unknown
IRImpact Research
Third Way / Impact Research national survey on taxpayer funding of transgender health care, March 2025 · Mar 18–23, 2025 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- Impact Research partisan_d
- Sponsor
- Third Way
- Commissioned by
- Third Way
- Fielded
- Mar 18–23, 2025
- Population
- likely midterm general election voters
- Sample size
- 800
- Sample frame
- unknown
- Mode
- not disclosed
- Margin of error
- ±3.5 percentage points
- Weighting
- not disclosed
- Geography
- US national
- Base notes
- Accompanied by two in-person ethnographic focus groups in Atlanta and four virtual focus groups among battleground-state swing voters, all in February 2025.
Sources
Verification note. Percentages read directly from Third Way's memo, whose endnote gives the field dates and margin of error. NOTE A DATE INCONSISTENCY IN THE SOURCE: Third Way's page lists a publication date of March 4, 2025 while the endnote says the poll was fielded March 18-23, 2025 - the memo was evidently updated after first publication and the posted date was not changed. No topline is released.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (6)
exposure, party trust, and which party is more extreme
[Third Way describes items on how much respondents have heard about transgender issues recently, which party they trust more to handle transgender issues, and which party is more extreme on these issues]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; fielded wording not published
Heard a lot or some about transgender issues recently
78%
Republicans are more extreme on these issues
54%
Trust Democrats more to handle transgender issues
46%
Trust Republicans more to handle transgender issues
41%
Democrats are more extreme on these issues
36%
Wording notes: question wording not published
unclear — wording not published; the party-trust and party-extremity constructions closely parallel Data for Progress's October 2024 items, which produced similar results
Subgroup figures (1)
prohibiting gender-affirming care at any age
prohibiting medical providers from providing gender-affirming health care to anyone of any age, including adults
Net oppose prohibiting providers from providing gender-affirming care to anyone of any age (points)
13%
Wording notes: the policy is stated in its maximal form ('anyone of any age, including adults')
neutral — the wording accurately describes the total-ban policy some officials have proposed; stating it plainly is not itself a tilt, though a 13-point margin against the broadest possible ban should not be read as support for adult access in general
vote effect of a candidate who would bar federal programs from covering under-19 transgender care
[Third Way describes the item as asking about] an elected official that supported prohibiting access to transgender health care in federally funded programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and TRICARE for patients under the age of 19
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative, which quotes the policy phrase
More likely to support such a candidate
39%
Less likely to support such a candidate
37%
No impact
15%
Wording notes: names the specific federal programs
neutral — the policy is described in concrete, non-pejorative terms and the result is close to even, which is consistent with a non-directive item
Subgroup figures (3)
three-way item separating personal view from support for a federal coverage ban
I personally support transgender health care for patients under the age of 19 and do not believe that the government should block federally-funded insurance programs from providing coverage for that care. OR I do not personally support transgender health care for patients under the age of 19 but do not believe that the government should block federally-funded insurance programs from providing coverage for that care. OR I do not personally support transgender health care for patients under the age of 19 and believe that the government should block federally-funded insurance programs from providing coverage for that care.
Combined opposition to banning ALL insurance programs from covering this care for young people (parallel item)
54%
Combined opposition to a federal coverage block
49%
Personally oppose the care and support a federal coverage block
42%
Combined support for banning ALL insurance programs from covering this care for young people
39%
Personally support the care and oppose a federal coverage block
31%
Personally oppose the care but oppose a federal coverage block
18%
Wording notes: no fourth option for 'personally support the care but support a coverage block' | the design lets respondents register personal disapproval while opposing government action
tilts_affirming — the option set is deliberately asymmetric - it supplies a middle path only on the anti-ban side. That is a legitimate way to surface a real distinction, but the resulting '49% oppose a ban' figure is manufactured by summing two options and should not be compared to a two-way ban question.
post-message movement on funding bans and provider coercion
Regardless of how we feel personally about the issue, parents of transgender young people should have the right to make personal medical decisions with their families and their doctors just like every other parent... Politicians should be focused on getting things in this country back on track, not messing with Medicare and Medicaid... America was founded on the basic principle of freedom, and that freedom should be for everyone.
[Third Way reports post-message results after respondents heard a three-pronged argument combining parental rights, economic priorities, and a freedom frame]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; the messages are quoted in the memo but the re-ask wording is not
Wording notes: post-message measurement - respondents heard only pro-access arguments before the re-ask | no counter-messaging round is reported for these items
tilts_affirming — these are informed-ballot figures after one-sided persuasion; they measure message potential, not opinion, and the 2-point margins should not be reported as public opinion on the policy
binary statement choice on cutting federal funding to hospitals that provide under-19 transgender care
a policy that blocks all federal dollars from flowing to any hospital or hospital system that offers any transgender health care to patients under the age of 19
Politicians should be focused on issues that affect all Americans, like fixing the economy and addressing inflation instead of cutting federal funding for health care providers and raising health care costs for all patients; OR These federal funding cuts are necessary in order to bring down government spending and prevent taxpayer dollars from being used in elective procedures that young people may come to regret.
Politicians should focus on the economy instead of cutting federal funding for health care providers
51%
These federal funding cuts are necessary
37%
Wording notes: the pro-access statement leads with the economy rather than defending the care | the restrictive statement calls the care 'elective procedures that young people may come to regret'
neutral — both statements are written in their side's strongest terms; the pro-access side's economic pivot is itself the tested proposition, which is the point of the exercise
Subgroup figures (1)