Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The Atlantic Contributing Writer and "Rebellion" Author Robert Kagan; Interview with "Sinners" Actor and "Sinners" Oscar- Nominated Actor Delroy Lindo; Interview with "End of Days" Author Chris Jennings. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 12, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: NATO has treated the United States of America very unfairly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Trump's message to Europe time and time again. So, as world leaders head to the Munich Security Conference, can the transatlantic
alliance be saved? I asked prominent foreign policy expert Robert Kagan. He says the world is entering its most dangerous period since World War II.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It can conjure spirits from the past and the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Sinners," the genre-busting film that took the world by storm. One of its stars, Delroy Lindo, joins me on this Oscar-bound movie
and his remarkable career.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTOPHER JENNINGS, AUTHOR, "END OF DAYS": If you look at anything from QAnon to some of what's being written about the Jeffrey Epstein case, all
of these things, if you've read enough prophecy, you can hear echoes of this long history of popular prophecy in the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "End of days: Ruby Ridge, The Apocalypse, and The Unmaking of America." What the Ruby Ridge standoff foretold about America's future?
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Eighty years of peaceful world order under unprecedented, some would say self-inflicted harm now, thanks to the, quote, "wrecking ball politics led
by the U.S. President Donald Trump. That's the assessment of European security experts who are getting set to host world leaders and diplomats at
the pivotal Munich Security Conference, which starts tomorrow.
Every day, Ukraine is fighting for its survival. Russia has again pounded the country with drones and ballistic missiles, further battering its
energy system in the dead of its coldest winter at war. NATO members have again pledged more support for Ukraine, but they know they must insist --
or they must insist on their own security too.
Are the days of relying on America then well and truly over? My first guest believes so and has a dire warning for Americans about the chaos and danger
to come. Robert Kagan is a traditional conservative foreign policy scholar. He calls himself now a former Republican, and his latest piece for The
Atlantic is about America and the world. So, welcome back to our program from Washington, Robert Kagan.
ROBERT KAGAN, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC AND AUTHOR, "REBELLION": Thank you. Great to be here.
AMANPOUR: And you're literally in a deep freeze because there's snow behind you. So, tell me what you really think is at stake right now. You
just heard me quote the European report before the security conference, wrecking ball, demolition man, you know, a world order under destruction,
all of that. Is that hyperbole?
KAGAN: No, not at all. And actually, I'm sort of impressed that the Munich people put out that report because I think it's right on the money, but
it's unusually undiplomatic, I would say. But it's certainly correct. And I think it really is a wake-up call for Europeans, and it ought to be for
Americans as well.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, before I get to your article then, how do you think Europe should follow through on that report and those terms? Because it is,
you know, a real come-to-Jesus moment, if I can say that now, because it's been a year since J.D. Vance essentially threw down the gauntlet to allies
at Munich last year. And essentially this year has been one where Trump has done America first in a very interesting way.
KAGAN: Yes. I mean, I think Europe is coming to the realization, but they certainly need to come to the realization that they are -- they can no --
not only can they no longer count on the United States to provide the security guarantees that it has been providing for 80 years, but they
really need to understand that the United States is now a hostile and potentially predatory nation under Donald Trump.
So, Europe is now in the predicament of facing an aggressor and a predatory empire to its east, but also now a potentially predatory but certainly,
hostile empire to its west.
[13:05:00]
And so, that means Europeans really need to, much more quickly than I think they intended, strengthen themselves, both militarily and economically, so
that they can protect their interests and their ideology, their belief in freedom and democracy and liberalism against the real challenges which are
now coming from all directions.
AMANPOUR: So, in case anybody missed it, you're basically saying two predatory powers, and you're putting on the same level then the United
States and Russia, because you mean that hostile force, which is quite an extraordinary thing for a traditional Republican to say.
Before I get to the heart of some of your criticism, do you not think that the height of the predatory, in your words, experiment by Donald Trump was
over Greenland? And he said over and again that he has to acquire it, et cetera, et cetera. And Europe stood up as one and said no. Do you think
that's the start of a pushback that's meaningful?
KAGAN: Yes, I think the fact that Europeans are actually contemplating sending troops to defend against an act of American territorial aggression
against an allied a nation like Denmark, you know, really, it showed that if you do stand up to Donald Trump, sometimes you can be successful. But I
also don't think the Greenland issue is over. Trump has been fixated on Greenland since his first term. And so, that's why I think it's all the
more important that the Europeans hasten to strengthen themselves in every way possible.
