A sweeping analysis of four decades of federal budgets has upended conventional wisdom about science funding, revealing that Republican-controlled governments consistently allocated more money to research than their Democratic counterparts between 1980 and 2020.
The Northwestern University study, published in Science journal, examined 171 specific federal appropriations accounts across 27 agencies and found that science received roughly $150 million more per account annually when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, and $100 million more under Republican presidents.
Perhaps most surprisingly, this spending advantage extended well beyond defense research into agencies typically associated with Democratic priorities. Republicans provided more funding to the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during their tenure.
Following the Money Trail
The research team, led by Dashun Wang and Alexander Furnas from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, painstakingly tracked appropriations through government publishing office records and Congressional Budget Office documents. Their approach captured not just the familiar grant-making that funds university research, but the full spectrum of federal science spending including contracts and internal agency research.
“Our study found that the vast majority of federal funding for science comes in the form of government contracts rather than competitive grants, which previous research often focused on.”
This broader view revealed a $1.5 trillion commitment to contractor obligations in 2019, dwarfing the $370 billion in grant obligations. The finding suggests that previous analyses focusing solely on grants may have missed the forest for the trees.
The data show that total science appropriations fluctuated between $120 billion and $225 billion annually in constant 2021 dollars, with defense claiming the largest share, followed by Health and Human Services, Energy, and NASA.
Political Dynamics at Play
The study’s authors can only speculate about the mechanisms driving these patterns. One theory suggests Democrats face more competing priorities within fixed budgets, spreading their attention across social programs, education, and healthcare in addition to science.
“I think it’s uncontroversial to say that the Democrats tend to be the party of more social spending, of a more generous social safety net, of a more active federal government.”
Another possibility involves the substantial role of private contractors in federal science spending, which may align more naturally with Republican economic philosophy.
The analysis revealed interesting institutional dynamics as well. The House of Representatives wielded more influence over science funding than the Senate, likely due to majority party procedural advantages that don’t exist in the upper chamber’s more consensus-driven environment.
Intriguingly, while overall funding levels varied by party control, the distribution across research fields remained remarkably stable regardless of political leadership. Biology, physics, and engineering maintained consistent funding shares whether Democrats or Republicans held power, suggesting that peer review and internal agency processes successfully insulated specific research decisions from political interference.
The researchers emphasize that their findings don’t diminish Democratic commitment to science, but rather illuminate the complex trade-offs within government budgeting. Previous research by the same team showed Democrats cite scientific literature more frequently in policy-making, indicating different approaches to valuing and utilizing research.
The study’s implications extend beyond historical curiosity to current policy debates. Recent proposals for significant cuts to scientific agencies highlight how quickly political winds can shift, making the case for sustained bipartisan engagement more urgent.
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which authorized $280 billion for research and manufacturing with bipartisan support, demonstrates that cross-party collaboration remains possible even in today’s polarized environment. However, the ultimate test will come through the annual appropriations process that actually allocates the funds.
For science advocates, the findings suggest reframing research investment as a conservative value aligned with economic growth, technological innovation, and national security. The historical record shows Republican lawmakers have been reliable partners in building America’s research infrastructure, even as contemporary rhetoric sometimes suggests otherwise.
The 40-year analysis concludes during a period of increasing political polarization, raising questions about whether historical patterns will persist. With scientific institutions facing unprecedented scrutiny and funding uncertainty, understanding these long-term trends becomes crucial for maintaining the research enterprise that has driven American innovation since World War II.
Science: 10.1126/science.adx5154
ScienceBlog.com has no paywalls, no sponsored content, and no agenda beyond getting the science right. Every story here is written to inform, not to impress an advertiser or push a point of view.
Good science journalism takes time — reading the papers, checking the claims, finding researchers who can put findings in context. We do that work because we think it matters.
If you find this site useful, consider supporting it with a donation. Even a few dollars a month helps keep the coverage independent and free for everyone.