'State of Firsts' documentary explores Sarah McBride's historic first months in Congress
Some people expected McBride, as the only trans member of Congress, to fight more, especially given efforts by state Republicans and the Trump administration to roll back trans rights.
In 'State of Firsts,' a documentary about McBride's election that will premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City on Saturday, McBride says the criticism from some in her own community hurt but that she felt she would be giving in to Republicans by responding in a way that made her less effective at her job.
'I also think people misunderstand the difference between activists and elected officials and the roles that those respective jobs play in social change and social movement,' she says. 'Even if you disagree with that, there would be a bounty on my head if I said that I would not comply.'
The documentary explores the unique pressures McBride faced entering Congress. It provides some of the first glimpses at how the bathroom resolution and the criticism from her own community has affected her, and it addresses questions about the limits and challenges of representation and of being a historic 'first' in federal office.
'It's easy to tell a simple story about a first or about a person's experience, but you don't get many lessons learned from simple stories,' McBride told NBC News ahead of the documentary's premiere. 'My motivation in agreeing to this was to hopefully help chronicle what it was truly like … so that others who come after me can maybe pull from some of the lessons and some of the experiences, so that their experience is maybe a little bit easier or they can do it a little bit better.'
Being first isn't necessarily new for McBride. She became the first out trans woman to work in the White House when she interned with the Obama administration, according to her 2018 memoir, 'Tomorrow Will Be Different: Love, Loss, and the Fight for Trans Equality.' Then, in 2016, she became the first trans person to speak at a major political convention when she gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention. In 2020, she became the country's first openly trans state senator.
Though McBride had an idea of what it was like to be a 'first,' she entered Congress at an unprecedented time for trans people, as dozens of states have enacted restrictions on the bathrooms trans people can use in schools and government buildings and their access to transition-related care and school sports.
The documentary also shows how the Democratic Party has been fractured both by the conservative campaign to restrict trans rights and the ongoing war in Gaza.
The documentary shows McBride knocking on constituents' doors before the Democratic primary election in Delaware in September. McBride asks a constituent whether she can count on their support, and the constituent says, 'The only thing that would dissuade us from voting for you is can we count on you to call for a ceasefire?' McBride responds that she has called for a ceasefire, and the constituent asks, 'How much can we count on you to be vocal about it?' before becoming emotional and saying it's hard to see images of kids who 'look like our kid.' (The film also shows the reporter of this article asking McBride about the interaction in an interview.)
Chase Joynt, the documentary's director, said it was important for him to show that moment not only because it revealed an important issue for one of McBride's constituents, but also because it spoke to a larger theme of the film: that much of the public expected McBride to be an activist, even though that isn't who she has been for most of her political career as a progressive Democrat largely in line with the party's platform.
'One of the central tensions in the film and of this political moment are the frictions between activist and electoral strategies of social change and the pressures put on politicians, in particular, to make statements and make claims and to be constantly negotiating what's at stake in all of those moves,' Joynt said.
The documentary delves into the LGBTQ community's complex response to McBride's becoming a 'first.' It includes audio from Slate's 'Outward' podcast, in which writer Jules Gill-Peterson says, 'This first elected representative is really not one that it seems like many trans people are going to get excited about, given some of her policy positions and the way that she's sort of aligned with the party establishment.'
Co-host Christina Cauterucci, a Slate editor, responds: 'I think she's had to be like that. I think a trans person who was more radical in any sense just simply would not have achieved what she's achieved.'
Joynt said he hopes the documentary encourages people to think about the potentials and limitations of representation in political office.
'We can expand that conversation to think about a politics of representation that requires trans people to be good, that requires trans people to be palatable, to be on the right side, whatever that might mean, of certain issues,' Joynt said.
Joynt said one of the 'perils' of coverage of political figures, particularly those who are 'firsts,' is that 'we put a lot of pressure on individual people to represent all of the various issues and needs,' when, in reality, no one person of any identity can represent all relevant views.
McBride said that with this film, she wants people to see more than just headlines and short video clips. She wants them to get a glimpse of the tradeoffs and challenges — as well as the joy and humor — that come with being a first in Congress.
'It's so easy to forget the fullness of who people are and the complexities that every single person is navigating and often the impossible choices that people have to make,' she said.
She added that, since the bathroom resolution, she has become 'more confident now than I have ever been that the approach that I am taking since getting to Congress is working.'
