Sundance: Jacinda Ardern On Her Docu ‘Prime Minister;' Feminism, Semi-Automatic Weapons Ban, Covid Border Closing And Women's Rights Including Abortion In Kiwi Country

Rarely does a political leader come through a documentary with such a sense of empathy and an appreciation of accomplishment as Jacinda Ardern does in Prime Minister. The Sundance documentary starts as a homespun tale, where at 37 she steps up to run New Zealand, and soon learns that she and her mate Clark Gayford are pregnant with their first child. The press narrative over whether a new mother can run the land of the Kiwis soon gives way as the movie becomes like a documentary version of 24, where Ardern is suddenly championing a ban of semi-automatic weapons after a devastating massacre, decriminalizing abortion and handling the Covid outbreak by leaning into the saving of lives more than the re-starting of the economy. She then walked away and is now a climate rights activist whose first major book A Different Kind Of Power is coming, and who among other things is a Senior Fellow in the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard. The docu is for sale, and was backed by Madison Wells' Gigi Pritzker and Rachel Shane, who add this to a roster of films that often touch on female empowerment themes, including The Eyes of Tammy Fare.More from Deadline
'Atropia' Review: Alia Shawkat & Callum Turner Play War Games In Absurdist Bush-Era Satire - Sundance Film Festival
Sundance: Bill Murray Makes Surprise Appearance In Park City
'The Ballad Of Wallis Island' Review: Carey Mulligan Hits Just The Right Note In A Melancholy Musical Rom-Com - Sundance Film Festival
GIGI PRITZKER: From our perspective, we were lucky recipients of the opportunity to do the film. Having never done a doc through Madison Wells before, Rachel and I immediately said, if we're ever going to do something, this is the thing. We were beside ourselves and then once we got more engaged, we realized that the biggest gift was that Clark Gayford, her husband and a broadcaster, picked up a camera almost as if you were going to just do home movies, as you said. The result was a treasure trove of material.JACINDA ARDERN: It's a great question. The first thing that prompted the idea of keeping a record of a time in office, I'm not the first politician to do that, but many politicians will do it through notes. We have in New Zealand something called the Oral History Project, and it's been running for decades where on a semi-regular basis, someone will call you and just record an audio interview with you. I'd already been doing that. Part it was just I wanted to keep a record for myself, for my family. I appreciate and love history, and perhaps my history teacher was ringing in my ears when I thought about just keeping a visual record. But you can see that often I was a reluctant participant.ARDERN: I think that is fair, though it probably built on an existing passion that I had. One of the reasons I got into politics was, as a child I spent a few years living in a town where there was a lot of inequality and poverty, and I eventually associated politics as the place to make change. There's something about thinking about the world through the lens of a child, and certainly having a child and then thinking about what kind of legacy are we going to leave her, it amplified all of the passions that I already had. But she's been a motivator for so many things. She was one of the reasons Clark wanted to keep a record, because it was her story as well.ARDERN: Yeah, I mean, I wonder whether or not the reason that I often took it in stride was because I was aware that I was in an unusual set of circumstances. And that wasn't to say it justified the assumption that you couldn't do both, but I could understand why I was being asked the question. I didn't always like it. But I could understand when you're only the second leader in the world to have a baby, in office. So rather than being defensive, I just took on the perspective that I just needed to get out and do the job. That was only really the way, and I would not be the first woman who's had to multitask and face those questions or try and hide that there's any impact from caregiving on the work that I do. I am not be the first woman who's experienced that. It was just very, it was public.ARDERN: Do you know what I appreciated that we were just discussing? The depth of the applause for Clark at the premiere. I think that was acknowledgement not only of the origin of the story, but the role that he played as well. When you are in public office, there's not always a lot of light shone on the people who are supporting you, in the village that's around you. I think we should do more of that, because I didn't do the job alone and I didn't raise my daughter on my own. And so it was great to give an insight to him as well.
PRITZKER: I think that's also one of the fallacies that we as a society give to women, which is you can do it all. But you don't do it all alone. No, that's a crazy conceit. Not only were you stepping out as a woman, but that you had this other element that was so universal, not only to women, but to men.ARDEN: Gosh, they were all hard. But abortion law reform, that was a conscience vote in New Zealand. We have an incredible system, where you vote on certain issues. You don't have to vote on a party line. You vote according to your conscience. And I think the incredible thing about that system, it means that if you have a particular religious perspective or persuasion, or if you happen to be a liberal, but in an otherwise conservative party, you're able to express that. And so abortion law reform, actually, that was about bringing individuals on board and the timing for that was, the New Zealand parliament was ready for that change as it should be.
So that was about building consensus and shepherding a piece of law through the other challenges. Those others are the unexpected crises that you sometimes face in leadership. And I wouldn't want to give one more weight over the other because each was devastating in their own ways. I will always carry so many lessons from March 15, most of whom came from New Zealand itself, and the Muslim community. Covid was a global experience, and it was difficult for everyone. New Zealand's experience just happened to be unique in some ways, but it was still hard, particularly the unknown.ARDERN: I can only speak to the New Zealand experience because I only really know its history and culture in any depth. And what I can tell you is that in the aftermath of March 15, that there was a public appetite, maybe expectation is a better word, that as politicians, we reflect how New Zealanders felt. And that's why ultimately I believe, and yes, we did move quickly. I'm not going to diminish that. We did move very quickly, but that is why I believe you had a parliament where all but one…so 119 members of parliament all voted in favor of that change because they were reflecting their community.ARDERN: Well, I mean, one thing I would say is that our political system there is very different. We have something called MMP [Mixed Member Proportional]. It means that we often have multiple parties in government. It means that there's a diversity of views, and it means that you have to can't govern without working with others. And so it's a different system. Mike, you know your system better than I, I'm an observer, but I know that our system is one that I think, no system is perfect, but it is one that really does reflect voters. And maybe it's one of the reasons we have such high turnout, in the 80% mark of New Zealanders enrolled, out voting. Perhaps it's because they know that that vote counts. But again, I'm only speaking to New Zealand system.ARDERN: It is, yeah. Just as a sidebar, there's some discussion over exemptions and things, but for the most part, that's in place.ARDERN: Well, I hope you saw in the film that thought process. I think that was one of the goals of the film, from the storytellers' perspective, to just provide an insight into leadership, into decision making.ARDERN: I hope that the viewer sees that it is just decision making in real time. Often, you see the decision, you don't often see the choices. So I think that's what the film tries to do. It provides the context. You see the choices that are there.ARDERN: I think it's human nature to always reflect on that, particularly if it's something as significant as leading a country. Though when I left, I remember saying this, and I can't remember if I said it in my departing speech or not, but all of the things that brought me into politics are never things that are going to have necessarily a nice tidy endpoint. I came in because I believed in equality and reducing inequality. I believed in addressing child poverty. I believed in the preservation of our environment and addressing climate change, and they just don't have tidy end points. So the time I was in office, I felt was about trying to make as much progress as I could rather than just job done.
Best of Deadline
'Severance' Cast Through Seasons 1 And 2: Innies, Outies, Severed and Unsevered
2025 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Oscars, Spirits, Grammys, Tonys, Guilds & More
Everything We Know About 'Only Murders In The Building' Season 5 So Far

