Transcript:
Daniella Gibbs Léger: Hey, everyone. Welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger.
Colin Seeberger: And I’m Colin Seeberger. Daniella, happy Pride Month!
Gibbs Léger: Happy Pride Month! Are we excited?
Seeberger: Of course, always. Pride’s always one of the best times of the year. I look forward to seeing lots of friends down at the parade this weekend.
Gibbs Léger: Nice.
Seeberger: My husband and I will definitely take our daughter, and we’re grabbing some neighbors, bringing people down too, so I think it’ll be a great trip. Well, Pride is not the only festival happening in D.C. This month. The DC/DOX Festival is coming up, and I heard that you talked with someone who might have an inside scoop on that.
Gibbs Léger: Yes, I did. I spoke with Sky Sitney, the director and co-founder of the festival. And we discussed why documentary storytelling is so important, particularly in this fraught political moment, and what we can expect from this year’s festival.
Seeberger: Well, it sounds like a really cool conversation. But before we get to the arts, we have to get to the news.
Gibbs Léger: We do. And I want to start with the [U.S.] Supreme Court, because—
Seeberger: Oh, no.
Gibbs Léger: I know, but it’s that time of year. We’re about to start getting decisions left and right, and I want our listeners to be prepared. This is the third term where cases will be heard by a majority of justices with extreme right-wing ideologies. The result? Americans are facing an unprecedented rollback of their rights. This is not the Supreme Court that I learned about in high school civics class. I don’t know about you, Colin.
Seeberger: Not at all.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, this is the same court that overturned Roe v. Wade, ripping away decades of precedent and putting countless people’s lives in danger.
And speaking of upending precedent, this is also the same court that repealed affirmative action and ruled that businesses could discriminate against people based on their sexuality or gender identity. And unfortunately, they are far from done. This court might deny people experiencing dangerous pregnancies the right to emergency abortion care.
That case is called Idaho v. United States, and if the court rules in favor of Idaho’s extreme abortion ban, not only will pregnant people be deprived of access to lifesaving abortion care, but medical providers could face criminal charges for providing these treatments in emergency departments.
Seeberger: It’s disgusting.
Gibbs Léger: It’s totally outrageous.
And this court is also about to decide whether to restrict access to mifepristone, one of the key drugs used in medication abortion. Even though the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has ruled that it is safe and effective multiple times over the last 20 years, anti-abortion extremists strategically brought this legal challenge to the extremist 5th Circuit Court [of Appeals] in Texas.
A bad ruling in this case would open the floodgates to even more judicial overreach in medicine. Medical experts should be the ones making decisions about which medications are safe, not judges.
Seeberger: Oh, I mean, it’s obvious that the justices’ extreme anti-abortion views are more important to them than decades of precedent, the law, the well-being of the American people. I mean, just look at the United States v. Rahimi, which is another case that was brought before the court this year, in which federal law has long protected survivors of domestic violence by barring their abusers from being able to possess firearms. This is a really commonsense sort of policy.
Gibbs Léger: Yes.
Seeberger: Very effective in helping prevent gun violence from proliferating. And it’s been on the books for 27 years. But it’s entirely possible that this activist Supreme Court will side with the gun lobby and against the American people on Rahimi and turn back the clock, which would just put survivors of domestic violence directly back in the line of fire.
They’re not just trying to weaken the laws Americans rely on for safety. These justices are also considering whether to weaken the very agencies that make up the foundation of our federal government. For a long time, the Supreme Court’s policy has been to let nonpartisan civil servants, scientists, and other experts at public agencies figure out how best to implement laws that are passed by Congress.
But in two cases this term—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless [Inc.] v. Department of Commerce—they appear poised to potentially intervene and place their own thumbs on the scale, weakening the government’s ability to be able to protect Americans from greedy corporations and other sorts of bad actors. These cases could have a tremendous impact on taking away power from the American people and giving it to health insurers, polluters like Big Oil or Big Gas, and siding with those corporate interests.
And there’s one more decision we have to talk about. We’ve touched on this somewhat previously in the past, and that’s Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case. It’s absolutely ridiculous that the court took up this challenge to begin with, given how pretty much every legal scholar out there is like, “It’s completely unfounded and ridiculous to suggest that a president should have complete immunity from criminal liability for acts that they do while in office.” Let’s remember that Donald Trump’s lawyers right now, before the Supreme Court and before the D.C. Court of Appeals, were literally arguing that a president should be able to sic SEAL Team Six on a political opponent and assassinate them.
It’s ludicrous. It’s fringe, extremist legal theories that this case all relies on. And yet the court really could create a license for presidents to do whatever they want, basically removing them from the liability that all Americans face in the criminal legal system and say that a president is basically above the laws and regulations that all of us have to live by.
