U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Controversial Animal Testing in Australia Despite Trump Administration Cuts

The Trump administration’s decision to cut funding for Australian universities promoting gender ideology is making waves across various sectors. While these universities face financial cuts, 19 animal research laboratories in Australia remain eligible for U.S. funding. This decision aligns with President Trump’s broader agenda to halt diversity, equality, and inclusion projects, making headlines in conservative circles.

Monash University, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, and University of New South Wales are among those affected by these cuts. Yet, at these same institutions, taxpayer dollars from the U.S. continue to fund controversial animal research. The watchdog group White Coat Waste has brought attention to these issues, questioning the allocation of American tax dollars.

One significant project under scrutiny is a $4.9 million FDA contract awarded in 2021 to the Australian government. This project, set to run until 2026, aims to enhance COVID-19 animal models. Critics argue that such funding could be better utilized elsewhere, especially given the political climate.

A $6 million NIH contract supports opioid research on dogs for a private Australian drug company. This funding, lasting until 2026, raises concerns about its necessity and ethical implications. Many conservatives believe such funds could be redirected to more pressing domestic issues.

The University of Melbourne received a $2.7 million grant for smoking experiments on mice, funded under Dr. Anthony Fauci’s tenure. These experiments, involving cigarette smoke and viral infections, continue to spark debate. The grant is secured until 2025, yet many question its ethical and financial validity.

At the University of Sydney, a $9 million NIH grant supports tuberculosis vaccine testing on monkeys and mice. This project, running until 2027, is part of the broader discourse on animal testing ethics. The grant’s size and scope have drawn criticism from various quarters.

Additionally, the University of Sydney holds a $10 million grant for alcohol abuse studies on rodents. Funded for 25 years, this project involves controversial methods like “drinking-in-the-dark” experiments. Critics argue these funds could support more humane and necessary research.

According to the NIH’s project reporter tool, over $30 million in active funding is currently directed to these Australian labs. This has prompted figures like Justin Goodman from White Coat Waste to voice strong opposition. He argues that American taxpayers should not fund what he sees as wasteful and cruel animal tests abroad.

Goodman highlights Australia’s robust economy, suggesting it should self-fund its research activities. He calls for an end to U.S. financial support for these controversial projects. This sentiment resonates with many conservatives who prioritize domestic fiscal responsibility.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has made additional moves to cancel wasteful NIH grants. Recently, a $1,155,503 grant for studying GHB overdoses in transgender individuals was axed. This decision was met with approval from conservative watchdogs and media.

The grant in question involved contentious methods like castrating male rats and injecting them with hormones. Critics argue these experiments are unnecessary and unethical, questioning their scientific merit. The administration’s intervention is seen as a victory by many conservatives.

Following investigations by White Coat Waste, the Trump administration has cut 10 NIH grants funding transgender animal experiments. This aligns with the administration’s broader agenda to curtail what it sees as unnecessary expenditures. The cuts have been celebrated in conservative media as a triumph against wasteful spending.

The ongoing scrutiny of U.S. funding for foreign animal research is a significant talking point. Many conservatives argue for a redirection of funds to more pressing domestic needs. This view is echoed across conservative platforms, emphasizing fiscal responsibility and ethical research practices.