online opt-in
YouGov
The Economist/YouGov Poll · Mar 22–25, 2025 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- YouGov commercial
- Sponsor
- The Economist
- Commissioned by
- The Economist
- Fielded
- Mar 22–25, 2025
- Population
- adult citizens
- Sample size
- 1,600
- Sample frame
- online opt-in
- Panel
- YouGov panel
- Mode
- online - YouGov opt-in panel
- Margin of error
- +/- 3.5 percentage points
- Weighting
- weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote
- Geography
- US national
- Base notes
- 1,819 started the survey after screenouts; 130 deleted for breakoffs, 27 for completion time under 5 minutes, 10 for attention-check failures, 52 for data quality control; reporting based on the remaining 1,600
Sources
Verification note. PARTIALLY VERIFIED. Field dates, sample, mode and MoE confirmed; percentages retrieved from YouGov's own article. The weekly Economist/YouGov topline PDF was not retrieved, so several item stems recorded here are YouGov's article-level renderings rather than confirmed questionnaire wording - each is flagged individually via question_text_verbatim. The lawmakers-attention item is the highest-value record in this poll for this sweep and its near-identical Democratic and Republican shares (53% / 51%) are unusual enough to warrant confirmation against the topline. TO CLOSE: retrieve the Economist/YouGov topline PDF for the March 22-25, 2025 wave. || WORDING RECOVERY SWEEP. Question stems for items 50 and 51 and their crosstabs read directly from the Economist/YouGov tabulation report PDF (pp. 96-98). The database previously carried YouGov article-summary paraphrases. || Crosstab PDF downloaded and parsed; totals and Party ID columns read directly and verified to sum to 99-101%.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (9)
whether lawmakers are spending too much or too little time on transgender issues - the rare item where Democrats and Republicans converge
[Are lawmakers spending] too much, too little, or about the right amount [of time] on transgender issues?
Wording reconstructed from: YouGov article rendering of the item; the literal questionnaire stem was not retrieved
Wording notes: measures perceived legislative attention, which is directionally ambiguous - a respondent may say 'too much' because they oppose restrictions or because they oppose accommodations | explicit middle option offered
neutral — Symmetric too much/too little construction with a middle. The interpretive ambiguity is inherent to the construct rather than a wording tilt - and it is precisely why the partisan convergence (53% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans both saying 'too much') is substantively interesting rather than contradictory: the two groups almost certainly mean opposite things by it.
Subgroup figures (2)
society gone too far / not far enough in accepting transgender people
Do you think society has gone too far, not far enough, or about right in accepting people who are transgender?
Wording reconstructed from: YouGov article rendering; consistent with the standard Economist/YouGov tracker wording but not confirmed against the topline PDF
Gone too far
40%
Not gone far enough
30%
About right
16%
Wording notes: three-way balanced construction with explicit middle | referent is 'society', not government policy
neutral — Symmetric poles with a stated middle and an explicit 'not sure'.
Subgroup figures (2)
Sportsparaphrasedsupport/oppose
federal defunding of universities that allow transgender women on women's teams - a direct test of the February 2025 executive order's enforcement mechanism
[Do you support or oppose the federal government defunding universities that allow transgender women to compete on women's sports teams?]
Wording reconstructed from: YouGov article summary of the item; literal stem not retrieved
Wording notes: tests a coercive federal enforcement mechanism rather than the underlying sports policy, so the 14-point gap between this item (50-36) and the underlying sports item (64-20) measures resistance to federal coercion specifically
unclear — Literal wording unavailable. The comparison between this item and the plain sports item in the same survey is the substantively useful result: support for the policy outcome runs well ahead of support for using federal funding as the lever.
Sportsparaphrasedforced choice
transgender student athletes on teams matching gender identity vs. sex assigned at birth
[Should transgender student athletes be allowed to play on sports teams that match their gender identity, or on teams that match their sex assigned at birth?]
Wording reconstructed from: YouGov article summary; literal stem not retrieved
Wording notes: no level of competition specified | 'sex assigned at birth' framing (more affirming than 'birth gender')
unclear — Literal wording unavailable; the reported 64-20 split is consistent with other 2025 sports items.
trans student athletes on teams matching gender identity
Do you support or oppose allowing transgender student athletes to play on sports teams that match their gender identity, rather than the sex they were assigned at birth?
Wording notes: uses 'sex they were assigned at birth' | permissive direction stated first
neutral — both poles named, standard 4-point support/oppose with an explicit Not sure
Subgroup figures (26)
defunding universities over trans athlete participation
Do you support or oppose the federal government defunding universities that allow transgender women to play on women's sports teams?
Wording notes: bundles a funding penalty with the underlying athletics question | restrictive direction stated as the supported option
double_barreled — a respondent who opposes trans women in women's sports but also opposes federal defunding of universities has no clean option; support conflates the policy with the enforcement mechanism
Subgroup figures (23)
personally knowing a transgender person
Do you personally know someone who is transgender? Select all that apply.
No
65%
Yes, an acquaintance
21%
Yes, someone I know well
16%
neutral — repeat of the November 2024 contact item
Subgroup figures (9)
whether society has gone too far in accepting transgender people
Which of the following statements comes closer to your feelings?
Gone too far
40%
Not gone far enough
30%
About right
16%
Not sure
14%
neutral — symmetric three-way frame with an explicit middle and a Not sure; the longest-running Economist/YouGov transgender tracker
Subgroup figures (12)
whether lawmakers focus too much on transgender legislation
Compared to other issues, do you think that lawmakers are focusing too much or too little on legislation relating to transgender issues?
Focusing too much
52%
Focusing about the right amount
18%
Focusing too little
13%
Not sure
17%
Wording notes: drops 'in your state' relative to the 2022-2023 version, so it is a national rather than state item | 'too much / too little' is directionally ambiguous
unclear — Democrats and Republicans return near-identical 'too much' shares, which indicates the two parties are answering different underlying questions (too much restriction versus too much accommodation)
Subgroup figures (12)