Gibbs Léger: Like a tyrant?
Seeberger: Yes, like a tyrant. And even if the court doesn’t rule in his favor, their slow-walking of this case has already created delays in justice and accountability that we simply can’t afford. And you know what? I have to get in on this. There’s two justices on the court, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, who both have very clear conflicts of interest in this case, given their wives’ involvement with or support for January 6 insurrectionists and related activities to overturn the 2020 election. The fact that they won’t recuse themselves—even though there’s this very rich body of material to point to on how they are compromised in this as it relates to the underlying facts of this case—is so dumbfounding and such an insult, frankly, to the American people.
And it’s such an insult to the lawyers who come before the court and are expected to be able to get a fair shake for having their case heard. The court is supposed to be a neutral arbiter for these tough, complex legal questions. And yet you’ve got these judges participating in these oral arguments when they’re so incredibly compromised. The American people’s trust in the court is at an all-time low, and it’s just further proof of why we need to have our justices held to the same standards as other federal judges and members of Congress.
Gibbs Léger: Couldn’t have said it better myself, Colin. [Chief Justice] John Roberts, what are you doing?
Seeberger: Where you at, Johnny?
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. What’s happening? Now, while the Supreme Court justices are busy trying to strip away our rights and freedoms, so are the radical activists behind Project 2025.
Seeberger: They sure are.
Gibbs Léger: Now, y’all have heard us talk about Project 2025 before. It’s an authoritarian playbook for the destruction of a nearly 250-year system of checks and balances American democracy is built on.
Far-right extremists want to snatch away power from everyday people and give far-right politicians, judges, and corporations more control over their lives. Now look, for decades, far-right extremists have pushed radical and dangerous ideas that will pull the rug out from America’s middle class, strip of us our fundamental freedoms, and subvert the rule of law. But now, they have an entire playbook in their hands to make this vision a reality.
Seeberger: Yeah, the whole plan really amounts to just an extreme erosion or dismantling of our democracy. Far-right extremists have already paralyzed Congress. We saw this over the course of the past year, whether it was [Rep.] Matt Gaetz (R-FL) or [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), basically bringing the body to a screeching halt.
We’ve already seen that they’ve captured the Supreme Court evidenced by Justice Alito and Justice Thomas and their clear conflicts of interest, as we just talked about. Now, they seem to have their sights set on the independent agencies that we trust to keep Americans safe—agencies like the FDA or law enforcement that are supposed to be there to protect all Americans. They want to funnel those agencies’ power right to the president, one person. So our government will serve their interests, not the public’s.
It’s egregious, and it’s incredibly, incredibly dangerous. Our colleagues at the Center for American Progress have been furiously working on dozens of analyses, breaking down what are the real impacts and what are the real consequences if Project 2025 actually gets effectuated.
And because there’s like 900 pages’ worth of content in the plan, it’s sweeping. It would affect basically every part of American life. And so there’s a lot that people need to get familiar with.
Gibbs Léger: Is there one in particular you want to dive into this week?
Seeberger: Well, if you must ask, there is one.
And actually, it is an idea in Project 2025 that actually calls for a group called U.S. Cyber Command, which is part of the U.S. National Security [Agency]. Its charter empowers them to help fight foreign election interference. Project 2025 wants to give them the pink slips and say, “You don’t have any role in protecting the U.S. from foreign election interference.”
It is so bananas at a time when we are seeing, The New York Times reported last week, that Russia, China, other U.S. foreign adversaries are using new tools—open AI, artificial intelligence tools—in order to expand the scope and influence of their foreign interference campaigns. Why you would put this out there to begin with as an idea is so deranged. But to do it at a time when you know that there are these new tools in the arsenal that could be weaponized against America’s democracy is just ridiculous.
And it’s all happening because Project 2025, they say that Cyber Comms’ work in federal elections is partisan or it’s tainted in some way, which is just ridiculous. And it’s just an example of Project 2025 doing more to not advance the interest of the American people but advance the interest of election deniers and people who tried to overturn the 2020 election.
And we’ve got to be clear that we’ve seen a lot of instances of how these foreign adversaries have actually penetrated U.S. elections previously. I can think very concretely in 2016, Russia explicitly targeted Black Americans in Wisconsin and in Michigan—two crucial presidential battlegrounds—to the point that we saw significant drop-offs in turnout in Detroit and Milwaukee. And in a very close election, that’s very consequential, right?
