New Study Links Gender Affirming Care Support to Left-Wing Violence

A startling connection between transgender ideology and support for left-wing political violence has surfaced in new research commissioned by the Trump administration. The US Department of Health and Human Services released this study on Wednesday. It details findings from a survey of 1,208 American adults regarding gender identity and whether political violence could be justified. Researchers at Rutgers University, the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, and the Network Contagion Research Institute conducted the work. They found that stronger endorsement of so-called 'gender-affirming' clinical positions was substantially associated with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism. The questionnaire assessed attitudes such as censorship and coercion to advance left-wing goals. Meanwhile, gender-affirmation questions covered transgender identities, names, pronouns, and parental support. Respondents also rated whether killing Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, or Brian Thompson could be justified. They scored if setting fire to ICE buildings was okay. Damaging wealthy people's property received similar scrutiny. Attacking police forces faced the same questioning. Higher gender-affirmation scores were associated with greater approval of all six acts even after political views were taken into account. Authoritarianism scores showed stronger links though. However, the survey measured attitudes rather than whether people had committed or intended to commit violence. It could not establish cause and effect. Admiral Brian Christine, assistant secretary for health at HHS, stated: 'This study raises important questions about what happens when ideology is given the authority of medicine.' The findings come amid public debate over gender identity. Several high-profile attacks have shaken the nation recently, including the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. He was taking questions from a crowd at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. Discussion turned to transgender mass shooters then. An audience member asked: 'Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?' Kirk replied: 'Too many.' The attendee followed up asking about total mass shooters in America over that decade. He clarified: 'Counting or not counting gang violence?' Moments later, the 31-year-old was shot in the neck. He died at a local hospital. His accused killer, Tyler Robinson, allegedly had a romantic relationship with a transgender roommate, according to the New York Post. The study found individuals who believed in radical gender ideology were more likely to hold left-wing authoritarian beliefs and believe political violence is justified.

Tyler Robinson stands accused of killing Kirk, a man who shared living quarters with an alleged transgender roommate. This incident is not isolated. Nicholas Roske attempted to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and later came out as a transgender woman. Other school shootings in Minnesota and Tennessee were also committed by transgender individuals. The Health and Human Services study focused on attitudes toward violence, but it stopped short of determining why those attacks happened.

Colin Wright, one of the researchers who conducted the work, spoke to the New York Post about the data they found. 'One of our study's most interesting and perhaps shocking findings was that accepting gender ideology appeared to augment authoritarian attitudes on support for political violence,' he said. Wright offered a possible explanation for this link. 'We believe this may result from gender ideology defining specific oppressed classes and their oppressors, and the promotion of extreme narratives of harm for those who refuse to affirm transgender identities both socially and medically,' he told reporters. He added that while this idea is currently speculative, his team plans to tackle it head-on in a follow-up report.

To get these numbers, the researchers built a five-question Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale, or CGAS. They adapted their questions from guidance issued by four major professional organizations: the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Participants answered statements regarding chosen names and pronouns, support for transgender expression, parents backing children's transgender exploration, and the psychological risks involved in refusing affirmation.

A separate 13-item questionnaire measured authoritarian attitudes. The survey asked if people supported shutting down certain right-wing websites or banning hateful speech on college campuses. It also asked about replacing the established order 'by any means necessary.' In one statistical model, gender-affirmation scores accounted for 31.5 percent of the variation in authoritarianism scores. These findings suggest a troubling connection between these beliefs and support for political violence. The implications for communities remain serious and require immediate attention before more harm occurs.

Important context is missing from the initial headlines because that specific figure measures differences in questionnaire scores, not the actual percentage of respondents who endorsed violence. When researchers layered political views, authoritarianism, and age into their models, political identity emerged as the strongest predictor for gender-affirmation scores. Yet, authoritarianism stayed independently linked to those same scores. The authors saw this persistence as proof that their survey captured something beyond ordinary liberalism.

The numbers tell a stark story about relative strength. Correlations between gender-affirmation scores and approval of violence hovered between 0.23 and 0.35. In contrast, correlations for authoritarianism ranged from 0.47 to 0.54. This gap indicates the relationship is significantly weaker for the gender measure. After accounting for political identity, authoritarianism remained tied to approval of every single act surveyed. Political identity failed to predict support for the Kirk killing or violence against police in that same analysis.

The report suggests gender ideology might serve as an ideological accelerant. It could frame political opponents as threats and make violence seem like a legitimate option for those already disposed toward force. The authors also raised doubts about whether professional bodies let activism steer clinical recommendations, though the survey did not assess medical outcomes or prove if the guidance held scientific justification.

Researchers gathered participants via the online platform CloudResearch Connect. They filtered out 97 of the original 1,305 responses due to failed attention checks, incomplete answers, and suspected automated bots. The final sample skews politically: 55 percent identified as or leaned Democratic versus 27.2 percent who were Republican. Only 1.1 percent described themselves as transgender or gender nonconforming. This detail underscores a critical point; the study examined beliefs across a wide population rather than tracking violent behavior among transgender people specifically.

The authors admitted other explanations could fit their findings. 'The cross-sectional design permits no conclusions about the direction of effects,' the report stated. That limitation matters when assessing potential risks to communities. If ideology fuels aggression, how long can we ignore that dynamic? The stakes are high and the data demands immediate attention.