Harvard University loses another $93m in federal grants
US President Donald Trump's administration has frozen or ended federal grants and contracts for the university worth nearly $US3 billion ($A4.7 billion) in recent weeks.
Since taking office in January, Trump has sought to use federal research funding to overhaul US academia, which he says has been gripped by anti-American, Marxist and "radical left" ideologies.
The administration has accused Harvard of continuing to consider ethnicity when reviewing student applications and of allowing discrimination against Jews as a result of the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled American campuses last year.
New York's Columbia University has also been targeted over alleged anti-Semitism.
"Due to Harvard University's continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination, HHS is terminating multiple multi-year grant awards ... over their full duration," the health department said in a post on X on Monday.
Harvard University did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based institution has previously said that it "cannot absorb the entire cost" of the frozen grants, and that it was working with researchers to help them find alternative funding.
It is also suing the Trump administration over its decision to cut grants.
Earlier this month, the university settled a high-profile lawsuit by an Orthodox Jewish student who said Harvard was ignoring anti-Semitism on campus.
The settlement came four months after Harvard promised additional protections for Jewish students, as it resolved two lawsuits claiming it was a hotbed of anti-Semitism.
The US Department of Health and Human Services is terminating $A93 million in federal grants to Harvard University, saying the Ivy League institution failed to address anti-Semitic harassment and ethnic discrimination on campus.
US President Donald Trump's administration has frozen or ended federal grants and contracts for the university worth nearly $US3 billion ($A4.7 billion) in recent weeks.
Since taking office in January, Trump has sought to use federal research funding to overhaul US academia, which he says has been gripped by anti-American, Marxist and "radical left" ideologies.
The administration has accused Harvard of continuing to consider ethnicity when reviewing student applications and of allowing discrimination against Jews as a result of the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled American campuses last year.
New York's Columbia University has also been targeted over alleged anti-Semitism.
"Due to Harvard University's continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination, HHS is terminating multiple multi-year grant awards ... over their full duration," the health department said in a post on X on Monday.
Harvard University did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based institution has previously said that it "cannot absorb the entire cost" of the frozen grants, and that it was working with researchers to help them find alternative funding.
It is also suing the Trump administration over its decision to cut grants.
Earlier this month, the university settled a high-profile lawsuit by an Orthodox Jewish student who said Harvard was ignoring anti-Semitism on campus.
The settlement came four months after Harvard promised additional protections for Jewish students, as it resolved two lawsuits claiming it was a hotbed of anti-Semitism.
The US Department of Health and Human Services is terminating $A93 million in federal grants to Harvard University, saying the Ivy League institution failed to address anti-Semitic harassment and ethnic discrimination on campus.
US President Donald Trump's administration has frozen or ended federal grants and contracts for the university worth nearly $US3 billion ($A4.7 billion) in recent weeks.
Since taking office in January, Trump has sought to use federal research funding to overhaul US academia, which he says has been gripped by anti-American, Marxist and "radical left" ideologies.
The administration has accused Harvard of continuing to consider ethnicity when reviewing student applications and of allowing discrimination against Jews as a result of the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled American campuses last year.
New York's Columbia University has also been targeted over alleged anti-Semitism.
"Due to Harvard University's continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination, HHS is terminating multiple multi-year grant awards ... over their full duration," the health department said in a post on X on Monday.
Harvard University did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based institution has previously said that it "cannot absorb the entire cost" of the frozen grants, and that it was working with researchers to help them find alternative funding.
It is also suing the Trump administration over its decision to cut grants.
Earlier this month, the university settled a high-profile lawsuit by an Orthodox Jewish student who said Harvard was ignoring anti-Semitism on campus.
The settlement came four months after Harvard promised additional protections for Jewish students, as it resolved two lawsuits claiming it was a hotbed of anti-Semitism.
The US Department of Health and Human Services is terminating $A93 million in federal grants to Harvard University, saying the Ivy League institution failed to address anti-Semitic harassment and ethnic discrimination on campus.
US President Donald Trump's administration has frozen or ended federal grants and contracts for the university worth nearly $US3 billion ($A4.7 billion) in recent weeks.
Since taking office in January, Trump has sought to use federal research funding to overhaul US academia, which he says has been gripped by anti-American, Marxist and "radical left" ideologies.
The administration has accused Harvard of continuing to consider ethnicity when reviewing student applications and of allowing discrimination against Jews as a result of the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled American campuses last year.
New York's Columbia University has also been targeted over alleged anti-Semitism.
"Due to Harvard University's continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination, HHS is terminating multiple multi-year grant awards ... over their full duration," the health department said in a post on X on Monday.
Harvard University did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based institution has previously said that it "cannot absorb the entire cost" of the frozen grants, and that it was working with researchers to help them find alternative funding.
It is also suing the Trump administration over its decision to cut grants.
Earlier this month, the university settled a high-profile lawsuit by an Orthodox Jewish student who said Harvard was ignoring anti-Semitism on campus.