Gibbs Léger: Wow. It just goes to show how extreme this policy really is—like, the entire Project 2025 playbook. Because here’s what’s at stake if it actually gets put into place:
As you referenced earlier, we have already experienced significant foreign interference in our elections—including 2016, 2018, and 2020—and intelligence officials have repeatedly assessed China, Russia, and Iran as posing ongoing election threats.
Seeberger: Oh, like right now?
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, like right now.
Seeberger: Oh, sounds like a great time to just say, “Let’s throw up our arms and say—”
Gibbs Léger: Poof!
Seeberger: —“good luck.”
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. These countries want to interfere to advance their global interests, divide Western alliances, magnify American social divisions, and undermine our international standing and reputation. And as long as adversaries seek to undermine and destabilize U.S. sovereignty through election interference, the military must be fully empowered to respond, just as it would if foreign adversaries hacked power grids or actually launched a physical attack. An attack on American democracy is an attack on America, but far-right extremists don’t seem to understand that.
Seeberger: Yeah. For them, it’s really all about, how can we amass more political power, the consequences for the American people be damned. Well, that’s all the time we have this week. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Gibbs Léger: And stick around for my interview with Sky Sitney in just a beat.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: Sky Sitney is a professor of film and media studies at Georgetown University. She is also the co-founder and festival director of the DC/DOX Film Festival and has worked for a number of other film festivals, including Double Exposure, AFI Docs, South by Southwest, and more. She serves on a number of festival juries and award review committees.
Sky Sitney, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Sky Sitney: Oh, thank you for having me. So happy to be here.
Gibbs Léger: So the DC/DOX Festival is coming up. What is DC/DOX? When did it start, and how was it founded?
Sitney: Well, DC/DOX is an annual documentary festival. Right now, it takes place over four days in June, and indeed, it’s coming up right around the corner, June 13 through the 16.
This year, we’re showing 100 films representing 17 countries and all kinds of artistic and thematic styles. The origin of the festival is that both myself and co-founder Jamie Shor, who had a very personal role in another major documentary festival here in D.C. from the past, and that festival is AFI Docs. Though, when I was on board, most of the festival was known as Silver Docs in my time.
We understood and learned that AFI Docs was going to be leaving the city, that it was going on a hiatus of some unknown amount of time. And we felt very strongly—being here in this city, on the ground, deeply involved and invested in documentary film—we were certain that this was a void worth filling, and that there would be a tremendous appetite, both from the local community, but also the national and, indeed, international documentary community who want their films to be seen in D.C. And D.C. audiences want an opportunity to engage with the kind of storytelling that’s happening in the documentary space.
So we are now entering our second year, and this instinct that we had has only been reinforced with the energy and enthusiasm that we’re seeing from a vast number of constituents and communities that seem to be engaged. So, we’re really thrilled.
Gibbs Léger: Well, congrats on your second year.
Sitney: Thank you.
Gibbs Léger: We are currently in a fraught political moment right now, full of so much cynicism, polarization, and misinformation. Why is documentary filmmaking so important? And how can true and honest storytelling help counteract some of those trends?
Sitney: Yeah, such an important question. And documentary film is absolutely, I believe strongly, a really powerful antidote to this particular climate that we’re in. First and foremost, we are invited to take a much deeper, longer encounter with the storytelling, with the protagonists that we experience on screen, rather than a quick news bite, a TikTok, a quick Instagram.
We’re invited to spend, hopefully, an hour and a half—sometimes, truly, in some cases, three hours—deeply diving into a particular story. So I think that, more than anything, documentary builds opportunities for empathy and nuanced understanding.
Documentary filmmakers, for the most part, are not necessarily seeing themselves as journalists. Some of them are very clearly trying to distinguish themselves from that particular practice. Although many do take on the work that would be understood as the work of journalists—and in many cases, not only take on the work in terms of the storytelling, but in terms of the ethical and legal and practical foundation and approach. That is, tremendous care around fact-checking, tremendous due diligence, very thoughtful considerations around accountability. So I think that documentaries are a really important opportunity to bring dialogue, to bring deep, nuanced understanding, and to offer a moment of tremendous contemplation in an extremely accelerated world that we’re in.
Gibbs Léger: So can you talk about some of the films that are being shown? How were they selected, and what are some of the stories that they tell?
Sitney: I mean, with 100 titles, there’s so many. And that’s both by design—we want the festival to really have a broad breadth and scope to cover so many kinds of topics—but also to reflect different kinds of artistic approaches to this nonfiction form. But it also reflects a little bit of our insatiable appetite, inability to say no to so many wonderful films that are coming our way. So, one might assume—and I think this is justified—that many of the films that we bring forward here are political, although I think that we want to define political in a broader range. But they are addressing some of the most important topics of our time. We’re looking at issues like disinformation, the war in Ukraine, the threat of journalists in Russia, what’s happening here on the ground in terms of the dissipation of civic discourse.
