Trump's questions to Australian universities, March 2025
1. Questionnaire for US research partners
On 27 January 2025 US President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) regarding the Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and other Financial Assistance Programs (Harris 2025). This was rescinded by a US District Court judge the following day. However, as of early March it was clear that the intent of the EO was being carried out by the Trump Administration, and it would include all collaborative research grants between the United States and Australia (Duffy 2025). Arising out of the EO, a 36 point questionnaire was sent from the United States government to seven Australian universities and research institutions. Cuts (i.e., withdrawal or cessation of funding) were made to the following as of 22 March 2025:
- Australian National University [Cut]
- Charles Darwin University[Cut]
- CSIRO
- Macquarie University [Cut]
- Monash University[Cut]
- University of Technology Sydney[Cut]
- University of NSW[Cut]
- University of Western Australia.[Cut]
In addition, personal contact was made with individual researchers and research groups. For example, a University of Newcastle School of Psychological Science research team received an email directing it to comply with Executive Order 14168 – Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government. The text of the questionnaire is included below. In addition, a sample of typical answers by an Australian institution for an Australian : US collaborative research project is indicated in Yellow. The result is 31 out of a possible total of 180, though in some specific instances the writer feels it could approach 50. There is a clear limitation within this questionnaire to research projects which are very specifically focussed on local, US outcomes. It can be suggested that based on this score, funding to the Australian institutions for the project would be removed, as it has been.
-------------------------
[Questionnaire]
Attachment B
Outreach to Implementing Partners
Each Department and Agency should consult with their implementing partners, as appropriate, to answer the following questions and develop a score that should be inputted into the data request and is used to support Department and Agency program determinations. If questions are sent directly to the implementing partners, please include the OMB Control Number and other information in the header of this attachment, and the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement at the bottom of this attachment.
Department and Agencies should submit summary data reflecting their outreach to implementing partners to FAR@state.gov and MBX.OMB.FARDataCall@omb.eop.gov in a data searchable file, no later than March 17, 2025.
For questions 1-24, If the partner answers Yes, the question should receive 5 points and 0 for no. For Questions 25-36, please record 1-5 points based on the answer, with one being the lowest and five the highest. The highest possible score is 180. If N/A this will be listed as no points. The score or average of all implementing partners should be entered into the data base for each program account.
[Insert Name of Implementing Partner/Program].
1. Does your organization have a current risk management framework or policy? [yes/no]
- If yes, please describe the framework or policy.
2. Can you confirm that your agency has not collaborated with, had any accusations or investigations of working with an entity on the terrorism watch list, cartels, narco/human traffickers, organized or groups that promote mass migration in the last ten years? [yes/no]
- If no, what was the incident and the remediation?
3. Does your organization conduct regular counter-terrorism vetting of its employees, sub-awardees, etc.? [yes/no]
- If yes, please describe how.
- If not, please explain why not.
- Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists
4. Does the project encourage partners to adopt policies and take action to respect their national sovereignty and culture, strengthen patriotic values, and reduce dependence on external institutions? [yes/no]
- Explain.
5. Does your organization encourage free speech and encourage open debate and free sharing of information? [yes/no]
- If yes, please describe.
6. Does your organization have a clear policy prohibiting any collaboration, funding, or support for entities that advocate or implement policies contrary to U.S. government interests, national security, and sovereignty? [yes/no]
- If yes, please describe.
- Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid
7. Is your organization compliant with the latest Mexico City Policy? [yes/no]
8. Does your organization have an approach to transitioning projects off foreign assistance? [yes/no]
- If yes, what is that approach?
- What percentage of programs have transitioned in the last 10 years?
9. Does this project demonstrate clear cost-effectiveness and take active measures to mitigate waste, fraud, and abuse? [yes/no]
- Explain.
- What is the project’s overhead costs (indirect costs associated with managing and operating the project) in an approximate percentage?
10. Does your organization have an anti-trafficking policy? [yes/no]
11. 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? [yes/no]
12. Does this project reinforce U.S. sovereignty by limiting reliance on international organizations or global governance structures (e.g., UN, WHO)? [yes/no]
13. Can you confirm that your organization has not received ANY funding from the PRC (including Confucius Institutes and/or partnered with Chinese state or non-state actors), Russia, Cuba, or Iran? [yes /no]
- If your organization has received funding from these entities, please describe.
- How does the organization track the parent company of potential funding sources to ensure no funding come from these entities?
14. Does this project directly contribute to limiting illegal immigration or strengthening U.S. border security? [yes /no]
- If yes, please describe.