The settlement came four months after Harvard promised additional protections for Jewish students, as it resolved two lawsuits claiming it was a hotbed of anti-Semitism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
9 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Wallabies deserved better ... that's to lose a heartbreaker this week
Eddie, a hard marker on these things, came away impressed with everything that went with us rugby invaders in his town, texting John and I after the second Test: 'What an amazing night for your code. 90,000 at the MCG! Record. Amazing game. Not sure why we didn't get the last penalty. Ref has no idea about setting up a huge result and a big final game. Another effing tax auditor ruining the game!! Almost the perfect result. Still an amazing night. You should be very proud of the rugby culture. A week of joy. More please!' Are you ready, Eddie? More to come. Tonight! Trump's golf antics say it all The most staggering sports footage of the week, however? I know it, you know it. It was the vision of US President Donald Trump playing golf in Scotland. His cart pulls up before the bunker he has put his tee shot into. You or I would have hacked about in the sand, cursing wicked fate that had allowed the wind to catch our shot at the last second and make it veer into the trap. Not Trump. That is not the way he plays golf. His caddie knew what to do. He casually threw another ball behind him, just in front of Trump, so that the Commander-in-Cheat could play from the grass. Trump, of course, didn't blink. This is not just the way he plays, it's the way he has always played. It's why the great American sportswriter Rick Reilly wrote a book called Commander-in-Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump and said: 'Donald Trump is the worst cheat ever, and he doesn't care who knows. I always say golf is like bicycle shorts. It reveals a lot about a man. And golf reveals a lot of ugliness in this president.' Of course, that ugliness is on display every day, in every way, and we don't need golf to prove it. I'll stop now. But ... A family that Fastnets together, stays together As if you didn't know, last week they had the centenary running of the famous Fastnet Yacht Race, the gruelling 695-nautical-mile (1287km) marathon from Cowes on the Isle of Wight, past the iconic Fastnet Rock and finishing in France's Cherbourg-en-Cotentin. For many, it's the northern hemisphere's answer to the Sydney to Hobart, both legendary for testing the world's best offshore sailors across wild seas and shifting currents. This time, it delivered its trademark brew of tidal puzzles and world-class competition, but more so! Amid the record 451 yachts, Sydney's Bedouin quietly caught the eye—and not just for her green-and-gold connection. Owned and skippered by Linda Goddard, Bedouin's crew brought together her three daughters, her son, and their trusted navigator Alice Parker, meaning half the team were women – a stat that's still rare at this altitude of ocean racing. Guided expertly from the Solent's tricky waters all the way to Cherbourg, Bedouin sailed a near-perfect race, outfoxing rivals to clinch their division on handicap. It's another impressive notch on the belt after last year's Aegean 600 victory, and proof that the family formula works wonders. Cronk not sold on Raiders Cooper, Cooper, Cooper, I said. 'I said love, I said, pet, I said look ...!' Yes, the Raiders are on top of the NRL comp, and yes, they have played really well, but I for one don't believe they'll actually win. You are Cooper Cronk. You played this stuff, live this stuff, breathe this stuff, eat this stuff and commentate on this stuff. If you had to put the sheep station on it, when the smoke clears on grand final day, who will be standing on top of the podium, spraying each other with champagne while Gus Gould inevitably says it was the greatest game ever played? 'Melbourne Storm,' he said. They said it England women's soccer star Beth Mead reveals that a message on coach Sarina Wiegman 's toiletries bag proved inspirational in the Lionesses' victory at Euro 2025: 'She had a little toiletry bag that said 'Bitches get shit done', and bitches got shit done today.' Wayne Bennett could try it? An England government spokesman on not giving a public holiday for the win: 'If we had a bank holiday every time the Lionesses win, we'd never go to work.' Morgan Turinui was unhappy with the second Test refereeing, when it came to whether or not the winning Lions try should have been disallowed: 'His two assistant referees got it wrong. Joel Jutge, the head of the referees, is out here on a junket. He needs to haul those referees in and ask for a please explain. It's a point of law. It's in black and white, it's not about bias.' Lions coach Andy Farrell didn't agree: 'I suppose you wouldn't have backed us [when the Lions were losing] at 23-5 but to find a way … it adds to the story, doesn't it? It adds to the fairytale. To be part of that is an honour.' Wallabies coach Joe Schmidt on his team following the loss: 'They were broken at the end of it. You've got to keep resolve and you've got to keep going forward, and we can't, and we won't, wallow in self-pity.' Schmidt, on their progress: 'It's never linear, it always tends to ebb and flow. We are trying to build consistency, we're trying to play a brand of rugby that entertains people and, at the same time, a brand of rugby that we enjoy playing.' Max Jorgensen on losing to the Lions in Melbourne: 'It really hurts, it's a really tough pill to swallow ... it's something you only do once in your career [face the Lions] … unless you're [James Slipper].' St Kilda's Marcus Windhager on the plan to defeat Melbourne with eight seconds left: ' For play to proceed, the umpires were saying everyone needed to get back to their starting positions, I just came back to Rowan [Marshall] and I'm like, 'f--- it, why don't you just try and get a mark around the 50', and Nas [Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera] just bolted for it and it was done to perfection.' Oscar Piastri after winning the Belgian Grand Prix: 'Nicely done.' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, welcoming the 1980 Olympians back into the fold: 'The returning athletes were met only by cold silence or cruel comments. Today we fix that. Today, on the 45th anniversary, we recognise all that you have achieved and acknowledge all that you have overcome. Take pride in both. You are Olympians. You are Australians and you have earned your place in the history of the game and our nation. Welcome to parliament and welcome home.' Aussie swimmer Mollie O'Callaghan on winning gold at the world championships: 'I really wanted it, to be honest. I always want it, no matter the race. I think that's why we're swimmers at the end of the day.' Matildas coach Joe Montemurro on the Matildas' bid for Asian Cup redemption: 'They know what they need to do in terms of fixing what was not a positive tournament in India. We've got the advantage of being at home, we've got the crowd behind us. We've got everyone in good shape, and picking the squad's going to be an interesting one.' Our Kaylee McKeown on winning the 100m backstroke at the world championships and not feeling sorry for her opponents: 'That's swimming and the nature of it. You've got to be competitive and get up there. If she beats me, she would feel the same way. It's just what happens. People beat people.' Loading Team of the Week Tadej Pogacar. Won his fourth Tour de France. St Kilda. Came back from 46 points behind at three-quarter-time, scoring two goals in the final minute to beat Melbourne 96-90 on Sunday. M elbourne Vixens. Came from behind to defeat the NSW Swifts 66-65 and book a berth against the West Coast Fever in the Super Netball grand final. Oscar Piastri. Won again. The Hungarian Grand Prix is this weekend in Budapest. Alex de Minaur. Won his 10th ATP singles title in Washington DC.