We have the film “The Sixth” by our local talent, Sean Fine and Andrea Nix Fine, that takes a deeply personal look at the media, what happened on January 6 from people on the ground who experienced it firsthand, all the way to a film like “War Games,” which premiered at Sundance, which does a bit of role-playing to anticipate what a future military coup might look like if a future election were called into question.
In the midst of all that, we have films about incredible artists, musicians, painters. The program by design has a tremendous amount of scope to it, so that we can really explore the wide range of documentary storytelling today.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, we had an opportunity to interview Sean and Andrea and talk to them about their movie “The Sixth,” and I was really just moved and impressed by the amount of care that they gave to talking to the subjects, getting them to open up and talk about this really traumatic and painful day.
And I want to talk about our friends at the Center for American Progress who are helping sponsor the festival, and they’ll be hosting a showing of one of the films called “The Bitter Pill.” It follows plaintiff attorney Paul Farrell Jr. as he takes legal action against Big Pharma for their role in the opioid epidemic. So, it’s not a brand-new story, but it most certainly is a very important one. Can you tell us how this film sheds new light on the opioid crisis, and why is it important to show different sides of big stories like this one?
Sitney: Yeah. First of all, I want to thank you so much for the support of this film. It’s extraordinary to be bringing it to CAP, and I know the filmmakers and everyone on the team is so honored to have that opportunity. This is a great example of the power of documentary and the ways in which it can take us behind the scenes in a deeper way into these important stories that sometimes take a moment. They have a moment as a headline, and then we move on.
And here, we’re invited to watch the extraordinary efforts of Paul Farrell Jr., who, as you said, goes into the biggest civil litigation in U.S. history, where he’s trying to create lasting impact on recovery efforts for the damages of the opioid epidemic.
And what’s extraordinary about this film is our ability to follow through, over many years, this campaign and to see all the ebbs and flows and the challenges and extraordinary triumphs of this effort. I don’t want to give anything away, because I think it’s important for audiences to have the opportunity to experience the film firsthand.
But I think what a festival and what the screening that you’re hosting allows people to do is actually meet many of these extraordinary people and to take the film and use it in some ways as a catalyst for further conversation, which is, I know, precisely what will happen at the Center for American Progress at the screening.
And something that we do with every single one of our films at the festival—it is actually required—we create support to bring every filmmaker to the festival to engage in post-screening conversations, often moderated by leading journalists or subject area experts, and to welcome dialogue with the audience who has just been deeply moved and has created this investment in these stories to think about what do we do now? What do we do with this information? How do we galvanize ourselves in ways having just been moved and motivated by these stories? So, this becomes a great example of the power of that.
Gibbs Léger: So my final question: Why D.C.? What’s special about this city that makes it a right spot for a documentary film festival? And how does the festival fit into the broader landscape of arts and culture in D.C.?
Sitney: Yeah. I mean, D.C., I think, is the most extraordinary home for such a festival.
And clearly I’m not alone in that belief. I see firsthand the urgency that many, many filmmakers have to bring their work here. And again, it’s not always work that is explicitly political. I think that many people recognize it. I think we, as a D.C.-based film festival, want to recognize that D.C. is not just a one-company town, that this is a town that has so much to offer in terms of arts and culture and I’m so glad that you noted that. I mean, there’s no other place, really, where you have this confluence of our policymakers on the Hill, along with this incredible wealth of people invested in the NGO [nongovernmental organization] space, organizations trying to do good, the academic space. And again, arts and culture from the high level of the Smithsonian all the way down to a tiny little jazz club on U Street.
And what we hope is that the festival is recognizing and honoring that diversity of community and understanding that when we think about bringing films here, we’re not actually only thinking about bringing outside filmmakers here, we’re also celebrating our local D.C. filmmakers.
I do think it’s worth saying that in partnership with Humanities D.C., we have a very important thematic program called D.C. Frame, which highlights filmmakers from D.C. making works that resonate with D.C. And this is always our most popular program. In fact, it’s usually the content from that program that sells out within minutes of announcing the lineup.
And in fact, I should mention that one of the Center for American Progress fellows, Jamal Holtz, is featured in this D.C. Frame program in the film “51st State,” so we’re really excited to shine a spotlight on his work. [Holtz is not a CAP fellow.] But we cannot think of a better home for this festival and a more important place for documentary film than Washington, D.C.
Gibbs Léger: That’s great. And so for our listeners, if they want to get more information about the festival, what’s your website? Where can they go?
