Introduction by Croakey: As we and other media outlets have reported, many Australian universities and researchers are grappling with the impact of Trump Administration actions undermining the funding and integrity of science and research globally.
These actions are widely seen as part of a broader playbook of authoritarianism. David Smith, the Washington DC bureau chief for The Guardian, wrote recently:
“Eviscerating the federal government and subjugating Congress; defying court orders and delegitimising judges; deporting immigrants and arresting protesters without due process; chilling free speech at universities and cultural institutions; cowing news outlets with divide-and-rule. Add a rightwing media ecosystem manufacturing consent and obeyance in advance, along with a weak and divided opposition offering feeble resistance. Join all the dots, critics say, and America is sleepwalking into authoritarianism.”
Below, Adjunct Associate Professor Dr Lesley Russell investigates the scale of the problem for Australian science.
Lesley Russell writes:
The media has recently been full of stories about how the research funds awarded to Australian researchers by United States Government agencies are now under threat. So too, presumably, are research partnerships between Australian and Americans research bodies and research fellowships and positions.
This article represents my best efforts to sort out what is happening, with a focus on the biomedical sciences.
In doing this, I have had access to the webpages of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that detail funding from the NIH to Australian universities and research bodies.
There are many other sources of US Government funds in areas such as the environment, defence and marine science that I have not been able to address.
Some history
A page on the Australian Government website, Australia and the United States, is headed “Collaboration Opportunities” and it leads with this:
“The longstanding relationship that Australia and the United States share in science, research and education has for decades been characterised by goodwill, collaboration and supportive networks of individuals and institutions on both sides of the Pacific.
“Together, Australian and US researchers conduct joint spacecraft‐tracking projects and deep sea dives, pursue cures for the world’s most devastating diseases, and develop new technologies to make the world a smarter, safer place.
“Australian and US universities share more than 1,250 agreements and each year more than 15,000 students from Australia and the US study in one another’s countries, developing the personal and professional relationships that undergird the long history of intellectual and scientific collaboration between their home nations.”
This high-minded statement is now just one-sided hopes, given the Trump Administration’s ongoing actions to cut research and aid funds in the US and internationally, and the recent detentions and deportations of international researchers and clinicians seeking to return to their positions in the United States or attend a conference.
There is no clear rationale for the Trump Administration’s decimation – with the assistance of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE – of the once-admired research structure of the US and the support, information and training it provided internationally.
As Australians are learning, the tentacles of this destructive approach are far-reaching.
How much funding is involved?
An article for ABC News states that Australian universities received an estimated $386 million in research funding from the US Government in 2024 (this figure was calculated by the Australian Academy of Science, I assume it is in Australian dollars). By comparison, research funding from the European Union in 2024 was US$2.1 billion.
Only a fraction of US research funds come from the NIH.
My data, extracted from the NIH website, shows that in 2024, US$22.04 million was paid to Australian researchers. This is relatively small when compared to other funders of biomedical research in Australia (in 2024 the NHMRC funded US$7.19 billion and the MRFF funded US$2.17 billion – data from Nature Index Data Insights, December 2024).
Other major sources of research funding are the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Department of Defense (DoD). There are likely also funds from other US federal agencies. These funds are allocated to both individual researchers and partnerships, some of which have an international focus.
There are some estimates available for some of this funding; the accuracy of all of these could not be independently verified.
In February 2023, the National Science Foundation announced it was providing $1.8 million towards a partnership with CSIRO, which was providing $2.3 million (assume both these figures are US dollars) to accelerate research in responsible and ethical artificial intelligence (AI) solutions to societal challenges, including pandemic preparedness, drought resilience and harmful environmental emissions.
The CSIRO announcement of this partnership places the combined funding at A$9.6 million; this may be because three additional research projects were added in November 2023.
The NSF Global Centers program, which works in partnership with CSIRO, Canada, and the United Kingdom to support international, interdisciplinary collaborative research centres to address challenges like climate change and clean energy, committed US$76.4 million (more than A$118 million) over five years from 2023 across the four partner countries. I think it’s very likely that NSF support for this research has ceased, although there is no updated information on the website.
An article in Declassified Australia from April 2024 states that the US Department of Defense was providing some $60 million (not clear if this is Australian or US dollars) annually in 2022. These funds are described as supporting research “in fields of science that enhance US military development and the US national interest”.
Australia and USAID have had an ongoing strategic partnership to improve reading outcomes in poor countries, to empower women, to mitigate the impacts of climate change, to combat human trafficking, HIV and other diseases, and improve water-resource management.
An MOU for international development cooperation between the USAID and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was signed in July 2020, during Trump’s first presidency.
It aims to support the region through investments in health, education, climate and disaster-resilient infrastructure, economic governance, advancing gender equality, protecting the environment and more – all issues that the Trump Administration seems to oppose.