15. Can you confirm that this is no DEI project or DEI elements of the project? [yes /no]
16. Can you confirm this is not a climate or “environmental justice” project or include such elements? [yes/no]
17. Does this project support U.S. energy independence or reduce global reliance on hostile countries for energy resources? [yes/no]
18. Does this project support lifesaving assistance? [yes/no]
19. Does this project take appropriate measures to protect women and to defend against gender ideology as defined in the below Executive Order? [yes/no]
20. Does this project take appropriate measures to protect children? [yes/no]
21. Does this project have burden sharing, cost sharing, or private investments? [yes/no]
22. Does this project create measurable benefits for U.S. domestic industries, workforce, or economic sectors? [yes/no]. If yes, please provide a short summary.
23. Does this project have a sustainability plan to ultimately transition away from foreign assistance within the next five years? [yes/no]. If yes, please provide a short summary.
24. Does this project fulfill a national security need that cannot be fulfilled without this entity? [yes/no]
If yes, please provide a short summary of this national security need. Responses can be provided to the RMO point of contact at a higher classification, if required. For questions below, if not applicable, list N/A. Use the following criteria to formulate your response:
1 – No Impact: The project does not contribute to the objective in any way.
2 – Minor Impact: The project has limited or indirect effect with minimal influence on achieving the objective.
3 – Neutral: The project’s impact is conditional or relies on external factors or contingencies to have an effect.
4 – Moderate Impact: The project has a noticeable and positive influence on the objective, though not immediately significant or widespread.
5 – Major Impact: This has a direct, meaningful, and immediate effect, significantly advancing the objective.
0 – Not applicable, and would receive a score of zero.
25. How much does this project directly impact efforts to counter malign influence, including China?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 - Not applicable)
26. What impact does this project have on preventing illegal immigration to the U.S.?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not applicable)
27. What impact does this project have on limiting the flow of fentanyl, synthetic drugs, and pre-cursor chemicals into the U.S.?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not applicable) • Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across our Northern Borders
28. To what degree does this project directly impact U.S. health security, such as biological threats, pandemics, and foreign dependence on medical supplies?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not applicable)
29. To what extent does this project strengthen partner and ally security assistance by contributing to securing U.S. borders, protecting American sovereignty, and upholding national security?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not applicable)
30. Does this project directly impact transnational, organized and/or cybercrime, and drug and human trafficking to protect American lives and national security?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not applicable)
- Protecting The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats
- Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists – The White House
31. What impact does this project have on protecting religious minorities, promoting religious freedom, and combatting Christian prosecution?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not applicable)
32. What impact does this project have in increasing American influence, trust and reputation within foreign governments?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not applicable)
33. What impact does this project have in increasing American influence, trust and reputation among foreign publics?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not applicable)
34. What is the specific financial return of this project, including measurable dividends, cost benefit analysis, and economic impact?
(1 – 0, 2 – under 500,000, 3 – 500,000-999,999, 4 – 1M-1.5M, 5 – over 1.5M)
35. How much does this project bring in through cost-sharing / burden sharing?
(1 – less than 500,000, 2 – 500,000-750,000, 3 – 750,001-999,999, 4 – 1M-1.5M, 5 – over 1.5M)
36. Does this project directly impact efforts to strengthen U.S. supply chains or secure rare earth minerals?
(1 – No Impact, 2 – Minor Impact, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderate Impact, 5 – Major Impact, 0 – Not Applicable)
-----------------------
EXPIRATION DATE: 08-31-2025 ESTIMATED BURDEN: 30 MINUTES
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time required for searching existing data sources, gathering the necessary data, providing the information and/or documents required, and reviewing the final collection. You do not have to supply this information unless this collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Source: questionnaire-for-US-research-partners | DocumentCloud. Retrieved 26 March 2025.
--------------------
2. Comments
This is a document which could not possibly be answer in a fair manner by any research organisation which is not American, or is in a country outside of America. Why? Because the questions of both local to the United States, and also promoting the political agenda of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. AS such, this is not an unbiased survey seeking unbiased or partisan data. Questions regarding immigration policies have no relevance outside of the US, unless the research project is specifically related to that subject; and even if it was, as an academic research project it should, by its very nature, be seeking compilation of unbiased data to make unbiased and best-fit recommendations. If the Trump administration seeks such outcomes it should simply undertake its own research which will be biased at the outset in drawing the conclusions it seeks. In other words, the questionnaire is nothing less than a form of punitive, political censorship.
--------------------
3. References
NB: Links are provided within the questionnaire to specific United States federal government policy documents which provide specific background information relating to individual questions.
Duffy, Connor, Australian universities losing US funding amid Donald Trump's America First agenda, ABC, 20 March 2025.
Harris, Christopher, How the Trump White House is causing headaches for our universities, The Age, 21 March 2025.
-------------------
Last updated; 26 March 2025
Michael Organ, Australia
Comments
Post a Comment