Trump is clearly sensitive to economic pressures. I mean, I think that the biggest effect on him was the spike in the bond market, quite honestly. And
so, but Europeans do have a lot of economic leverage if they're willing to use it and stop referring to Donald Trump as daddy.
AMANPOUR: Oh, boy. Yes, that's the famous bazooka in terms of a trade weapon. So, let me ask you this. You write in your article, Trump has
managed in just one year to destroy the American order that was and he has weakened America's ability to protect its interests in the world that will
be. So, you're talking about America now, you know, for a minute, let's put aside responsibilities as an ally. And now, how does this action by Trump
affect America? Why is America weakened in your view?
KAGAN: Yes. I think unfortunately, Americans have taken for granted the enormous benefits that the United States get both strategically and
economically from all of its alliance relationships around the world. I mean, the United States is powerful, but it's not powerful than all the
rest of the countries in the world put together. One of the greatest sources of American power has been its alliances in Europe and in Asia and
its partnerships elsewhere.
And if the United States is now going to turn against those powers as it is and treat them as hostile players and competitors in the same and really,
in some respects, have a more favorable view of Russia and China than of our own allies, then those allies are going to cease to be our allies. And
then the United States will not have access to bases and free access to markets and the kind of general power that the United States has enjoyed in
the world.
And that we if we move into a genuinely multipolar world where there are no reliable allies, that's going to weaken the United States and make
everything that we have been doing for 80 years much more expensive and much more dangerous. The prospect of war climbs considerably if our
alliance structure is being destroyed as it is by Donald Trump.
AMANPOUR: And actually, the alliance structure is what sets America apart, certainly from the other so-called wannabe superpowers, China, Russia. They
don't have those kinds of alliances. And in The Atlantic, you quote a Chinese analyst who says the most important gap between America and China
is not economic or military power, but it is America's global system of alliances.
So, we've just talked a little bit about it. But what happens to America's place in the world if those alliances are? And we're seeing polls saying
many allies trust America less. The people in those countries, the leaders of those countries trust America less. What happens to America and to the
world if that, you know, tried and tested system of alliances for the last 80 years essentially falls apart into a might-makes-right, you know, sort
of world?
KAGAN: Yes. I mean, if it's every nation for themselves, then just take the question of bases, for instance. The United States has bases in Europe,
which ironically it doesn't use, has not been using for the defense of Europe, but rather to project power into the Middle East, into Central Asia
and elsewhere.
[13:10:00]
A lot of what Donald Trump seems to want to do when he wants to bomb countries does ultimately rely on the willingness of other countries to
provide bases to the United States. You can't do everything from an aircraft carrier.
So, you can imagine America losing access to those bases, which significantly will weaken America's strategic position in the world to deal
with all kinds of contingencies. That's just one example, but so is the question of access to resources. You know, right now the oceans are pretty
open because the United States is able to keep them open because it has the cooperation of most of the world. But if the world begins to regard the
United States as a hostile and aggressive and dangerous power, which is what Donald Trump is portraying, then we won't have that kind of access.
And in a sense, we have to fight for everything that we currently enjoy for free.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, we talked about Greenland you said it's not over yet. I had on this program the former NATO secretary general, who also was
the former Danish Prime Minister. Denmark, you know, has sovereignty over Greenland, an autonomous province. But he said, and I'll play it for you in
a second, that he really doesn't understand how the president of the United States has continued to alienate allies while also concurrently warming up
to adversaries, particularly, you know, Russia. And this is what he says about the Russia-Ukraine dynamic seen from the Trump White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, FORMER NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: I think President Zelenskyy has demonstrated a clear willingness to move to get a peace deal
or a ceasefire. And I don't understand why the American administration continues to put more pressure on Zelenskyy than on President Putin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that was Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Do you understand?
KAGAN: Well, I mean, there is one simple answer, which is that Zelenskyy is a weak, dependent actor. He's dependent on the United States and others.
And therefore, Trump has enormous leverage over him. Putin is not weak. Putin can't be pushed around by Donald Trump. And therefore, he's willing
to concede whatever Putin wants.
But I would go beyond that to say that the truth is Trump doesn't want to be defending Ukraine. He would love to be able to write Ukraine off. That's
certainly what his, you know, advisers want. That's what people in the Pentagon want. They want to cut Ukraine off. And they also want to cut off
U.S. allies. The problem for Trump is it's kind of embarrassing to openly be defeated by Vladimir Putin, and he doesn't like that.