'Some of my colleagues realized that I'm just not fun,' she said, laughing. 'I'm not going to give them the response that they want, because I always knew that this was not about their actual, genuine distaste for trans people, it's because they wanted attention, and because I refuse to let them use me as a pawn, the reality show has moved on to other free gimmicks.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
The unusual GOP alliance pushing earmarks in this fall's funding fight
Conversations around government funding are ongoing. But so far, signs point to earmarks being one of the most viable pathways for breaking the impasse. It's a sweetener leaders can use to satisfy holdouts who want to be able to deliver wins for their districts — and represents a compromise for hard-liners like Harris who think this arrangement might present the best possible outcome for members who want to spend as little money as possible. Harris, who is also chair of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Agriculture and FDA, has floated the year-long, flat-funded spending bill that contains earmarks — but paired with the guarantee that Congress will also pass several more rescissions packages to claw back funds already appropriated by Congress. He also wants the White House to send over a major package of pocket rescissions that would unilaterally cancel tens of billions of dollars. Unlike with a typical rescissions bill, where Congress has 45 days to pass it before the administration is forced to spend the money as lawmakers originally intended, a pocket rescissions measure is transmitted to Capitol Hill with 45 or fewer days left until the end of the current fiscal year — and if Congress doesn't take any action by that deadline, the money is considered revoked. There's no certainty Congress can even pass a second rescissions request, while legal experts and the federal government's top watchdog have questioned the legality of the pocket rescissions process. But the pitch could be appealing to even the likes of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who is chair of a House Oversight subcommittee tasked with identifying government waste. She said in a social media post earlier this month she was uninterested in 'another CR that will leave out much needed appropriation requests that benefit our districts.' 'Funding to support critical infrastructure projects like water, roads, and community projects will AGAIN be left not funded,' she said of a government spending bill without earmarks. Greene's position signals a critical opening for proponents of earmarks — and something of a change of tune for Republicans.


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's New Census Could Be Bad News for Texas
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's proposal for a new national census that excludes people living in the United States illegally could reduce Texas' political power by reducing both its number of Electoral College votes and seats in the House of Representatives. Why It Matters The Trump administration is pushing for a new census despite the next one not being due until 2030. Excluding those in the U.S. illegally from the figures would reduce the political representation of states with disproportionately high illegal migrant populations, such as California and Texas. Citing "two people with knowledge of the effort," The Texas Tribune reported that the administration's primary goal behind the new census was to boost Republicans politically, though some experts have expressed skepticism over whether this would happen. What To Know On August 7, Trump said he had instructed the Department of Commerce to begin work on a new national census that would exclude illegal migrants, using data from the 2024 presidential election as a baseline. Census Bureau data is used to determine how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives and also how many Electoral College votes it gets during presidential elections. So if a state loses population disproportionately once illegal migrants are excluded, it would see its political influence decrease. In 2024, the Department of Homeland Security estimated that in January 2022 there were 10,990,000 people residing in the U.S. illegally. It found that California had the largest illegal migrant population with 2,600,000 people, followed by Texas with 2,060,000, Florida with 590,000 and New Jersey with 490,000. Speaking with Newsweek, Joshua Blank, who heads the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, said a new census without illegal migrants would reduce the state's population and therefore its House representation. He added that Texas "did nothing to promote census participation" in 2020. President Donald Trump's census proposal could see Texas lose Electoral College votes and seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. President Donald Trump's census proposal could see Texas lose Electoral College votes and seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Associated Press/Canva Blank said: "While, ostensibly, this move would reduce Texas' population size for the purpose of congressional districts, it's probably the case that it's less than it would if Texas were to have engaged in a serious effort to get a good count in the first place." In terms of the nationwide political effect, Blank added: "This would apply to other states, including other states with large immigrant populations, and those that actually sought to get an accurate count, like California. So the overall exchange of seats, since the number of overall congressional seats remains fixed, is pretty hard to game out." Trump's new census plan would almost certainly face legal challenges, with critics arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment, which states that seats in the House should be based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State." What People Are Saying Gil Guerra, an immigration policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek: "These numbers matter enormously for apportionment—states like California, Texas, and Florida have substantial undocumented populations that currently contribute to their congressional representation." Speaking with The Texas Tribune about the president's new census proposal, Robert Warren, a demographer at the Center for Migration Studies, said: "It wouldn't shift enough [House] seats to make any difference, and that's been true for five straight censuses." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on August 7: "I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" A Department of Commerce spokesperson told Newsweek: "The Census Bureau will immediately adopt modern technology tools for use in the Census to better understand our robust Census data. We will accurately analyze the data to reflect the number of legal residents in the United States." What Happens Next If Trump pushes ahead with his plan, it will almost inevitably spark a major legal battle. Even if the courts approve, experts agree that the overall effect on American politics is hard to determine, though states with a high illegal migrant population—such as Texas—will likely lose some influence.