Sydney Morning Herald
9 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Battle stations: The former PM, ministers, and military brass cashing in on Australia's defence spending bonanza
Early last year, United States technology company Anduril, co-founded by colourful American entrepreneur and Trump enthusiast Palmer Luckey, unveiled a coup in the highly competitive world of defence industry. The company announced it had hired the Royal Australian Navy's former head of naval capability, rear admiral Peter Quinn, to join its Australia and Asia Pacific team as vice-president of strategy, to 'accelerate' its regional business. It was a timely catch for Anduril. For five years, Quinn had occupied a high-level navy post in which his job was to identify the navy's future capability needs. He still held the post in May 2022, when the Defence Department handed Anduril a $77 million limited tender contract to develop a new capability for the fleet: the Ghost Shark. This was a daring design for an autonomous under-sea vehicle (AUV) – an uncrewed robot submarine – still then in prototype. Quinn, who had been one of the signatories on the original Ghost Shark agreement, left the navy at the end of 2022. He took a year's break – the minimum 'cooling off' period mandated by the navy – then joined Anduril in January 2024. In all, 13 months had elapsed between him leaving the navy and joining the ambitious American company. This raised some eyebrows, but there was even more widespread grumbling about the fact such a large project had not gone to open tender. 'That didn't pass the pub test,' complained one industry source, who said he took calls from annoyed potential competitors. Total combined investment in the project has climbed to more than $160 million, with three prototype Ghost Sharks delivered to the RAN and costs shared between the company and Defence through a fast-track process the government has dubbed the 'advanced strategic capabilities accelerator'. Quinn's hiring is far from unique. It fits within a decades-long tradition of senior ADF personnel, ministers and political staffers taking up posts with large defence companies or defence-related advisory and lobbying services after leaving public life or active service. As Australia's total defence spending climbs beyond $59 billion a year, and the AUKUS trilateral security pact looms large on the horizon, the phenomenon is set to intensify as firms jostle for an inside track. It extends to former politicians and political staffers on both sides of politics. Naturally, those who have served in Defence or shadow defence portfolios have been in hottest demand. The list includes former ministers Christopher Pyne, Kim Beazley, Arthur Sinodinos, Stephen Conroy, Joel Fitzgibbon, David Johnston, former Liberal opposition leader Brendan Nelson and former prime minister Scott Morrison. And the federal government's register of lobbyists shows dozens of former staffers who have joined advisory firms with defence clients. Among them are Paul Chamberlin, former staffer to three Nationals leaders; Carl Ungerer, a former national security adviser to one-time Labor leader Simon Crean; Michael Choueifate, a one-time chief of staff to Anthony Albanese; Adam Howard, the former chief of staff to Pyne; and Tony Hodges, a former staffer to then-shadow defence minister Richard Marles and former prime minister Julia Gillard. Anduril says it cleared Quinn's recruitment with the Defence Department and it was within RAN rules. Nor, the company insists, has Quinn had any involvement with the Ghost Shark or the company's maritime business since he joined its executive team. (Quinn did not respond directly to questions put to him through Anduril.) But Greens defence spokesperson David Shoebridge says the rules should change so there is a 'rock-solid prohibition on the decision-makers for multibillion-dollar tenders ever going to work for the companies that win the contracts'. Defence deflected questions about Quinn's role in the original Anduril contract but said 'movement of staff between Defence and Defence industry is important as we work together to train and retain the highly skilled and experienced workforce needed to deliver Australia's national security'. It added 'post-service employment of former ADF members is managed in line with Defence policy to mitigate any real or perceived conflicts of interest'. As one consultant sees it, 'the value to industry of these guys is that they can map a very complicated procurement process inside the Department of Defence and at a political level as well. If you're [an outsider] your understanding of the stakeholders is very low, and it's very difficult to get that understanding without hiring someone who has been in the system ... It's often a total lasagne of people whose names aren't available through Google.' This masthead does not suggest any improper conduct on the part of Anduril or Quinn, including that his involvement in the Ghost Shark agreement was influenced by the possibility of future employment with the company. Rather, broader questions remain about the stringency of rules around post-ADF employment. Former judge Anthony Whealy – chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, which has recently called for an overhaul of lobbying regulations – believes there should be a minimum three-year 'cooling-off period' before politicians, senior officials and senior ADF figures take up private employment in fields that related to their duties while in public life. (Currently ministers cannot lobby on matters they had official dealings with until 18 months after leaving office.) Shoebridge says 'unfortunately, the revolving door between Defence and arms companies is going strong'. Anduril's nimble manoeuvring in a sector bedevilled by chronic delay has some admirers, though. 'Anduril are the answer to a problem,' argues former US marine Gary Slater, now with the Australian Defence Consultancy Group. 