HHS-Commissioned Study Links Gender Ideology Endorsement to Left-Wing Authoritarianism and Justification of Political Violence

A preregistered survey of 1,208 U.S. adults, commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services and released on August 26, 2026, has identified strong statistical associations between endorsement of clinical positions on gender affirmation and measures of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), as well as support for political violence across six specified targets.

Researchers from Rutgers University, the Manhattan Institute, and the Network Contagion Research Institute developed the Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS) drawing directly from guidance issued by the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and American Academy of Pediatrics. The scale assessed agreement with statements on affirming transgender identity, names/pronouns, and parental support.

Across analyses, CGAS scores correlated with LWA at Spearman ρ values of 0.44 to 0.59 and independently predicted LWA after controlling for political identity and age, accounting for 31.5% of its variance. Both CGAS and LWA were positively associated with justification of violence against targets including the killing of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, and Brian Thompson; arson of ICE buildings; damaging wealthy people’s property; and violence against police. These relationships held after statistical controls for left-wing political identity.

The authors describe gender ideology as a potential “ideological accelerant” that may specify enemies, heighten perceived urgency through narratives of harm or genocide, and legitimize force among those already inclined toward it. They emphasize the findings are correlational and call for experimental research to assess causality.

The report aligns with prior NCRI work on related attitudes and has drawn coverage from outlets noting real-world incidents involving trans-identifying individuals in violence cases, though the study itself focuses on survey associations rather than causation or individual perpetrators. Critics have questioned the scale’s construction and framing, highlighting ongoing debates over methodology in politically charged research.