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Zelenskyy travels to D.C. to meet with Trump, days after red carpet reception for Putin
WASHINGTON — Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will meet with President Donald Trump on Monday afternoon at the White House, just days after Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin left an Alaska summit without a ceasefire deal. Zelenskyy is traveling to Washington, D.C., alongside several European leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Trump's sit-down with the leaders will come as he's intensified his efforts in recent weeks to end the war in Ukraine, a more than three-year conflict he insists would not have taken place had he been in office. Following his meeting with Putin, Trump shifted his aim toward establishing a full-fledged 'peace agreement' between Russia and Ukraine, bemoaning ceasefire agreements as unstable. At the same time, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday on NBC News' 'Meet the Press' that a ceasefire was 'not off the table,' though Russia has not agreed to stop fighting. In a post to Truth Social Sunday night, Trump appeared to place the onus of ending the war on Zelenskyy, while emphasizing that Ukraine must give up Russian-annexed Crimea and its hopes of joining NATO — a key demand from Putin. "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight," Trump said. A day earlier, Trump indicated in a post on Saturday that if talks with Zelenskyy are successful on Monday, he will facilitate further discussions with Putin in hopes of reaching a permanent end to the war. The meeting will give the leaders the opportunity to discuss future security guarantees for Ukraine, which U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff floated as potentially looking similar to NATO's Article 5. Ukraine hoped to use the meeting to negotiate an ironclad security guarantee, similar to Article 5, and convince Trump that a temporary ceasefire is necessary to begin real peace talks, according to a Ukrainian source familiar with the goals. The security guarantees should be treaty-level obligations, the source said, which require Senate approval. A GOP lawmaker who declined to be identified echoed the need for U.S. security guarantees. Similarly, a European official said that the meeting would be focused in part on clarifying what security guarantees would look like. Trump has floated land 'swapping,' but the official said that their belief was that Ukraine would never give up all of its eastern Donbas region, much of which Russia controls. Europe, the official said, would also likely want to participate in any final negotiations for a peace agreement. Zelenskyy said in a post on X late Sunday that he had arrived in Washington. "I am confident that we will defend Ukraine, effectively guarantee security, and that our people will always be grateful to President Trump," he said. He emphasized that "Russia must end this war, which it itself started." The Ukrainian president's visit will be his first to the White House since a February meeting devolved into a stunning confrontation between Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Zelenskyy. The moment, which played out live on television, shocked Ukrainian allies and marked a sharp shift in the United States' years-long support for an ally embroiled in a bloody war that began with Russia's invasion. Monday's meeting comes after the White House welcomed Putin to Alaska, a controversial move that garnered further criticism when the U.S. rolled out a red carpet for Putin and took the controversial step of allowing the Russian autocrat to ride privately with Trump in 'The Beast,' a presidential vehicle. The meeting, which excluded Zelenskyy, ultimately concluded without a ceasefire deal. The leaders departed Alaska after hosting a 12-minute press event where they did not take questions or announce deliverables. Trump announced his meeting with Zelenskyy in the early hours of Saturday morning, adding in a post to Truth Social that 'if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin.' The future of major sticking points in discussions to end the war — the status of Russian-occupied Ukrainian land and security guarantees to prevent a future Russian invasion — remained murky over the weekend. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that there 'have to be some security guarantees for Ukraine,' noting that the issue would be discussed 'over the next few days.' Witkoff said Sunday that security guarantees could resemble NATO's Article 5, which triggers a response by the entire coalition if one member is attacked. In an interview on 'Fox News Sunday,' Witkoff said that 'the United States is potentially prepared to be able to give Article 5 security guarantees, but not from NATO, directly from the United States and other European countries.' The Ukrainian president celebrated what he called 'a historic decision' for the U.S. to participate in security guarantees, saying in a post to X on Sunday that they 'must really be very practical, delivering protection on land, in the air, and at sea, and must be developed with Europe's participation.' Zelenskyy will also have the opportunity during Monday's meeting to address Trump's comments on the future of Ukrainian land occupied by Russia. In the days ahead of the Alaska summit, Trump said that an end to the war would include 'some swapping of territories.' Zelenskyy promptly shot down the prospect, saying that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' Rubio said Sunday on NBC News' 'Meet the Press' that 'no one is pushing Ukraine to give that up,' referring to land occupied by Russia. But later that morning, Trump appeared to undercut Rubio's remarks when he reposted a Truth Social user who declared, 'Ukraine must be willing to lose some territory to Russia otherwise the longer the war goes on they will keep losing even more land!!' Trump left his meeting with Putin without announcing any ceasefire or peace agreements. The president told reporters on his way to Alaska that 'I'm not going to be happy' if the meeting did not lead to a ceasefire. He also said that Russia would face 'economically severe' consequences if Putin did not seem interested in peace. However, Rubio said Sunday on "Meet the Press" that he did not believe 'new sanctions on Russia are going to force him to accept the ceasefire.' Witkoff defended the president after he failed to secure a ceasefire, saying on 'Fox News Sunday' that a ceasefire often precedes a peace deal, and 'the president has always talked about a ceasefire until he made a lot of different wins in this meeting and began to realize that we could be talking about a peace deal.' 'The ultimate deal here is a peace deal,' Witkoff added. Trump's Friday meeting with Putin was a stark contrast from Zelenskyy's February trip to the White House, when Trump and Vance publicly berated Zelenskyy, arguing he was not grateful enough for U.S. support. 'You're gambling with World War III, and what you doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that's backed you,' Trump told Zelenskyy at the time. The meeting was ultimately cut short. The two leaders have met since then, though not at the White House. Trump and Zelenskyy met at the Vatican in April on the sidelines of the pope's funeral, and they met again privately at the NATO summit in June.