'They move fast, they break things, they're cashed up with venture capital. They have truly cutting-edge technology that [jumps] from idea to design to prototype in months, not years.' Senior former ADF personnel are, in the meantime, liberally sprinkled throughout the private defence sector. A prominent example is former chief of the Defence Force Mark Binskin, who holds the post of executive director for defence and national security at BAE Systems Australia, an offshoot of the British company that has been hand-picked to help construct Australia's own nuclear-powered submarine fleet under the AUKUS pact. Former navy chief Tim Barrett is a non-executive director at BAE Systems Australia. Neither Binskin nor Barrett have any involvement with the AUKUS submarines, according to a BAE spokesman. Retired rear admiral Lee Goddard has become strategic adviser to Australian Missile Corporation, part of the Queensland-based Nioa armaments group, which has offices in Britain and the US and also has AUKUS ambitions. Former rear admiral Mark Purcell has been snapped up as a senior adviser by former treasurer Joe Hockey's lobbying firm, Bondi Partners, which is also active in the AUKUS space, while retired rear admiral Chris Ritchie, another ex-navy chief, has only just left the board of patrol boat manufacturer Luerssen following its merger with engineering firm Civmec. The chief executive of Lockheed Martin Australia and New Zealand is a former senior RAAF officer, Warren McDonald, who joined the company in 2021, a year after leaving his post as chief of joint capabilities inside the Defence Department. The lobbyists Canberra insiders say three lobbying firms dominate the defence space: TG Public Affairs, Pyne and Partners, and CMAX Advisory. Each have client lists extensively documented on the federal government's lobbyists register. TG Public Affairs, which represents 15 of the top 40 companies contracting to defence, boasts a heavyweight advisory board, chaired by former communications and shadow defence minister Conroy, sitting alongside former defence ministers Beazley, David Johnston and a former deputy secretary of the Defence Department Steve Grzeskowiak. Its clients include a number of the 'primes' (as the big contractors to defence are known) such as Lockheed Martin Australia, Saab, Northrop Grumman and Rheinmetall Defence. Former Liberal defence and defence industry minister Christopher Pyne's eponymous lobbying firm has established itself as another energetic player in the defence industry space with about 18 defence clients – or those with defence aspirations – on its books. Loading In April this year, it hosted its 'Fourth Pyne & Partners AUKUS Program' in Washington, DC, opening with a keynote address from Australia's Washington ambassador Kevin Rudd, along with contributions from former British defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon and the British Royal Navy's former second sea lord, Sir Nick Hine. The firm has also teamed with leading US government relations firm Baker Donelson to 'capitalise on the recent AUKUS defence agreement'. Pyne and Partners also represents British-based Rolls-Royce, slated to receive $4.6 billion in Australian taxpayer funds to build the nuclear propulsion systems for the future joint UK-Australian nuclear submarine (dubbed SSN-AUKUS) under AUKUS' so-called 'pillar 1'. (Pillar 1 is everything to do with the $368 billion program to acquire nuclear submarines; pillar 2 is about increasing allied collaboration on emerging technologies such as AI and robotics.) CMAX Advisory, the third of the most active lobbying firms in the defence space, was founded by Christian Taubenschlag, former staffer to one-time Labor defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon. Fitzgibbon holds the position of special counsel at CMAX, though he says there's little active lobbying involved. 'My role is to provide political and strategic advice to corporate entities. But on the rare occasions I do seek to persuade, I only do so if my interest in the matter is fully declared and I genuinely believe the case I'm making serves the interests of both the government and the country,' he said. He defends the role of lobbyists in the system, saying: 'Not every entity has the means to navigate the complexities of government and government decision-making processes in-house. And even when they do, they'll often need additional specialist guidance for specific projects.' Pyne, who did not respond to a request for an interview, expressed a similar view to The Australian Financial Review in March, saying: 'Lobbyists are a critical part of the system of Westminster government ... Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand how government works.' None of the people in this article are accused of wrongdoing, breaching any rules or acting with conflicts of interest. Until three weeks ago, Fitzgibbon and Sinodinos had been co-chairing the advisory board of the not-for-profit AUKUS forum, which describes itself as a 'collaborative organisation of supporters across industry, academia, researchers, government and defence'. But both men quietly left the forum last month. Its chief executive officer Michael Sharpe is now understood to be focusing his efforts offshore in the US and Britain. That's indicative of a broader problem, which is that small and medium Australian defence companies are feeling frustrated by the growing realisation that any AUKUS bonanza – at least for them – is still a long way off. Loading For the next few years, AUKUS dollars are primarily going offshore or being earmarked for development of the infrastructure needed to support the nuclear-submarine project in Western Australia and South Australia. One well-connected defence industry player slams what he says is overblown talk by ministers, and lobbyists, about AUKUS opportunities. 'They're pitching bullshit,' the source says. 