The negotiations are a fraud right now. The only purpose of the negotiations is to save face for Donald Trump. He keeps begging Putin to
throw him a bone, and Putin doesn't want to do that. But, you know, I think it's just clear that Trump wants to cut Europe loose entirely. And, you
know, he thinks he can sort of carve up the world with the other emperors. You know, he wants to be one of the world emperors. He can carve it up with
Emperor Putin and Emperor Xi.
AMANPOUR: Well, Anders Fogh Rasmussen also said that Europe needs to learn to be a superpower and leverage its 450 million to 500, you know, million
strong population, its very, very big economic weight, and to build up its military. Also, you've heard the prime minister of Canada talk about trying
to get a broad coalition of middle powers, so to speak, to actually replace or go around a no longer reliable American ally.
Can you just tell us whether either of those are feasible? How would they work?
KAGAN: Well, of course they're feasible. I think, again, people forget that, you know, several of the powers in Europe today used to be the
strongest powers in the world not so long ago. I mean, Germany was clearly one of the strongest powers in the world and fought two world wars against
almost everyone and only lost because the United States got involved. And France was a global empire. Britain ruled, you know, a huge quantity of the
world at one time.
And, you know, after World War I, which was a devastating war, because there was no American security guarantee, everyone had to rearm and they
did rearm and then they fought another war. But the point is Europe is capable of rearming, they just haven't had to and we haven't wanted them
to. I think it's worth recalling that. We didn't want to have Europe emerging from World War II as the same kind of great powers who had led to
conflict in the past.
And so -- but are they capable of doing it? Of course, they are. They have the economic wherewithal, they have the population, they have the highly
educated population, technologically capable population. It requires them to really, I think, change a lot of their sort of socio-economic structure,
unfortunately, but necessity is the mother of taking, making sacrifices when you need to. And this is a matter of necessity for Europe.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: Let's revert to where you are, the United States of America. You wrote a previous book about -- called "Rebellion." You talk about the --
you know, the origins of a sort of illiberal system inside America. What do you think is the state of American politics, democracy, freedom, human
rights right now?
KAGAN: Well, I think we are one big step into dictatorship already. It's not clear to me that any institution in the United States is really
prepared to stand up to Donald Trump. It seems the only people who are willing to stand up to Donald Trump are average American citizens in
Minneapolis and elsewhere, and God bless them for that. But the U.S. Congress, both parties are unwilling to really fight Trump. The Republicans
have become the party of dictatorship. So, I think we are one deep foot into dictatorship.
And I am worried, as I have said and others have been pointing out, about whether we will even have free and fair elections in 2026, let alone in
2028. I think Trump has a plan to disrupt those elections, and I don't think he's willing to allow Democrats to take control of one or both
houses, as could happen in a free election.
AMANPOUR: And yet, his own sort of border czar, Tom Homan, has gone -- has been in Minnesota. He now says the ICE surge or the ICE presence is
concluding. Also, you know that some six Republicans broke from Trump policies to join a vote against the tariffs and against how they're being
used. You know that the grand jury failed to get any indictment against what the administration wanted, which was those six or so senators and
others who urged soldiers not to obey illegal orders. Things seem to be moving.
AMANPOUR: I don't agree with that. I mean, it's always one step forward and two steps back with Donald Trump. And I don't think that they're
finished with their plan. They've made a tactical retreat in Minnesota. That doesn't mean they're not going to send ICE into elsewhere. ICE is
being funded at an unbelievable -- I think ICE now is paid more than the U.S. Marine Corps is, in terms of dollars. So, you know, it's going to be a
massive force.
And Trump has made very plain. You know, I think we ought to listen to him when he says there are 15 electoral areas that they would like Republicans
to control, lest the Democrats, you know, quote/unquote, "steal the election from them," by which they mean they just lose the election and
they don't want that to happen. I think that we are still very much in danger.
You know, the fact that six Republicans in the House voted on a measure about tariffs with Canada. What about the Republicans in the Senate who
pretty much go along with everything that Trump says? What about Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House, who basically is supporting
Trump's desire to interfere in these --
AMANPOUR: Well, Robert Kagan, I'm headed to the Munich --
KAGAN: So, I don't think --
AMANPOUR: I'll put some of those questions to some of the American officials who I'll be hopefully speaking to at the Munich Security
Conference this weekend. And you raise very important points, particularly about elections. Robert Kagan, thank you very much indeed.
