The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a commissioned survey report on August 26, 2026, finding that Americans who more strongly endorsed five transgender-affirming statements were also more likely to rate six acts of political violence as justified.
The finding concerns attitudes expressed in an online questionnaire. It provides no evidence that transgender people or supporters of transgender rights commit more violence.
HHS itself says the study measured neither violent conduct nor an intention to commit violence and cannot establish cause and effect. The distinction matters because the agency presented the research as relevant to political radicalization and public safety in its August 26 announcement.
What the HHS Report Found
Five authors affiliated with Rutgers University, the Manhattan Institute and the Network Contagion Research Institute recruited 1,305 U.S. adults through CloudResearch Connect. After excluding 97 responses, they analyzed 1,208 participants.
The sample was 55% Democratic or Democratic-leaning, 27.2% Republican or Republican-leaning and 15.1% independent with no partisan lean. About 1.1% identified as transgender or gender-nonconforming.
Researchers created a five-item Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale, or CGAS, from guidance issued by the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, World Professional Association for Transgender Health and American Academy of Pediatrics.
Items asked about supporting transgender identity and expression, chosen names, preferred pronouns, parental support and psychological distress linked to non-affirmation.
According to the full 24-page report, CGAS scores had correlations ranging from 0.23 to 0.35 with approval of the six violent scenarios. Scores on a separate left-wing authoritarianism scale showed stronger correlations, ranging from 0.47 to 0.54. The CGAS associations remained statistically significant in regressions that controlled for political identity.
What the Survey Cannot Show
The six outcomes asked about killing Charlie Kirk, killing President Donald Trump, killing UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson, burning Immigration and Customs Enforcement buildings, damaging wealthy people’s property and violence against police.
Every scenario concerned a target or act the report associated with left-wing politics. No parallel set tested approval of violence tied to right-wing causes or targets. The design therefore cannot compare willingness to justify political violence across the political left and right.
The cross-sectional survey also cannot determine whether trans-affirming views influence authoritarian attitudes, whether the direction runs in reverse, or whether another factor explains both. The report acknowledges all three possibilities.
Its online sample also contained roughly twice as many Democratic-leaning respondents as Republican-leaning respondents, and the published document provides no population-weighted prevalence estimate.
HHS published the work as an agency-commissioned report. The document identifies no academic journal, DOI or completed peer-review process. Statistical significance establishes that an observed association is unlikely to result from random sampling error under the model; it does not establish that one belief caused another or that respondents would act violently.
Latest Response as of August 28
The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, called the report “junk” on August 27. President Kelley Robinson condemned political violence and accused the administration of demonizing transgender Americans.
The group criticized the political orientation of the Manhattan Institute and the Network Contagion Research Institute, two organizations represented among the authors.
HHS defended the research as rigorous. Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Brian Christine said the reported associations warrant further scientific scrutiny. Co-author Colin Wright separately acknowledged that the survey cannot prove causality.
Further Research and Policy Questions
The authors say they are designing a preregistered experiment to test whether exposure to content consistent with the CGAS changes the measured attitudes. Independent replication, transparent data, more representative sampling and politically balanced violence scenarios would be necessary to assess the broader claim.
As of August 28, HHS has announced no rule, enforcement action or public-safety directive based on the report. Any policy relying on it would have to account for the gap between approving a hypothetical act in a survey and engaging in real-world violence.