'There is no submarine construction here for years … The reality is, unless you're in the infrastructure game [building the shipyards and upgrading the bases] then right now you are not in the AUKUS game. And if you want to be in the AUKUS game, then you've got to be in infrastructure.' In late July, Defence Minister Richard Marles and his visiting British counterpart John Healey signed a 50-year pact to bolster the AUKUS agreement. Marles declared that it would 'underpin ... the biggest industrial endeavour that our nation has ever seen'. But Marcus Hellyer, head of research for Strategic Analysis Australia, warns that 'most of the high-value components are going to be imported. All of this stuff about [how] this will drive high-tech manufacturing in Australia, and it's our moon shot, all this kind of hyperbolic language, I think is completely misplaced'. He adds: 'We now have this very extensive class whose main purpose in life seems to be advocating for AUKUS and getting lots of very well-paid consultancy jobs.' This masthead does not suggest any wrongdoing or actual conflicts by any of the people named in this article. Where the money's going Analysts say that for the next few years, the vast bulk of the government's expenditure on the nuclear submarines will be directed at two things: bolstering industrial capacity in Britain and the US, and building enabling infrastructure here. As well as tipping $4.6 billion into Rolls-Royce's British factories, Canberra has promised $4.7 billion for US naval shipyards to help boost American production of Virginia-class nuclear submarines, three of which are destined for Australia. (The Albanese government has already made downpayments totalling $1.6 billion.) Billions more will then be required to upgrade facilities in WA to host and maintain nuclear-powered submarines and to build a new South Australian shipyard (probably near the existing Osborne facility) allowing eventual construction here. So far, $8 billion has been earmarked to expand HMAS Stirling, near Perth, which is supposed to host US nuclear submarines on rotation from 2027 onwards, with another $127 million allocated to design the upgrade of the Henderson defence precinct, also in WA. Eventually, the government claims, there will be $30 billion invested in the country's industrial base over the next 30 years. As for smaller companies down the food chain, right now there's not much, says ADCG's Gary Slater. 'AUKUS is not creating a lot of jobs for Australian industry at the moment ... [and] the government isn't providing a holistic overview of the nuclear-powered sovereign ecosystem, because they don't have one, because they don't have the expertise and the knowledge and the experience to map it out and to brief it.' Slater came to Australia two years ago to lead ADCG's nuclear consultancy group and has been designing the firm's 'nuclear masterclasses' pitched as a way to 'accelerate' AUKUS. He was hoping to get engagement from federal and state governments but those doors have remained firmly shut. For now, he has lowered his ambitions and is aiming the 'masterclasses' at smaller players, who are still scratching their heads over what AUKUS means for them. Slater is frustrated because 'we're two years away from rotation of US nuclear submarines in the West [WA] and there's been a distinct lack of public reporting, transparency and progress'. The Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN), an industry lobby group which represents smaller companies, also says AUKUS is still 'very much early days' for its members. Two hundred smaller firms have joined a 'prequalification' program for the local nuclear submarine build, when it eventually kicks off, and the government has earmarked $262 million to 'help Australian firms [eventually] join the AUKUS [pillar 1] supply chain'. But that's a drop in the bucket compared with the infrastructure and overseas spend. AIDN chief Mike Johnson warns that other defence programs are being 'sacrificed to fund AUKUS and marquee missile programs'. The big question remains whether Australia's acquisition of a sovereign nuclear-powered submarine fleet will survive the plethora of economic, political and technological challenges it faces. In the immediate future, all eyes are on Washington, DC, where a Pentagon review of AUKUS – under the sceptical eye of US undersecretary for defence Elbridge Colby – could impact the project's trajectory. There's a keen awareness that the US is already struggling to produce enough nuclear subs for its own demands, let alone three for Australia. Loading Added to that is the project's scale, complexity (a nuclear-powered submarine has about a million parts) and the 15-to-20-year lead times before Australian-built submarines would enter service. Addressing the Pyne & Partners AUKUS forum in Washington this year, Nick Hine said he had warned Australia's defence chiefs that 'from a cost perspective, whatever number you thought of, double it and add zero', and that, 'whatever timescale you had in your head, you are already late'. Yet such is the institutional weight and financial investment now building behind the submarine project, in particular, it looks locked in, no matter how much those challenges compound. As a recent British academic paper entitled 'Fortress AUKUS' by scholars Sarah Tzinieris and Zeno Leoni notes, 'a submarines shipbuilding program once in place unleashes powerful organisational and bureaucratic forces that favour maintaining the program'. Ghost Shark: What we know Anduril has big aspirations for its Ghost Shark autonomous underwater vehicle. Taxpayers have so far put in close to $100 million, with the company putting in the rest. The company established an Australian arm in March 2022, citing the expanded opportunities created by AUKUS, and almost immediately pitched the Ghost Shark idea to the RAN. Three years later, it has delivered three vessels and is trialling a fourth in the United States. Defence industry minister Pat Conroy hails it as 'an exemplar of how Defence and Australian industry can move at speed to develop new sovereign capabilities to respond to the challenges before us'. The government rushed to unleash funds for it under a little-known program called the Advanced Strategic Capabilites Accelerator. Some industry sources believe the jury is still out on its success. The company doesn't release exact dimensions or range. It says a Ghost Shark recently concluded a 100-hour single voyage, and that it's the 'size of a bus in its smallest configuration and subway car in its biggest'. Conroy says it will conduct 'stealthy, long-range autonomous undersea warfare capability that can conduct persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and strike, and enhance Navy's ability to operate with allies and partners' – putting it in contention for AUKUS pillar 2 operations.