Sitney: Yes, please. DCDOXFEST.com. That’s D-C-D-O-X-F-E-S-T-dot-com. And get it while it’s hot. There are a lot of films beginning to sell out, but there’s still so much content available for audiences to come join us, and I hope they will.
Gibbs Léger: That’s great. Well, Sky, I want to thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent,” and best of luck to you and your festival.
Sitney: Thank you so much. It was such a pleasure to talk to you. Appreciate it.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: All right. That’s it for us this week. As always, be sure to go back and listen to previous episodes.
Colin, sports. We’ve got to talk about these sports this week.
Seeberger: Womp womp.
Gibbs Léger: Womp womp.
Seeberger: Both the Dallas Stars and the New York Rangers—who my husband and I have been watching religiously every single night, because basically they’ve been trading off every single night—no longer in the hunt for the Stanley Cup. And so we need some new things to watch.
I do have the Dallas Mavs in the NBA Finals, which is cool. It’s a big deal. I think that they’re going to surprise people and put the [Boston] Celts on their heels. We’ll be tuning in, but we do have a lot more content free time now.
Gibbs Léger: This is very true, and I will say I’m in a horrible position of rooting for Dallas. But anyway, I know there’s something that you can watch, Colin.
Seeberger: What?
Gibbs Léger: “Bridgerton!”
Seeberger: “Bridgerton.”
Gibbs Léger: Yes. Season 3, the first half—it’s only four episodes—dropped. And of course I watched them immediately without haste—or, with haste. With haste. Yes.
Seeberger: With haste. With haste. I do love Jonathan Bailey, as we have long discussed on this very fun podcast. But I must confess, I’ve actually not watched it yet, which is a huge, huge sin as a J. Bailey fan. And also, I have several friends who will be completely disturbed to learn this, so I guess I have to get to work. I also have a few other shows that I am keeping my eye on and should be coming out in the coming days.
I’m not sure if you’ve caught the previews for “Presumed Innocent?”
Gibbs Léger: Oh yes, I have.
Seeberger: Yeah. Featuring Jake Gyllenhaal. But it’s basically about a murder that takes place that implicates an attorney in the Chicago prosecutor’s office, right? And basically implicates one of their own. So people are like, what’s going on? Right? And it’s obviously this whodunit sort of thing, but also touches on politics, power dynamics, sex, a whole bunch of different things. So I’ll be very interested to watch it when it starts coming out, I think, next week.
Gibbs Léger: Yes, I am also looking forward to that. You have to watch “Bridgerton.”
Seeberger: OK, OK.
Gibbs Léger: You must.
Seeberger: OK.
Gibbs Léger: I think the second season is better than the first. I may be alone in that, but maybe that’s because my love of Jonathan Bailey just takes it over the top for me.
Seeberger: Reviews for Season 3 so far?
Gibbs Léger: So far so good.
Seeberger: OK.
Gibbs Léger: I can’t really get into it with you because of big spoilers—
Seeberger: I appreciate that.
Gibbs Léger: —but I was hesitant because I wasn’t sure what I was going to feel about the things that I was going to see. But it was good. I’m entertained, and I was annoyed that it stopped when it did. I was like, come on.
Seeberger: That will do it for me.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. All right. So it’s coming back. I’m really excited about that. I am watching another one on Netflix called “A Man in Full.”
Seeberger: Hmm.
Gibbs Léger: With Jeff Daniels.
Seeberger: I love Jeff.
Gibbs Léger: I love Jeff Daniels. And I’m like, how is it, though, to have a show where I don’t like any of the main characters? Like, I’m not rooting for anybody. Diane Lane—I’m rooting for her because she’s amazing, and I’ll root for her in anything. But like, all the main characters have flaws. So, I mean, I don’t know. It makes for interesting television.
Seeberger: It makes them human.
Gibbs Léger: This is true, because none of us are perfect, Colin—except maybe Jonathan Bailey.
Seeberger: Yes, of course.
Gibbs Léger: OK, that’s going to wrap it up for us and our weekly devotion to Jonathan Bailey. Y’all take care of yourselves. It’s about to be summer for real, for real.
Seeberger: Stay cool.
Gibbs Léger: Stay very, very cool and stay hydrated, and we’ll talk to you next week.
Seeberger: Hear that, folks going into the Pride parade? Drink your water.
Gibbs Léger: Seriously, stay hydrated.
Seeberger: We don’t need a queen fainting in the middle of the parade route.
Gibbs Léger: No, we don’t.
“The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Daniela Gibbs Léger, and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer, Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, Mishka Espey is our booking producer, and Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Matthew Gossage, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our Video team. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.