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

an hour ago

• Forbes

The MeidasTouch Podcast Now Has 5 Million Subscribers

The MeidasTouch podcast just hit 5 million subscribers, cementing its status as a breakout force in ... More progressive media. Launched during the isolation of the pandemic lockdown era, a group chat between three brothers has transformed into one of the most influential voices in progressive media. The MeidasTouch Podcast — the flagship show of the MeidasTouch Network — has just crossed 5 million subscribers, a milestone that cements its place as not only a media juggernaut but a dominant force in independent political commentary. Founded in 2020 by Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas, MeidasTouch first made waves as an anti-Trump political action committee during the height of the COVID pandemic. At the time, all three brothers were generally frustrated by the state of the world and looking for a productive outlet for their time and talents. 'It felt like screaming into the void,' Brett recently told Vanity Fair. 'So we committed to doing what we could — writing articles, making videos, just getting our thoughts out.' The rise of the MeidasTouch podcast They've been doing that same work, just more of it, ever since. What began with viral videos evolved into a full-fledged media network, now home to a multiple shows including Leigh McGowan's PoliticsGirl, and the legal commentary series Legal AF. But it's the core MeidasTouch Podcast, hosted by the three brothers, that's leading the way and drawing major guests like President Biden and Senators Elizabeth Warren – and racking up viewership numbers that rival cable news. A celebratory tweet posted by the network's senior digital editor Acyn Torabi (@Acyn on X) marked the subscriber milestone, reading in part: 'As we hit 5 million subscribers, I want to say this: this is one small step for the MeidasTouch Network, but I think one giant leap for independent journalism and democracy generally.' As far as who the brothers are: Ben is a lawyer and Colin Kaepernick's business partner, Brett is a two-time Emmy-winning video editor, and Jordy is a top advertising executive in New York. Their network has seen explosive growth so far this year, with Podscribe data showing that the podcast jumped from 57.7 million downloads and views per month in mid-February to 115 million the following month. And even after that surge, the numbers remained strong, with April 2025 data showing 107.3 million downloads. The brothers' YouTube channel alone averages 33 million views every 48 hours, according to Acyn, while the podcast's momentum has been enough to briefly dethrone even The Joe Rogan Experience. In February 2025, MeidasTouch pulled in 57.5 million downloads, outpacing Rogan's 51.5 million for the month. While comparisons to right-wing media stars are inevitable, however, the Meiselas brothers push back on the idea that the left needs its own Rogan. 'Right-wing podcasters weren't cooked up in a lab,' Ben continued in the Vanity Fair interview. 'They developed audiences organically over time.' Brett added that the key isn't finding someone who mimics Rogan's tone or beliefs — it's the authenticity that matters. That's a major part of MeidasTouch's appeal. Brett Meiselas has said in the past that the goal is to make listeners feel like they're part of the same experience the brothers share in private. The vibe, in other words, is supposed to feel like a conversation among friends. As for what's next, Acyn made it clear in his message on X, adding: 'We use our platform for good: to always shine a light on the truth, to expose the injustices taking place, and to confront the authoritarian Trump regime head-on, where corporate news has utterly failed and betrayed us all.' Five million subscribers in, the MeidasTouch Network clearly isn't slowing down. Based on the trends this year alone, there's every reason to believe that this is just the beginning.