The Age
9 minutes ago
- The Age
Battle stations: The former PM, ministers, and military brass cashing in on Australia's defence spending bonanza
Early last year, United States technology company Anduril, co-founded by colourful American entrepreneur and Trump enthusiast Palmer Luckey, unveiled a coup in the highly competitive world of defence industry. The company announced it had hired the Royal Australian Navy's former head of naval capability, rear admiral Peter Quinn, to join its Australia and Asia Pacific team as vice-president of strategy, to 'accelerate' its regional business. It was a timely catch for Anduril. For five years, Quinn had occupied a high-level navy post in which his job was to identify the navy's future capability needs. He still held the post in May 2022, when the Defence Department handed Anduril a $77 million limited tender contract to develop a new capability for the fleet: the Ghost Shark. This was a daring design for an autonomous under-sea vehicle (AUV) – an uncrewed robot submarine – still then in prototype. Quinn, who had been one of the signatories on the original Ghost Shark agreement, left the navy at the end of 2022. He took a year's break – the minimum 'cooling off' period mandated by the navy – then joined Anduril in January 2024. In all, 13 months had elapsed between him leaving the navy and joining the ambitious American company. This raised some eyebrows, but there was even more widespread grumbling about the fact such a large project had not gone to open tender. 'That didn't pass the pub test,' complained one industry source, who said he took calls from annoyed potential competitors. Total combined investment in the project has climbed to more than $160 million, with three prototype Ghost Sharks delivered to the RAN and costs shared between the company and Defence through a fast-track process the government has dubbed the 'advanced strategic capabilities accelerator'. Quinn's hiring is far from unique. It fits within a decades-long tradition of senior ADF personnel, ministers and political staffers taking up posts with large defence companies or defence-related advisory and lobbying services after leaving public life or active service. As Australia's total defence spending climbs beyond $59 billion a year, and the AUKUS trilateral security pact looms large on the horizon, the phenomenon is set to intensify as firms jostle for an inside track. It extends to former politicians and political staffers on both sides of politics. Naturally, those who have served in Defence or shadow defence portfolios have been in hottest demand. The list includes former ministers Christopher Pyne, Kim Beazley, Arthur Sinodinos, Stephen Conroy, Joel Fitzgibbon, David Johnston, former Liberal opposition leader Brendan Nelson and former prime minister Scott Morrison. And the federal government's register of lobbyists shows dozens of former staffers who have joined advisory firms with defence clients. Among them are Paul Chamberlin, former staffer to three Nationals leaders; Carl Ungerer, a former national security adviser to one-time Labor leader Simon Crean; Michael Choueifate, a one-time chief of staff to Anthony Albanese; Adam Howard, the former chief of staff to Pyne; and Tony Hodges, a former staffer to then-shadow defence minister Richard Marles and former prime minister Julia Gillard. Anduril says it cleared Quinn's recruitment with the Defence Department and it was within RAN rules. Nor, the company insists, has Quinn had any involvement with the Ghost Shark or the company's maritime business since he joined its executive team. (Quinn did not respond directly to questions put to him through Anduril.) But Greens defence spokesperson David Shoebridge says the rules should change so there is a 'rock-solid prohibition on the decision-makers for multibillion-dollar tenders ever going to work for the companies that win the contracts'. Defence deflected questions about Quinn's role in the original Anduril contract but said 'movement of staff between Defence and Defence industry is important as we work together to train and retain the highly skilled and experienced workforce needed to deliver Australia's national security'. It added 'post-service employment of former ADF members is managed in line with Defence policy to mitigate any real or perceived conflicts of interest'. As one consultant sees it, 'the value to industry of these guys is that they can map a very complicated procurement process inside the Department of Defence and at a political level as well. If you're [an outsider] your understanding of the stakeholders is very low, and it's very difficult to get that understanding without hiring someone who has been in the system ... It's often a total lasagne of people whose names aren't available through Google.' This masthead does not suggest any improper conduct on the part of Anduril or Quinn, including that his involvement in the Ghost Shark agreement was influenced by the possibility of future employment with the company. Rather, broader questions remain about the stringency of rules around post-ADF employment. Former judge Anthony Whealy – chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, which has recently called for an overhaul of lobbying regulations – believes there should be a minimum three-year 'cooling-off period' before politicians, senior officials and senior ADF figures take up private employment in fields that related to their duties while in public life. (Currently ministers cannot lobby on matters they had official dealings with until 18 months after leaving office.) Shoebridge says 'unfortunately, the revolving door between Defence and arms companies is going strong'. Anduril's nimble manoeuvring in a sector bedevilled by chronic delay has some admirers, though. 'Anduril are the answer to a problem,' argues former US marine Gary Slater, now with the Australian Defence Consultancy Group. 