Connect with us

Business

Trump admin cuts funding of Australian universities that promote gender ideology

Published

24 hours ago

6 minute read

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.

Featured Image

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.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 14 mins ago

It’s on! Federal Election called for April 28

COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried This Week

David Clinton / 2 hours ago

You’re Actually Voting for THEM? But why?

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on March 23, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Business

A Look at Canada’s Import Tariffs

Published on March 23, 2025

By

  By David Clinton

Speaking of foreign tariffs, Canada’s hands are not exactly clean

It’s one thing to oppose the various iterations of recently threatened U.S. tariffs: many of those carry the potential to inflict serious harm on Canada and Canadians and we’re right to be nervous. However, whether or not Canada’s many external-facing policies use the term tariff in their titles, we have more than a few protectionist trade barriers of our own. I thought it would be useful to list some of Canada’s more obvious protectionist policies.

Unfortunately, one thing these examples lack is context. It’s no secret that international trade is complicated. Some of the trade barriers I’m going to describe are policy responses to legitimate safety issues. And, even among those restrictions that were designed to protect local industries, I couldn’t usefully estimate whether there are enough of them to define our total trade ecosystem.Nevertheless, here’s what I did find.The Customs Tariff Act governs Canada’s import tariffs. All goods entering Canada from countries on the Most-Favored-Nation list that aren’t eligible for lower rates through trade agreements are subject to tariff charges as high as 17 percent. Here are some practical cases of imports from the U.S. that aren’t covered by the CUSMA trade agreement:

  • U.S. t-shirts using imported fabric could face an 18 percent tariff, adding $18,000 to a $100,000 shipment.
  • A $30,000 U.S.-assembled car with Asian parts incurs $1,830 in duties.
  • $50,000 of U.S. strawberries could face $4,250 in seasonal duties if applied.
  • $200,000 of steel wire from the U.S. could face $108,000 in extra anti-dumping duties.

Canada’s supply management system for dairy, poultry, and eggs is a notorious example of a policy that looks, walks, and quacks just like a duck an import tariff. Supply management is governed by a combination of federal and provincial laws, including the Export and Import Permits Act and the Farm Products Agencies Act. Regulations can hit over-quota imported cheese with rates as high as 245.5 percent and chicken can be taxed at 238 percent. And that’s assuming you somehow manage to score an import permit from Global Affairs Canada.The Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforces strict sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that often require layers of inspections or certification requirements that can significantly raise compliance costs. The differences between some of those requirements and an economic tariff are not always obvious.The Canada Border Services Agency collects an excise tax on imported liquor. For example, a U.S. exporter looking to ship 100 litres of 40 percent ABV whiskey to Canada will face a duty of $467.84 (100 × 0.4 × $11.696). That duty must be paid by the importer.In addition, various provincial liquor control boards apply fees and markup costs on imported alcohol, which effectively create price barriers for foreign products (when they’re even allowed on store shelves).Book Importation Regulations limit parallel imports of foreign editions in order to protect Canadian publishers. I assume this is why so many major international publishing companies maintain Canadian offices and, on paper at least (so to speak), publish special Canadian editions.The various Canadian Content (CanCon) rules governing broadcast media will also undermine the principle of free trade, even if those rules won’t necessarily increase import costs.Here are some examples of regulatory compliance rules that aren’t always just about safety:

  • Electrical product safety certification rules sometimes requires foreign electronics manufacturers to repeat testing despite already having UL certification, adding 3-6 months to market entry.
  • US medical device companies can face duplication of regulatory submissions and maintenance of separate quality systems due to Health Canada requirements.
  • Chemical manufacturers must submit detailed testing data specific to Canadian requirements in order to register their products.
  • Small US food producers must implement separate packaging lines for Canadian-bound products to satisfy nutrition labeling requirements.

This isn’t to say there’s necessarily anything morally wrong with any of those rules. And, as I noted, I’m not sure whether Canada’s overall trade profile is more restrictive than our international peers. But, when faced with foreign tariffs, it can’t be said that Canada’s hands are perfectly clean.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Continue Reading

Trending

X