(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Press Release, August 26, 2026)
Washington, D.C.–The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) [on Tuesday] released a commissioned study that found individuals who believed in radical gender ideology were more likely to hold left-wing authoritarian beliefs and believe political violence is justified. The same study found individuals who held those held left-wing authoritarian views were more likely to justify political violence as well than non-left-wing participants.
The preregistered survey of 1,208 U.S. adults found that stronger endorsement of so-called “gender-affirming” clinical positions was substantially associated with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism, including after accounting for political identity and age. Both measures were also associated with greater justification of political violence across six scenarios.
“This study raises important questions about what happens when ideology is given the authority of medicine,” said Admiral Brian Christine. “The association between sex-rejecting clinical beliefs, authoritarian attitudes, and the justification of political violence warrant serious scientific scrutiny. HHS will continue to pursue rigorous research that examines these relationships and gives the American people the evidence they deserve.”
To conduct the HHS-commissioned study, researchers from Rutgers University, the Manhattan Institute, and the Network Contagion Research Institute developed a Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS) based on positions derived from guidance issued by the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and American Academy of Pediatrics.
The scale measured endorsement of five positions related to “transgender identity,” names and pronouns, and parental support.
According to the study, people who scored higher on left-wing authoritarianism were substantially more likely to consider political violence justified. That relationship remained after researchers accounted for how politically left-wing respondents identified.
The study also found that people who more strongly endorsed the sex-rejecting positions measured by the CGAS were more likely to justify political violence, even after accounting for political identity. That association was generally weaker than the relationship between left-wing authoritarianism and justification of political violence.
The authors propose that sex-rejecting beliefs may function as an ideological framework through which left-wing authoritarian tendencies become focused on specific perceived threats, outgroups, and forms of institutional action. They further propose that clinical and professional institutions may lend authority to a framework that identifies victims, sources of harm and responses to that harm, potentially providing people already disposed toward authoritarianism with moral justification for coercive or punitive action.
This study does not determine whether belief in radical gender ideology contributes to authoritarian attitudes or vice versa, nor whether an outside factor may contribute to both predispositions. The authors call for experimental research to test the proposed relationship.
The study also did not measure whether respondents committed or intended to commit political violence. It measured how justified respondents considered six hypothetical or described acts of political violence. The findings therefore establish associations with the justification of political violence, not violent behavior.
The full study, Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? is available here.
