Justice Department offers $1 million for studies of gender dysphoria and violent crime

The Justice Department's research arm is offering up to $1 million for studies of whether gender dysphoria, or its treatment, is linked to violent crime. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) posted the funding notice on Oct. 9. It drew new attention on Election Day, when The Guardian published criticism from researchers and advocates and a defense of related federal research from the Department of Health and Human Services.

The notice is small by federal standards. But it sits inside a wider political fight over transgender people and public safety, and over who gets to frame that question with federal money. This story explains what the notice asks for, what the existing evidence says, how each side describes the project, and what is still unknown. It covers a federal research program, not a ballot question, and it reports no election results.

What the notice asks for

The notice is titled "NIJ FY 2026 Research on Gender Dysphoria and Violent Crime" and carries the number O-NIJ-2026-172802. According to the full notice, it "will support foundational research on gender dysphoria, its treatment, and the perpetration of violence and violent behavior."

The agency explains its reason in one line. "Available empirical evidence regarding this topic is limited, particularly in regard to underlying causal mechanisms," the notice says.

The notice limits the work to "retrospective, secondary data analyses," meaning studies of data that already exist. It says proposals for new data collection "will not be considered responsive." It lists five example topics:

• How often people with gender dysphoria commit violent crime, by group and crime type.
• Studies of people after conviction, including those in prison.
• Links between violence and a diagnosis or treatment.
• The "victim/offender overlap" and other context.
• The role of other conditions, such as drug use or mental illness.

Studies may include "formally diagnosed and/or self-identified gender dysphoria." Applicants must discuss the limits of the topic and of their data, and must show they can obtain the data they propose to use. The notice says NIJ wants "actionable knowledge to assist state, tribal, and local law enforcement."

Money and timing

The total available is $1,000,000. The number and size of awards depend on the applications. Awards are expected by Jan. 1, 2027, with a performance period of up to 36 months. Initial applications are due on Grants.gov on Nov. 23, and full applications in the department's JustGrants system on Nov. 30, according to the NIJ page.

The notice also repeats priorities that its parent office uses across its grants. These include "directly supporting law enforcement operations (including immigration law enforcement operations)," combating violent crime and protecting American children. It says meeting these priorities is one of many factors and does not guarantee funding.

What the existing evidence shows

Gender dysphoria is a clinical diagnosis. It names the distress a person feels when gender identity does not match the sex assigned at birth. Not every transgender person has the diagnosis, and the notice allows both diagnosed and self-identified cases. That matters for any study, because diagnosis records sit mostly in medical files.

On perpetration

567 Politics found no large national dataset that tracks violent offending by gender dysphoria diagnosis. Alexander Tsai, a psychiatrist and researcher at Harvard Medical School, told Science, "I'm not aware of a literature on gender dysphoria and violence perpetration."

Some federal data do record gender identity among people in custody. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says its 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates measured gender identity for the first time, with about 24,850 state and federal prisoners interviewed. Its National Inmate Survey has also asked whether respondents are transgender. These are identity measures, not diagnoses, and they describe people already in prison rather than the general population.

Public debate has often focused on mass shootings. A PolitiFact analysis from September 2025 used the Gun Violence Archive's broad definition of four or more people shot. It found that seven cited incidents involving transgender or nonbinary shooters made up 0.17% of 4,147 mass shootings from 2018 through early September 2025. PolitiFact cited a Williams Institute estimate that about 1% of Americans 13 and older are transgender. Mass shootings are rare, and counts of shooters' gender identity rely on news reports, so neither figure measures overall rates of violent crime.

On victimization

The stronger national evidence concerns transgender people as victims. A Williams Institute study in the American Journal of Public Health used the federal National Crime Victimization Survey for 2017 and 2018. That survey, run by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, asks people age 16 and older about crimes against them, including crimes never reported to police. It identifies transgender respondents by asking for sex assigned at birth and current gender identity.

0

50

100

150

Transgender men107.5

Transgender women86.1

Cisgender women23.7

Cisgender men19.8

Transgender menTransgender womenCisgender womenCisgender men

Source: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law (National Crime Victimization Survey data)

Show the numbers

Group	Victimizations per 1,000
Transgender men	107.5
Transgender women	86.1
Cisgender women	23.7
Cisgender men	19.8

Transgender people overall had 86.2 violent victimizations per 1,000, compared with 21.7 for cisgender people, more than four times as high. Households with a transgender member had 214.1 property victimizations per 1,000 households, compared with 108 for other households. About half of violent victimizations were not reported to police. One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime.

These data do not answer NIJ's question. They show that transgender people face higher victimization, which the notice touches on through the "victim/offender overlap." They do not measure offending.

The related HHS study

The NIJ notice follows a study that the Department of Health and Human Services released on Aug. 26. According to the HHS announcement, researchers from Rutgers University, the Manhattan Institute and the Network Contagion Research Institute surveyed 1,208 U.S. adults. They found that stronger support for "gender-affirming" clinical positions was associated with higher left-wing authoritarianism. Both were 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 Adm. Brian Christine, the assistant secretary for health. The HHS release itself lists two limits. The study "does not determine" which way any causal link runs. And it "did not measure whether respondents committed or intended to commit political violence," so its findings concern attitudes, "not violent behavior."

The Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project has gone further. In an online petition, it urges the FBI to create a domestic terrorism category it calls "Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism," or TIVE. The petition says that "in recent years, TIVE has played a role in the majority of mass shootings at schools." It also says the label "does not mean that all transgender individuals are domestic terror threats." The petition cites no dataset for its school claim. The PolitiFact count above covers all mass shootings, not school shootings alone, so it does not test that claim directly.

For other recent federal actions on gender identity, see our reports on the HHS rule excluding gender dysphoria from Section 504 disability protections and the Marine Corps decision to end service extensions for transgender Marines.

What critics say

Researchers and advocates who spoke to Science and The Guardian raised three main concerns.

Prejudged results. "It looks to me that the administration's already decided what it wants the science to say," Meghan Maury, policy director at the Transgender Law Center, told Science. Maury worried that poorly done studies could justify policies that harm transgender people.

Data and design. Elana Redfield of the Williams Institute told Science that "gender dysphoria" does not appear in most datasets because it is a diagnosis held in privacy-protected medical records. Tsai said the focus on prison data points to sources "likely to produce estimates of elevated crime rates." Studying only people already convicted would, by design, leave out people with the diagnosis who never commit crimes.

Diverted attention. Wendy Via, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, told The Guardian the effort pulls focus from violence tied to far-right ideologies. "What the administration is doing is very dangerous," Via said. Zane McNeill is a staff attorney with Lawyers for Good Government. "I see it as a part of this larger apparatus to distract from who's propagating the violence," McNeill said. McNeill has asked HHS to correct its August report and is seeking the survey data. In a Sept. 1 statement, GPAHE said the HHS study "attempts to reframe a healthcare consensus as a security and radicalization concern."

What supporters say

The NIJ did not respond to requests for comment from Science or The Guardian, and 567 Politics found no public statement from the department beyond the notice itself. The notice's case is that the evidence is thin, that law enforcement could use better data, and that studies must state their limits and define their terms.

HHS defended its related study. It told The Guardian the report will help the government understand how "political radicalization develops." "The findings should be evaluated based on the evidence, and under the Trump administration, HHS will not shy away from asking important questions to protect the health and safety of the American people," said HHS press secretary Grace Davis Jamison.

The Oversight Project frames its push as a security issue. Its petition says a new FBI category would give the government tools to "detect, disrupt, and dismantle" what it calls TIVE cells. It says the label would focus "narrowly" on people who believe violence is justified against those who disagree with "transgender ideology." The debate often turns on a few attacks by transgender or nonbinary shooters. The Guardian lists cases including the Annunciation Catholic school shooting in Minneapolis and the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs. Critics answer that such cases are a very small share of attacks. They say those shooters share traits common to other mass shooters, such as online radicalization.

How the politics fit together

The notice comes from an administration under President Donald Trump that has made gender identity a recurring policy theme, from military service to health rules to identity documents. Gender identity also appeared on several state ballots on Tuesday, as covered in our report on transgender school sports measures in four states and our report on Kansas's driver's license law and voter ID.

Federal research grants are not usually campaign issues. This one matters politically because research findings can shape later policy. A study that finds higher offending among diagnosed people in prison could be cited in debates over prisons, health care or terrorism categories. A study that finds no link, or that centers victimization, could be cited by the other side. Under NIJ rules, applicants must discuss limitations, and how the agency weighs those limits will shape what the funded work can show.

What is not yet known

It is not known how many groups will apply, who will receive the money, or which datasets they will use. NIJ has not said whether it will publish the funded studies, or whether they will be peer reviewed. It is also unclear how researchers would link diagnosis records to crime records while meeting medical privacy rules. Awards are expected by Jan. 1, 2027, and results could take up to three years after that. For how 567 Politics handles disputed research and sourcing, see our methodology.

Differing perspectives

Should the Justice Department fund research on whether gender dysphoria is linked to violent crime?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• Do not treat transgender identity as a security risk

  Who holds it: GPAHE, a nonprofit advocacy group

  GPAHE argues that the government is relabeling mainstream medical positions as a sign of dangerousness. It says this lays the groundwork for treating a view, and the people who hold it, as a threat to be monitored. The group urges policymakers "to reject the premise that supporting a person's identity is evidence of extremism."

  In their words: GPAHE statement on the HHS report ↗

• Focus research on victimization of transgender people

  Who holds it: Researchers at the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law

  These researchers point to federal survey data showing transgender people are victims of violent crime more than four times as often as cisgender people. Study author Ilan H. Meyer said victimization is related to low well-being, including suicide thoughts and attempts, and that the results show an urgent need for policies that consider it.

  In their words: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law ↗

• Fund the studies to fill an evidence gap

  Who holds it: The National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department's research arm

  The institute says the available evidence on gender dysphoria, its treatment and violent behavior is limited. It argues that careful analysis of existing data, with clearly defined variables and stated limitations, can give state, tribal and local law enforcement and other practitioners actionable knowledge. It requires applicants to show they can obtain and properly use their data.

  In their words: National Institute of Justice ↗

• Study links between clinical beliefs and political violence

  Who holds it: HHS leaders, including Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Brian Christine

  HHS officials argue that federal agencies should examine what happens, in Christine's words, when ideology is given the authority of medicine. They point to an HHS-commissioned survey that found stronger support for what HHS called "gender-affirming" clinical positions associated with greater justification of political violence. They say such associations warrant serious scientific scrutiny.

  In their words: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ↗