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next

President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.

Los Angeles Times

3 hours ago

• Los Angeles Times

How Trump has targeted Harvard's international students — and what the latest court ruling means

President Trump and his administration have tried several tactics to block Harvard University's enrollment of international students, part of the White House's effort to secure policy changes at the private Ivy League college. Targeting foreign students has become the administration's cornerstone effort to crack down on the nation's oldest and wealthiest college. The block on international enrollment, which accounts for a quarter of Harvard's students and much of its global allure, strikes at the core of Harvard's identity. Courts have stopped some of the government's actions, at least for now — but not all. In the latest court order, a federal judge Friday put one of those efforts on hold until a lawsuit is resolved. But the fate of Harvard's international students — and its broader standoff with the Trump administration — remains in limbo. Here are the ways the Trump administration has moved to block Harvard's foreign enrollment — and where each effort stands. In May, the Trump administration tried to ban foreign students at Harvard, citing the Department of Homeland Security's authority to oversee which colleges are part of the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. The program allows colleges to issue documents that foreign students need to study in the United States. Harvard filed a lawsuit, arguing the administration violated the government's own regulations for withdrawing a school's certification. Within hours, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston put the administration's ban on hold temporarily — an order that had an expiration date. On Friday, she issued a preliminary injunction, blocking Homeland Security's move until the case is decided. That could take months or longer. The government can and does remove colleges from the Student Exchange and Visitor Program, making them ineligible to host foreign students on their campuses. However, it's usually for administrative reasons outlined in law, such as failing to maintain accreditation, lacking proper facilities for classes, failing to employ qualified professional personnel — even failing to 'operate as a bona fide institution of learning.' Other colleges are removed when they close. Notably, Burroughs' order Friday said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard's ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. After Burroughs' emergency block in May, DHS issued a more typical 'Notice of Intent to Withdraw' Harvard's participation in the international student visa program. 'Today's order does not affect the DHS's ongoing administrative review,' Harvard said Friday in a message to its international students. 'Harvard is fully committed to compliance with the applicable F-1 (student visa) regulations and strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University's certification.' Earlier this month, Trump moved to block entry to the United States for incoming Harvard students, issuing a proclamation that invoked a different legal authority. Harvard filed a court challenge attacking Trump's legal justification for the action — a federal law allowing the president to block a 'class of aliens' deemed detrimental to the nation's interests. Targeting only those who are coming to the U.S. to study at Harvard doesn't qualify as a 'class of aliens,' Harvard said in its filing. Harvard's lawyers asked the court to block the action. Burroughs agreed to pause the entry ban temporarily, without giving an expiration date. She has not yet ruled on Harvard's request for another preliminary injunction, which would pause the ban until the court case is decided. 'We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,' Harvard told international students Friday. At the center of Trump's pressure campaign against Harvard are his assertions that the school has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment, especially during pro-Palestinian protests. In seeking to keep Harvard students from coming to the U.S., he said Harvard is not a suitable destination. Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism and will not submit to the administration's demands for further changes. In late May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed U.S. embassies and consulates to start reviewing social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism. On Wednesday, the State Department said it was launching new vetting of social media accounts for foreigners applying for student visas, and not just those seeking to attend Harvard. Consular officers will be on the lookout for posts and messages that could be deemed hostile to the United States, its government, culture, institutions or founding principles, the department said, telling visa applicants to set their social media accounts to 'public.' In reopening the visa process, the State Department also told consulates to prioritize students hoping to enroll at colleges where foreigners make up less than 15% of the student body, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to detail information that has not been made public. Foreign students make up more than 15% of the total student body at almost 200 U.S. universities — including Harvard and the other Ivy League schools, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal education data from 2023. Most are private universities, including all eight Ivy League schools. Some Harvard students are also caught up in the government's recent ban against travel to the U.S. by citizens of 12 nations, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The Trump administration last weekend called for 36 additional countries to commit to improving vetting of travelers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States. Harvard sponsors more than 7,000 people on a combination of F-1 and J-1 visas, which are issued to students and to foreigners visiting the U.S. on exchange programs such as fellowships. Across all the schools that make up the university, about 26% of the student body is from outside the United States. But some schools and programs, by nature of their subject matter, have significantly more international students. At the Harvard Kennedy School, which covers public policy and public administration, 49% of students are on F-1 visas. In the business school, one-third of students come from abroad. And within the law school, 94% of the students in the master's program in comparative law are international students. The administration has imposed a range of sanctions on Harvard since it rejected the government's demands for policy reforms related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Conservatives say the demands are merited, decrying Harvard as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard says the administration is illegally retaliating against the university.