EDGE Interview: “This Isn’t Just About Trans Rights—It’s About Everyone’s Rights” - Director Sam Feder on "Heightened Scrutiny"

With "Heightened Scrutiny," director Sam Feder returns to familiar terrain—trans visibility and media bias—but takes a sharper, more urgent turn. Centering ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, the first out trans person to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, the documentary is both intimate and expansive, unpacking how media narratives directly fuel anti-trans legislation. But despite the gravity of its subject, the film never lectures. Instead, Feder builds a quiet, simmering indictment—elevating lived experience over punditry, and centering activism even when the legal fight ends in loss. In this conversation, Feder discusses narrative restraint, representation with integrity, and the high stakes of getting the story right.

EDGE: HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY balances urgency with restraint—it never preaches but still feels essential. How did you approach the tone and narrative structure to achieve that balance?

Sam Feder: I’m glad to hear that! I trust viewers to come to their own conclusions without talking down or pandering to them. By placing the right transitions and pacing between the observational footage and the diner interviews, we were able to find a balance between urgency and restraint. Via Chase and Mila, the viewer feels the urgency. Via the diner interviews, the viewer engages more intellectually with restraint - albeit there are some very emotional moments in the interviews. 

EDGE: What drew you to Chase Strangio as a subject, and what did you see in him that made you think, “This person can carry a film”?

SF: Chase hates being on camera, but the camera loves Chase! He conveys his feelings and thoughts with passion and nuance, succinctly, while maintaining accessibility for the viewer. That’s a rare gift. And it’s a dream for a film that conveys a lot of ideas within 90 minutes.

EDGE: You’ve explored trans representation in media before (Disclosure). How does HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY expand or deepen that work?

SF:  I do my best to always center the people with the most at stake. There aren’t any outside “experts” brought in to talk about or for them; they are the experts of their own lives. In the media, it’s crucial to see trans people living full lives among friends, family, and supportive communities. I hope to create an environment in which the participants in my films feel empowered to share their stories and have a sense of agency.

EDGE: Chase has such a magnetic, rock-star presence onscreen. As a director, how do you capture that energy without veering into hagiography?

SF: My work is inspired by queer and trans communities, so I wanted to honor Chase's contribution to this moment while also showcasing a community of people working alongside him. When we started following Chase, I was concerned about creating a singular story about a white, male, flawless hero. Perhaps by witnessing Chase’s vulnerability–his nerves, his appetite, his exhaustion, his affection for animals–we avoid hagiographic storytelling. But mostly, the film tries to frame Chase’s preparation for the case as the narrative arc that grounds the film in the material consequences of anti-trans media bias. His individual story is important, but the larger story of this film moves far beyond a singular character study.  

EDGE: Did anything you uncovered while making this film shock you—even as someone who’s spent years exploring trans visibility?

SF:  I know that anti-trans bias is rampant in the press. But the blatant disregard for the standards of journalism when covering trans people was shocking. It’s just bad journalism. I was shocked by the lack of fact-checking. That veteran writers in mainstream, centrist, and liberal media could get away with citing debunked studies or giving equal weight to the research of scientific and medical experts and random people with uninformed opinions. 

EDGE: The film is landing at a time when trans rights are under relentless attack. What do you hope audiences—especially cis ones—take away from HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY?

SF: Much of the coverage about trans lives is skewed, contributing to a dangerous environment where discriminatory legislation thrives. Having our rights being up for debate is grounded in popular culture, mainstream media, and social media discourse. You can hear it in the film during the oral arguments at SCOTUS.  

Much of the legislation that has been passed has been in response to the media climate. So many people have been misled into thinking that their skepticism is legitimate because of how the mainstream media covers trans people. The bias we show in the film  - which are just a few out of many examples - has a direct, devastating impact on all trans people and those who care about us. 

If audience members are not too concerned about what is happening to trans people’s rights, I hope they are concerned about their own rights. I want people to know that this case will impact the constitutional rights of all Americans. Banning health care for trans people is part of a larger trend of politicians interfering in the private medical decisions of all patients, and doctors opening the door to further intrusions into all our health care. When you chip away at anyone's right to make decisions about their body, you chip away at everyone’s rights.

EDGE: What do you think the film says about the nature of activism and justice, especially when the "big win" doesn’t come?

SF: Justice is not predicated on a win. We're constantly fighting systems that we know we might not change in our lifetime - but that does not mean we should stop fighting. Heightened Scrutiny comes out of our desire to show young people that we are fighting for them, that our fight is indebted to histories of struggle, and that it will be their job to take up activism for future generations. 

https://www.heightenedscrutinydoc.com