The Heritage Foundation Pushes for FBI Terror Designation For Trans People And Allies

On September 19, 2025, the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with its affiliate Oversight Project, publicly released a policy memo urging the Federal Bureau of Investigation to designate transgender activism as a new category of domestic terrorism called “Trans Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism” (TIVE). The proposal follows recent high-profile incidents, including the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which Heritage cites as evidence of a purported trend of violence linked to transgender ideology—even as independent analyses dispute such claims and emphasize that transgender people are disproportionately victims rather than perpetrators of violence.

The Heritage Foundation’s memo, circulated widely among conservative political networks and Trump administration officials, defines “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violence and Extremism” as any belief system that justifies violence against opponents of transgender rights or even claims that anti-trans policies constitute violence against transgender people. This definition is notably expansive: by its logic, many prominent LGBTQ+ organizations, activists, and allies who advocate against discrimination or highlight the harms of restrictive legislation could potentially be labeled extremist threats.

The memo proposes that the FBI deploy “immense legal, intelligence, and law enforcement tools” against suspected adherents of TIVE, including surveillance, undercover operations, and network mapping. While Heritage’s statement claims not to brand all transgender people or their supporters as terrorists, the breadth of the definition raises significant concerns about the chilling effect on free speech, advocacy, and the right to assembly.

The Heritage Foundation’s influence has grown markedly in recent years, especially following the adoption of multiple Project 2025 proposals within the Trump administration. Project 2025 is a blueprint for sweeping conservative reforms across federal agencies, with particular focus on social issues including LGBTQ+ rights. Critics note that the current push echoes historical abuses, drawing parallels to the FBI’s COINTELPRO program, which targeted civil rights leaders, anti-war protestors, and LGBTQ+ activists during the mid-20th century.

Civil rights organizations warn that such surveillance and categorization risks repeating patterns of government overreach, stigmatization, and the suppression of marginalized groups. The Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD have both issued statements condemning the proposal and urging lawmakers to reject any effort to criminalize constitutionally protected advocacy and identity.

Heritage’s claims regarding transgender-linked violence have been widely challenged by research and data. According to the Gun Violence Archive and independent studies, transgender people account for approximately 0.1 percent of mass shootings in the past decade—far below their proportion of the population. Further, a PolitiFact investigation found that transgender people are statistically more likely to be victims of violence than their cisgender peers.

The memo’s list of supposed “TIVE-motivated” attacks includes several incidents where the connection to transgender advocacy is tenuous or unproven. Of the examples cited, only a minority appear to have any documented political motivation tied to transgender rights.

LGBTQ+ leaders and allies have expressed alarm at the proposal, calling it an unprecedented escalation in anti-trans rhetoric and policy. Advocates argue that the measure seeks to delegitimize activism and silence those who speak out against discrimination, echoing tactics historically used to suppress marginalized communities and social justice movements.

Organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD have mobilized in opposition, urging supporters to contact lawmakers, share factual information, and continue advocating for transgender safety, dignity, and equality.

Legal scholars note that the Heritage Foundation’s proposal raises serious First Amendment concerns. Advocacy for civil rights, including opposition to discriminatory policies, is protected speech under the U.S. Constitution. Any attempt to criminalize such activism risks violating fundamental freedoms and eroding democratic norms.

Privacy advocates warn that expanded surveillance powers could disproportionately target transgender people and their allies, subjecting them to monitoring, harassment, and potential criminal charges based solely on advocacy or identity.

In response to the Heritage Foundation’s campaign, LGBTQ+ organizations are intensifying outreach, education, and coalition-building. Many activists highlight the importance of remaining vigilant, documenting abuses, and supporting those at risk of government overreach.

International observers are closely monitoring the situation, with some expressing concern that U.S. policy shifts could influence similar crackdowns abroad. Calls for asylum and increased protections for transgender Americans have surfaced in online forums and advocacy circles.

The Heritage Foundation’s push to designate transgender activism as a domestic terror threat represents a significant escalation in the ongoing battle over LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. As the proposal gains traction among conservative lawmakers and officials, its broad scope and potential for abuse have galvanized the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights advocates to defend the principles of free speech, privacy, and equality. The outcome of this debate will likely have profound implications for the future of political activism and minority rights in America.