And stay with us because we'll be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: Next to the Oscars race and the most nominated film in Academy Award history. "Sinners" has stunned audiences and critics alike. It was
written and directed by Ryan Coogler. It tells a story of twins in 1930s, Mississippi, who aimed to set up a juke joint for the black community there
only to be met with a terrifying supernatural evil. Take a look at this excerpt from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are legends of people with the gift of making music so true. It can conjure spirits from the past and the future. This
gift can bring fame and fortune.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will somebody take me in your arms?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But it also can pierce the veil between life and death.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And full disclosure, "Sinners" is a Warner Brothers Discovery film. CNN's parent company. Veteran actor Delroy Lindo is nominated for
best supporting actor for his role as Delta Slim. He was born here in London, but Lindo found success on stage and on screen in the United
States, including starring in many Spike Lee films. And he's joining me now from Los Angeles.
Welcome to the program. Your film is absolutely amazing, obviously recognized by all the awards and all the critics. What was it and what was
your initial reaction when you first read this incredible script?
DELROY LINDO, ACTORS, "SINNERS" AND OSCAR-NOMINATED ACTOR, "SINNERS": The originality. Even though it was said in 1932, I felt it was a very
contemporary film. And so, it -- and it was truly a very particular one-of- a-kind narrative. And I acknowledged that, I was aware of that immediately on reading the script.
AMANPOUR: And what about your character? You play Delta Slim, very complex. It's really an obviously interesting, there's almost like a
physical embodiment that, you know, you and the others display of sort of generational trauma. Tell us about the character. And how you approached,
you know, creating it.
LINDO: It was a step-by-step-by-step process, essentially starting with my reading two books, "Blues People," by Amiri Baraka and who was Leroy Jones
when he wrote the book and "Deep Blues" by Robert Palmer. That was my intro into the project, reading those books and getting a sense of the lives and
the lifestyles of many of the musicians featured in those works.
I then started exposing myself to musicians such as Sun House, Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf, Ike Turner, musicians who come from that region,
Mississippi Delta. And additionally, listening to -- watching a lot of documentary film that focused on people from the Delta. So, it was step-by-
step-by-step-by-step.
You know, to state the obvious, it was not a linear process, right? I was gathering all of this data and then incorporating it into my own process as
I started working on the material.
AMANPOUR: So, obviously the film shows the -- as you kind of outlined now, the connection between music and history. Music is so important to the
film. Some people say like almost is a character in the film. There's a character called Sammy.
LINDO: Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. His guitar becomes not just a symbol of culture and survival, but an instrument of violence to actually try to protect his
community. I want to play a clip where your character, Delta Slim, speaks to Sammy about the history and the power of the blues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LINDO: Blues weren't forced on us like that religion. We brought this with us (INAUDIBLE). The magic what we do, it's sacred and (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It is actually mesmerizing, ven looking at those, you know, small and short clips. We talked about how you studied a lot of music. What
do you think it was able to narrate to tell that perhaps dialogue couldn't?
[13:25:00]
LINDO: Perhaps conveying a feeling, an emotional feeling, resulting perhaps in a visceral response from the audience. And I like that because
it's not always about being able to verbalize. And I think that -- I can't speak for the audiences, obviously, but I think there is a visceral
response that many people are having. And on some level, that's accounting for the audiences viewing this film multiple times.
AMANPOUR: Let's get to the main characters of the film, are the twin brothers, Smoke and Stack. They both happen to be played by one actor,
Michael B. Jordan. Now, they return home to the south from Chicago, this is the premise of the film, to build a new life. And we have this clip where
your character at a train station and you meet the twins and they ask you to come and play in their new juke joint.
LINDO: No, no. Not -- I mean, I'm meeting one of the twins.
AMANPOUR: One of the twins. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're (INAUDIBLE). Come play at our juke tonight.
LINDO: No, I wish I could. I'm going to be at Mesnes (ph)tonight, same as I am every Saturday night.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But they ain't paying you $20 a night. I know that.
LINDO: But you ain't paying no $20 a night. You paying $20 maybe tonight. Tomorrow night, the week after that, no. I've been in Mesnes (ph) every
Saturday for the last 10 years. Mesnes (ph) be there another 10 years after that, at least. I play and I get as much con liquors I can drink. Saturday
night, man, I can't ask for more than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Negotiations. What was it like acting -- I mean, look, it's kind of an obvious question, but with Michael B. Jordan, as he was playing two
characters, I know that clip now was with you and one character, but what was it like?
LINDO: In the context of working on a scene, you know, I was focusing -- and this may sound very selfish. I hope it doesn't. I don't mean it to
sound selfish. I was focused on what I had to do. Michael B. and Miles playing Preacher Boy were focused on what they had to do. And we came
together as professionals. And it was very, very rich. It was funny. It was very stimulating. And we found things between us in the scene that made the
scene live and breathe in a very rich way, I hope for the audiences.
