Trump’s anti-DEI survey: Time to rethink our research system

Shortly after taking office, United States President Donald Trump issued executive orders banning federal funding on so-called “woke” research.

This is part of his broader ban on all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, grants and programmes in the US government.

These orders are massive in scope, impacting studies as varied as stroke recovery, computing and ancient languages.

The impact in the United States so far has been dramatic. Some universities are already cutting student admissions and looking at ways to shed academic staff and researchers.

Now the ban has impacted Australian researchers who have links to US government-funded projects. The Trump administration is asking for information on how their research fits in with US foreign and domestic policy.

Questionnaire

The US government has sent a 36-point questionnaire to some Australian researchers who are working on joint projects with US colleagues.

ABC Radio National reports at least eight Australian universities are involved. Their research areas include foreign aid, medicine, vaccines and defence. The New York Times reports a similar document has also been sent to other overseas organisations with US funding links.

The questions are wide-ranging and cover academics’ links to China as well as their projects’ focus on topics such as diversity, inclusion and gender identity, as well as climate change.

Some of the specific questions include:

• Can you confirm that your organisation has not received ANY funding from PRC People’s Republic of China, Russia, Cuba or Iran?

• Can you confirm that this is no DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] project or DEI elements of the project? [sic]

• Does this project take appropriate measures to protect women and to defend against gender ideology as defined in the below Executive Order?

• Can you confirm this is not a climate or “environmental justice” project or include such elements?

The survey also covers issues such as secure borders with Mexico, ending government waste, terrorism, the war on opioids and “eradicating anti-Christian bias”.

Concern and anger

In response, the Group of Eight (which represents Australia’s top research universities) and the Australian Academy of Science have separately raised concerns with the Australian government about the survey and its impact on Australian research.

The Group of Eight says the US has already suspended or terminated research grants with six of its eight member universities.

The National Tertiary Education Union also labelled the survey “blatant foreign interference”.

A spokesperson for Education Minister Jason Clare says Australia is “engaging with the US government to understand what these measures mean for future funding and collaboration”.

Are Trump’s orders legal?

Trump’s executive orders are currently the subject of numerous lawsuits in the US. Plaintiffs say Trump’s orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments – those dealing with protection of free speech, equal protection and “due process of law” when depriving a citizen of property.

Whether Trump’s orders are legal or not is a tricky question, and will likely come down to the judges hearing each case.

In the meantime, US government agencies are withholding funding anyway. Reports also suggests Trump has instructed his administration to ignore court orders – hardly surprising, given Trump’s history of contempt of US courts.

What does it mean for Australia?

US involvement in Australian research is significant. According to the Academy of Science, US government research funding involving Australian research organisations was AU$386 million (US$246 million) in 2024.

It is arguable that Trump’s orders infringe Australian sovereignty. But the US has always had the capacity to interfere in Australian university research – it just hasn’t actually done it until now.

Research contracts signed between universities and funding bodies can contain all kinds of requirements, so US law can end up applying to Australian researchers. When the AUKUS [trilateral security] deal was announced in 2021, a huge question was how universities would comply with notoriously harsh US export control laws.

The survey indicates it was issued by the US Office of Management and Budget and appears to be supported by the US CHIPS and Science Act (which authorises certain research investments) and the National Science Foundation policies. So, while Australian researchers could potentially ignore these questionnaires, that would legally give a US funding body grounds to cancel the funding contract.

Our foreign interference laws also weren’t designed for situations like this. Even if they were, Trump is the current head of the US government, and is likely to be immune from prosecution.

Statutory tests for foreign interference – including criteria that such acts are covert, and/or involve threats of harm – simply don’t apply to a US president like Trump.

What can Australia do?

Legally, it doesn’t look like there is much Australia can do about Trump’s orders.

Some newly unemployed researchers are now poised to leave the US, taking their research with them. This poses a potential security risk, with countries such as China and Russia both keen to capitalise on Trump’s decisions.

But other nations are also aware of the possibilities. The European Union has already offered displaced US scientists a more “sympathetic place to work”. South Korea and Canada are also marketing themselves as attractive options. Australia could follow suit.

The federal government is currently doing a strategic review of Australia’s research and development system. This could make diversifying our research partners a national priority.

This could include revisiting a 2023 decision not to join Horizon Europe – the European Union’s key research fund.

Either way, given such radical changes in the US, Australia needs to seriously reconsider how it is funding and structuring research.

Brendan Walker-Munro is senior lecturer (law) at Southern Cross University, Australia. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.