. This oversight can pressure the administration even when Congress cannot directly change a policy.

The strongest investigative tool mentioned is the legally binding subpoena. Committees can use subpoenas to compel the Trump administration to provide documents or require officials to testify before Congress. Democrats can also craft legislation that counteracts Trump’s science agenda. Zoe Lofgren said she would seek to lead the House science committee and hold the administration accountable.

These powers do not guarantee policy reversal. Democrats lack two-thirds of either chamber, so Trump can veto bills. They can investigate and expose decisions, shape debate, and negotiate legislation. Their influence will depend on how aggressively committees use oversight and whether the administration cooperates or resists.

Congressional committees investigate executive officials by holding hearings and demanding answers in public. Once Democrats control Congress, they can set hearing agendas focused on government actions and science policies. Officials may be questioned about decisions, evidence, and outcomes. The process gives lawmakers a way to examine conduct even when they cannot directly dismiss or overrule an official.

The article highlights Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the HHS secretary, who has questioned vaccine safety. Georges Benjamin said Kennedy would be put “on the hot seat” to explain his actions. Committees can also issue legally binding subpoenas. These can compel the administration to provide documents or require officials to testify before Congress, creating a formal investigative record.

The inquiry could focus on Kennedy’s policies and the country’s worst measles resurgence in decades. Benjamin hopes Congress will press for a more proactive response. Hearings may increase accountability and pressure, but they do not automatically change executive policy or guarantee additional public-health action.

Congress controls legislation and appropriations, but it does not control the entire lawmaking process alone. Democrats can propose science-funding and public-health measures with their majorities. However, the article says they lack two-thirds of the seats in either chamber. That means President Trump retains the power to veto bills they pass, blocking measures he opposes.

Funding is especially difficult because the federal budget must be signed by the president. Trump has tried to slash non-defence science spending, so major increases would require him to approve them. The article also notes uncertainty about whether Congress can increase federal science funding rather than merely keep it relatively steady.

Political support within Congress may not be enough. Susan Collins, a Republican senator who had protected science budgets as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, lost her re-election bid. Her departure could make budget negotiations less predictable. Democrats therefore gain influence, but funding outcomes will depend on compromise and presidential approval.

The US system divides governing power between Congress and the president. Congress, made up of the House and Senate, writes legislation, controls federal appropriations, and oversees executive agencies. The president leads the executive branch, carries out laws, and must sign legislation before it takes effect. This separation creates checks on both institutions.

The 2026 election illustrates the arrangement. Democrats won majorities in both congressional chambers, so they can set committee agendas, hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and craft bills. Trump remains president, however, and can veto bills. Democrats cannot override that veto because they did not win two-thirds of either chamber.

The same division affects science funding and public health. Congress may seek larger budgets or stronger oversight, while the administration controls executive action and the president can reject legislation. The result is shared responsibility rather than automatic control by one party. Progress will require congressional action, executive cooperation, or enough votes to overcome resistance.