'They move fast, they break things, they're cashed up with venture capital. They have truly cutting-edge technology that [jumps] from idea to design to prototype in months, not years.' Senior former ADF personnel are, in the meantime, liberally sprinkled throughout the private defence sector. A prominent example is former chief of the Defence Force Mark Binskin, who holds the post of executive director for defence and national security at BAE Systems Australia, an offshoot of the British company that has been hand-picked to help construct Australia's own nuclear-powered submarine fleet under the AUKUS pact. Former navy chief Tim Barrett is a non-executive director at BAE Systems Australia. Neither Binskin nor Barrett have any involvement with the AUKUS submarines, according to a BAE spokesman. Retired rear admiral Lee Goddard has become strategic adviser to Australian Missile Corporation, part of the Queensland-based Nioa armaments group, which has offices in Britain and the US and also has AUKUS ambitions. Former rear admiral Mark Purcell has been snapped up as a senior adviser by former treasurer Joe Hockey's lobbying firm, Bondi Partners, which is also active in the AUKUS space, while retired rear admiral Chris Ritchie, another ex-navy chief, has only just left the board of patrol boat manufacturer Luerssen following its merger with engineering firm Civmec. The chief executive of Lockheed Martin Australia and New Zealand is a former senior RAAF officer, Warren McDonald, who joined the company in 2021, a year after leaving his post as chief of joint capabilities inside the Defence Department. The lobbyists Canberra insiders say three lobbying firms dominate the defence space: TG Public Affairs, Pyne and Partners, and CMAX Advisory. Each have client lists extensively documented on the federal government's lobbyists register. TG Public Affairs, which represents 15 of the top 40 companies contracting to defence, boasts a heavyweight advisory board, chaired by former communications and shadow defence minister Conroy, sitting alongside former defence ministers Beazley, David Johnston and a former deputy secretary of the Defence Department Steve Grzeskowiak. Its clients include a number of the 'primes' (as the big contractors to defence are known) such as Lockheed Martin Australia, Saab, Northrop Grumman and Rheinmetall Defence. Former Liberal defence and defence industry minister Christopher Pyne's eponymous lobbying firm has established itself as another energetic player in the defence industry space with about 18 defence clients – or those with defence aspirations – on its books. Loading In April this year, it hosted its 'Fourth Pyne & Partners AUKUS Program' in Washington, DC, opening with a keynote address from Australia's Washington ambassador Kevin Rudd, along with contributions from former British defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon and the British Royal Navy's former second sea lord, Sir Nick Hine. The firm has also teamed with leading US government relations firm Baker Donelson to 'capitalise on the recent AUKUS defence agreement'. Pyne and Partners also represents British-based Rolls-Royce, slated to receive $4.6 billion in Australian taxpayer funds to build the nuclear propulsion systems for the future joint UK-Australian nuclear submarine (dubbed SSN-AUKUS) under AUKUS' so-called 'pillar 1'. (Pillar 1 is everything to do with the $368 billion program to acquire nuclear submarines; pillar 2 is about increasing allied collaboration on emerging technologies such as AI and robotics.) CMAX Advisory, the third of the most active lobbying firms in the defence space, was founded by Christian Taubenschlag, former staffer to one-time Labor defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon. Fitzgibbon holds the position of special counsel at CMAX, though he says there's little active lobbying involved. 'My role is to provide political and strategic advice to corporate entities. But on the rare occasions I do seek to persuade, I only do so if my interest in the matter is fully declared and I genuinely believe the case I'm making serves the interests of both the government and the country,' he said. He defends the role of lobbyists in the system, saying: 'Not every entity has the means to navigate the complexities of government and government decision-making processes in-house. And even when they do, they'll often need additional specialist guidance for specific projects.' Pyne, who did not respond to a request for an interview, expressed a similar view to The Australian Financial Review in March, saying: 'Lobbyists are a critical part of the system of Westminster government ... Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand how government works.' None of the people in this article are accused of wrongdoing, breaching any rules or acting with conflicts of interest. Until three weeks ago, Fitzgibbon and Sinodinos had been co-chairing the advisory board of the not-for-profit AUKUS forum, which describes itself as a 'collaborative organisation of supporters across industry, academia, researchers, government and defence'. But both men quietly left the forum last month. Its chief executive officer Michael Sharpe is now understood to be focusing his efforts offshore in the US and Britain. That's indicative of a broader problem, which is that small and medium Australian defence companies are feeling frustrated by the growing realisation that any AUKUS bonanza – at least for them – is still a long way off. Loading For the next few years, AUKUS dollars are primarily going offshore or being earmarked for development of the infrastructure needed to support the nuclear-submarine project in Western Australia and South Australia. One well-connected defence industry player slams what he says is overblown talk by ministers, and lobbyists, about AUKUS opportunities. 'They're pitching bullshit,' the source says. 