From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Many researchers appear to feel that they are entitled to American funding regardless of whether the research being funded is in the American or, indeed, even the public interest.

According to the Guardian, the U.S. government has cut off research funding at six Australian universities, including Monash University, Australian National University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Sydney, the University of South Wales, and the University of Western Australia. The reason? The Trump administration has informed researchers that the “temporary” funding pause was due to the new U.S. policy of avoiding “DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” 

These details emerged from a memo sent to one of the universities, which was viewed by the Guardian. It reads: 

Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending ‘wokeness’ and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again. The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve. 

The funding pause comes while each project is vetted via a “comprehensive analysis” to ensure that the president’s executive orders – including those on gender ideology – are being complied with.  

“In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” the memo stated.  

According to Universities Australia CEO Luke Sheehy, the funding pause indicates a “worrying trend” from the “biggest foreign partner we have” and that the U.S. “is looking like its becoming unreliable.” American funding for research projects amounted to over $400 million in 2024, which is “equivalent to around half the funding the federal [Australian] government provided in research grants via the Australian Research Council.” 

Ironically, the Guardian reported that earlier this month, “the Trump administration was accused of “blatant foreign interference” in Australia’s universities after researchers who receive US funding were sent a questionnaire asking to confirm they aligned with US government interests.” In short, many researchers appear to feel that they are entitled to American funding regardless of whether the research being funded is in the American or, indeed, even the public interest. Some of the research, particularly medical research, clearly qualifies. But the idea that it is “foreign interference” for funders to ask for details on how those funds are being used exposes the extent to which the U.S. taxpayer has been viewed as a cash cow by international institutions. 

The funding cuts aren’t just happening abroad. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has terminated over 500 research grants related to DEI and transgender ideology. Hundreds of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants, worth over $350 million, have been canceled, including, according to Fox News, projects focusing on “multilevel and multidimensional structural racism,” “gender-affirming therapy in mice,” and “microaggressions.” Other transgender research projects were cancelled as well. 

The criticisms of these cuts, it must be noted, only flow in one direction. When Democrats appoint ideologically aligned personnel to essential posts and ensure that federal funding is directed towards their priorities, this is considered normal. Conversely, when Republicans do so, it is considered a violation of “norms.” In short, “norms” means that regardless of who holds office, progressive priorities continue unabated. The Trump administration appears to have had enough of this double standard.

---

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

The Honest Broker Roger Pielke Jr.

Every year for the past 15 years, JP Morgan publishes an outstanding annual energy report by Michael Cembalest. Last week JP Morgan published its 2025 edition and today I share five important figures from the many in the report, which I highly recommend.

Cembalest’s top line:

[A]fter $9 trillion globally over the last decade spent on wind, solar, electric vehicles, energy storage, electrified heat and power grids, the renewable transition is still a linear one; the renewable share of final energy consumption is slowly advancing at 0.3%–0.6% per year.

You can see that in the figure below — my graph using data from the 2024 EI Statistical Review of World Energy — which shows the proportion of global energy consumption from all carbon-free sources. Since 2012, that proportion has increased from about 14% to a bit over 18%. Exactly as Cembaest observes — that increase has been linear. At that rate of change the world would hit 100% carbon-free sometime after 2200.

Let’s take a look at some of the figures I found most interesting in the JP Morgan Report.

Solar Reality Check

“. . . when you boil it all down, solar power accounts for ~2% of global final energy consumption, a figure we expect to reach 4.5% by 2027. Even if these solar trends continue into the 2030’s, human prosperity will be inextricably linked to affordable natural gas and other fossil fuels for many years.

Human prosperity, in places where it thrives, relies heavily on steel, cement, ammonia/fertilizer, plastics, glass, chemicals and other industrial products which are energy- intensive to produce. . . these products currently rely on fossil fuels for 80%-85% of their energy.

And remember, prosperity itself is energy-intensive: among the tightest relationships in economics is the connection between a country’s per capita GDP and its per capita energy consumption.”

I remain very bullish on solar, but it won’t displace much fossil fuels anytime soon.

Electrify Everything is Proceeding Slowly

“Remember this key aspect of the energy transition: until an energy use is electrified, it’s hard to decarbonize it using green grid electrons. And while grid decarbonization is continuing at a steady pace, the US has made little progress increasing the electricity share of final energy consumption for the reasons discussed in last year’s “Electravision” piece. One major obstacle: transmission line growth is stuck in a rut, way below DoE targets for 2030 and 2035. Another obstacle: shortages of transformer equipment, whose delivery times have extended from 4-6 weeks in 2019 to 2-3 years. . . “

The panel on the rgiht above indicates that the U.S. was never going to meet the emissions reduction targets of the Biden Administration — which has been clear for several years now.

“The US is not unique with respect to the slow pace of electrification, although a few countries are making faster progress. Over the last decade China made the largest advance, bringing it in line with the OECD.

Part of the challenge may simply be the long useful lives of existing industrial plants, furnaces, boilers and vehicles. In other words, electrification might accelerate as their useful lives are exhausted. But the high cost of electricity compared to natural gas (particularly in places without a carbon tax) is another impediment to electrification that is not easy to solve since this ratio reflects relative total costs of production and distribution.”

(In order to coerce users, a carbon tax is necessary)

Energy Dependence and Independence

“The US has achieved US energy independence for the first time in 40 years while Europe and China compete for global energy resources. China’s imports are similar to Europe in energy terms but half as much as a share of domestic energy consumption. Energy intensive manufacturing has shifted to the developing world since the mid 1990’s. China is negotiating with Russia and Turkmenistan regarding future gas pipeline projects. China has the benefit of time: China gas imports are projected to reach 250 bcm by 2030 vs 170 bcm in 2023, almost all of which can be met by already contracted supplies. What was Taiwan thinking by shutting down nuclear power which has fallen from 50% to 5% of generation? Taiwan is now one of the most energy dependent countries in the world, resulting in rising economic costs if China were to impose a blockade.”

The Trump administration’s trade war with Canada risks upending North America’s energy dominance. What can they be thinking?

Fossil Fuels Falling and Rising

“Fossil fuel shares of final energy are falling faster in China, Japan and Europe than in the US. Growth in fossil fuel consumption is slowing but no clear sign of a peak on a global basis. Hydraulically fractured oil and gas account for 60%+ of US primary energy consumption. Global LNG export capacity is set to expand by one third by 2030. Coal consumption is roughly flat in final energy terms as rising EM consumption offsets falling OECD consumption.”

US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright spoke at an energy conference in Houston, and his remarks have been transcribed by Robert Bryce. Here is an excerpt:

Let’s do a quick survey of energy access today. Roughly one billion people live lives remotely recognizable to us in this room. We wear fancy clothes, mostly made out of hydrocarbons. We travel in motorized transport. The extra lucky of us fly across the world to attend conferences. We heat our homes in winter, cool them in summer, store myriad foods in our freezers and refrigerators, and have light, communications and entertainment at the flip of a switch.

Pretty awesome.

This lifestyle requires an average of 13 barrels of oil per person per year. What about the other seven billion people? They want what we have. The other seven billion people, on average, consume only three barrels of oil per person per year versus our 13. Africans average less than one barrel.

We need more energy. Lots more energy. That much should be obvious.

Read Wright’s speech alongside Cembalest’s energy analysis — We are at long last in an era of energy realism.

THB is reader supported.

Please consider a subscription or an upgrade to support work like that you just read.