Given that USAID funds have been cut, we must assume that Australia – and other partners – are left trying to continue at least some of these projects.
Recent developments
There has always been a strong academic exchange tradition between Australia and the United States and there are innumerable ways this can be done. Some of these have already been shut down.
The Trump Administration has stopped the Foreign Fulbright Program and the Gilman Program, which were funded by the State Department.
This has left thousands of grant recipients stranded outside their home countries without clarity on the future of their programs or the money needed to support themselves.
Some university projects have already lost funding. As reported by The Guardian last week, six of the sandstone universities represented by the Group of Eight (Go8) had some research grants suspended or terminated some time ago.
Some researchers were notified within a week of Trump assuming office that their projects, which span a range of topics from agriculture to foreign aid and diversity and equity, had been cancelled under higher education cuts, pending a review.
This information only came to light when the Australian National University confirmed on 18 March that funding for one research project will be terminated, but did not disclose which project or how much money was involved.
An ANU spokesperson said this in response to media questions: “The university can confirm it has received a letter from the US Government indicating an intent to terminate funding related to one research project. We are committed to working with our affected researchers and developing appropriate remediation plans.”
One might ask why this was kept so quiet for so long. Presumably there has been no review and this funding has not been restored.
What researchers are being asked
In imitation of the restrictions now being placed on US researchers, the Trump Administration, via the various funding agencies, has over the past two weeks asked Australian researchers to respond within 48 hours to a series of questions.
The questionnaire is available here (in an article by The Guardian). I found it very hard to determine whether it is directed at organisations or individual projects (and I imagine the people confronted with it did too).
Many of the questions reminded me of the sorts of questions I had to respond to as part of my application for US citizenship. For example: “Can you confirm that your organization does not work with entities associated with communist, socialist, or totalitarian parties, or any party that espouses anti-American beliefs?”
The questions include whether the organisation receives or has received funding from China (I imagine that will be a problem for some research areas), that it doesn’t work with “any party that espouses anti-American beliefs”, and whether it has Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) elements (what does that mean for the inclusion of First Nations people in education, research and training?).
One question asks: “Is your organization compliant with the latest Mexico City Policy?”
As I interpret this, based on Trump’s reinstatement and expansion of this so-called abortion gag rule, this means that if a university health service provides students with information about abortion, it cannot receive US Government funds.
On specific research issues, the questionnaire asks whether research is a “no DEI project” or a “climate or ‘environmental justice’ project”, as well as whether there are “appropriate measures to protect women and to defend against gender ideology” and measures to combat “Christian prosecution”.
It’s hard to predict what the “correct” answer is to some of the questions.
For example: “Does your organization encourage free speech and encourage open debate and free sharing of information?” In today’s Trump world, encouraging free speech and debate might be a no-no.
Leadership is needed
It’s no small wonder that the Go8 has sought Australian Government intervention, and last week wrote to the chair of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Brian Babin, for guidance and an extension of time to respond to these requirements.
The Australian Academy of Science, in a media release on 17 March, called on the Australian Government to “actively and urgently engage with its American counterparts to mitigate risks and minimise the impact on Australian strategic capability”.
“A wait-and-see approach could leave us dangerously unprepared,” the statement said.
The Go8 universities have called on Education Minister Jason Clare to intervene in what could be “considered a form of foreign influence”.
The National Tertiary Education Union also labelled the survey as “blatant foreign interference”.
A spokesperson for the Education Minister said Australia is “engaging with the US Government to understand what these measures mean for future funding and collaboration” (that was on 14 March).
To date it’s fair to describe the Albanese Government’s response as cautious. Those with research projects under threat might go further and call it inadequate.
Whether Trump’s orders are legal or not poses difficult questions, the resolution of which will likely come via a long series of court cases that could take months to resolve.
In the meantime, US Government agencies are withholding funds anyway and Trump and his Administration are ignoring court orders.
The links between Australian and American researchers are strong and involve more than money – time spent in each others’ laboratories, friendships formed at conferences and collaborative projects.
The Australian Association of Science estimates that 25 percent of Australia’s publications in biomedical and clinical sciences involve US collaborators.
What can researchers do?
At least part of the solution is outlined in a recent article for Croakey by Dr Aletha Ward, who urges scholars to resists the collapse of truth and democratic principles.
She writes that academics have a responsibility to resist rising authoritarianism and embrace activism as a legitimate extension of their work.
I would also add that researchers and students who are currently confronted with the upending of their work and/or their fellowships are deserving of special treatment, respect and kindness at this difficult time – from colleagues and administrators and the Australian politicians who must now step up to address the situation.
• See supporting See supporting documentation compiled by the author.
Dr Lesley Russell is Adjunct Associate Professor at the Leeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, University of Sydney, a member and contributing editor of Croakey Health Media, and author of The Health Wrap.
See Croakey’s archive of articles on research