'There is no submarine construction here for years … The reality is, unless you're in the infrastructure game [building the shipyards and upgrading the bases] then right now you are not in the AUKUS game. And if you want to be in the AUKUS game, then you've got to be in infrastructure.' In late July, Defence Minister Richard Marles and his visiting British counterpart John Healey signed a 50-year pact to bolster the AUKUS agreement. Marles declared that it would 'underpin ... the biggest industrial endeavour that our nation has ever seen'. But Marcus Hellyer, head of research for Strategic Analysis Australia, warns that 'most of the high-value components are going to be imported. All of this stuff about [how] this will drive high-tech manufacturing in Australia, and it's our moon shot, all this kind of hyperbolic language, I think is completely misplaced'. He adds: 'We now have this very extensive class whose main purpose in life seems to be advocating for AUKUS and getting lots of very well-paid consultancy jobs.' This masthead does not suggest any wrongdoing or actual conflicts by any of the people named in this article. Where the money's going Analysts say that for the next few years, the vast bulk of the government's expenditure on the nuclear submarines will be directed at two things: bolstering industrial capacity in Britain and the US, and building enabling infrastructure here. As well as tipping $4.6 billion into Rolls-Royce's British factories, Canberra has promised $4.7 billion for US naval shipyards to help boost American production of Virginia-class nuclear submarines, three of which are destined for Australia. (The Albanese government has already made downpayments totalling $1.6 billion.) Billions more will then be required to upgrade facilities in WA to host and maintain nuclear-powered submarines and to build a new South Australian shipyard (probably near the existing Osborne facility) allowing eventual construction here. So far, $8 billion has been earmarked to expand HMAS Stirling, near Perth, which is supposed to host US nuclear submarines on rotation from 2027 onwards, with another $127 million allocated to design the upgrade of the Henderson defence precinct, also in WA. Eventually, the government claims, there will be $30 billion invested in the country's industrial base over the next 30 years. As for smaller companies down the food chain, right now there's not much, says ADCG's Gary Slater. 'AUKUS is not creating a lot of jobs for Australian industry at the moment ... [and] the government isn't providing a holistic overview of the nuclear-powered sovereign ecosystem, because they don't have one, because they don't have the expertise and the knowledge and the experience to map it out and to brief it.' Slater came to Australia two years ago to lead ADCG's nuclear consultancy group and has been designing the firm's 'nuclear masterclasses' pitched as a way to 'accelerate' AUKUS. He was hoping to get engagement from federal and state governments but those doors have remained firmly shut. For now, he has lowered his ambitions and is aiming the 'masterclasses' at smaller players, who are still scratching their heads over what AUKUS means for them. Slater is frustrated because 'we're two years away from rotation of US nuclear submarines in the West [WA] and there's been a distinct lack of public reporting, transparency and progress'. The Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN), an industry lobby group which represents smaller companies, also says AUKUS is still 'very much early days' for its members. Two hundred smaller firms have joined a 'prequalification' program for the local nuclear submarine build, when it eventually kicks off, and the government has earmarked $262 million to 'help Australian firms [eventually] join the AUKUS [pillar 1] supply chain'. But that's a drop in the bucket compared with the infrastructure and overseas spend. AIDN chief Mike Johnson warns that other defence programs are being 'sacrificed to fund AUKUS and marquee missile programs'. The big question remains whether Australia's acquisition of a sovereign nuclear-powered submarine fleet will survive the plethora of economic, political and technological challenges it faces. In the immediate future, all eyes are on Washington, DC, where a Pentagon review of AUKUS – under the sceptical eye of US undersecretary for defence Elbridge Colby – could impact the project's trajectory. There's a keen awareness that the US is already struggling to produce enough nuclear subs for its own demands, let alone three for Australia. Loading Added to that is the project's scale, complexity (a nuclear-powered submarine has about a million parts) and the 15-to-20-year lead times before Australian-built submarines would enter service. Addressing the Pyne & Partners AUKUS forum in Washington this year, Nick Hine said he had warned Australia's defence chiefs that 'from a cost perspective, whatever number you thought of, double it and add zero', and that, 'whatever timescale you had in your head, you are already late'. Yet such is the institutional weight and financial investment now building behind the submarine project, in particular, it looks locked in, no matter how much those challenges compound. As a recent British academic paper entitled 'Fortress AUKUS' by scholars Sarah Tzinieris and Zeno Leoni notes, 'a submarines shipbuilding program once in place unleashes powerful organisational and bureaucratic forces that favour maintaining the program'. Ghost Shark: What we know Anduril has big aspirations for its Ghost Shark autonomous underwater vehicle. Taxpayers have so far put in close to $100 million, with the company putting in the rest. The company established an Australian arm in March 2022, citing the expanded opportunities created by AUKUS, and almost immediately pitched the Ghost Shark idea to the RAN. Three years later, it has delivered three vessels and is trialling a fourth in the United States. Defence industry minister Pat Conroy hails it as 'an exemplar of how Defence and Australian industry can move at speed to develop new sovereign capabilities to respond to the challenges before us'. The government rushed to unleash funds for it under a little-known program called the Advanced Strategic Capabilites Accelerator. Some industry sources believe the jury is still out on its success. The company doesn't release exact dimensions or range. It says a Ghost Shark recently concluded a 100-hour single voyage, and that it's the 'size of a bus in its smallest configuration and subway car in its biggest'. Conroy says it will conduct 'stealthy, long-range autonomous undersea warfare capability that can conduct persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and strike, and enhance Navy's ability to operate with allies and partners' – putting it in contention for AUKUS pillar 2 operations.