AMANPOUR: Let's go back to not quite the beginning, but let's go back to your past work, because you've had a very long, very expansive career.
You've worked with some of the most influential directors, your longtime collaborator, Spike Lee as well.
Your childhood, though, I find also incredibly interesting. I hadn't realized that you were born here. You moved from here to Canada. You grew
up in London. Apparently, you didn't really feel British. Tell me a little bit about what it was like being a young black boy in this country.
LINDO: You're -- as much -- you're conflating some things.
AMANPOUR: OK.
LINDO: And I understand you have to work very quickly because your work covers a lot of different areas, but you're conflating a number of things.
It's not that I didn't feel British, and I'm not quite sure what your sources are for this interview. What I can tell you to try to answer your
question, what was it like for me? I'm the son of a Jamaican woman who was part of the Windrush generation, the Windrush phenomenon, which I'm sure
you're familiar with. We moved around a lot when I was young. We moved quite a bit.
I think it's difficult for me to encapsulate, Christine -- Ms. Amanpour. It's difficult for me to encapsulate in a few seconds my experience growing
up in England. What I will say is that I'm writing a memoir right now. Yes, I'm plugging my book. I apologize.
But in the book, in the process of writing the book, I am able to deconstruct more -- with a lot more depth what my experiences were, how --
what my mom's experiences were, how being in England impacted our relationship. So, I'm going to do a really -- please buy the book.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes, yes. Listen, firstly, I appreciate your precision, and I'm glad you corrected some of the things I might have got wrong. You don't
have to call me Ms. Amanpour. You can call me Christiane.
[13:30:00]
But I am actually very interested because you said Windrush generation. Maybe not everybody remembers, and I'm maybe going to get a word or two
wrong, but bear with me. It's the generation who were brought to Britain from the Caribbean, aboard the Windrush, to help rebuild this country after
the devastating impact of World War II. Then there was a lot of controversy about how they were treated and whether they were treated right after this
history of helping this country.
So, let's explore a little bit more about what you're going to be writing in your memoir about this. It's an important origin story.
LINDO: OK. Thank you. Thank you. So, you're speaking about these things in the past tense, and I would say that the dynamics that are impacting the
Windrush generation and their offspring, of which I am a part, are probably still very contemporary dynamics that are at play in British culture today.
What I'm investigating and trying to understand, I'm trying to understand more about my mom. I'm trying to understand more about myself, because I
myself was not aware of the Windrush phenomenon until 2001, when I was in London working on a film", Wondrous Oblivion," directed by Paul Morrison.
And through the process of -- when we were rehearsing in pre-production, before we had actually started filming, I came across the BBC Windrush
documentaries. And I was really stunned because I had never heard about those -- that Windrush before.
So, my -- part of my intent in working on my book is to understand what that means, what the Windrush phenomenon means to me personally and my
mother, and to understand, as a result, aspects of myself and my mom that I was theretofore not aware of. That's what the process of writing the book
has given me the opportunity to investigate.
AMANPOUR: So, what did America give you that Britain could not as an actor? And I mean, also, how do you feel about receiving your first Academy
Award nomination 50 years into your career? You're 73. You don't look it, but you're 73, and you've got your first Academy Award nomination.
LINDO: There were probably three questions in there. I'll try to --
AMANPOUR: I'm not going to get through this interview. OK. As the first -- first one first.
LINDO: Yes, you will.
AMANPOUR: What did America give you that the U.K. couldn't?
LINDO: Opportunity. Opportunity to explore, investigate my creative self, and then to have a commercial career. That's what America has afforded me.
That was your question, correct?
AMANPOUR: That was the first bit of a very long compound question. The second bit is, how does it feel at the age of 73 to get your first Academy
Award nomination? You are 73, right?
LINDO: I will not answer. You know, I have to say this. I'm very -- I'm happy I'm making you laugh and that we're sharing a laugh, because you
probably, you don't -- well, I won't say that, but because of the fact that your work focuses on such serious, rightly so, topics, I'm glad you get to
have a little bit of levity for a second.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
LINDO: The award -- the nomination, I'm sorry, the nomination has been absolutely meaningful. I have to say that part of the experience of getting
this nomination, I'm feeling really touched and moved by the outpouring of support and love that I'm receiving from fans who are really happy for me.
And that's been very much a part of the experience of receiving this nomination. But the short answer to your question is that it feels very
good.
AMANPOUR: Good. I'm glad to hear it. And on a, you know, wider scale, "Sinners" has also made history by becoming the most nominated film at the
Academy Awards ever. It's got 16 nominations. So, you talked about it also being contemporary in the current culture.
[13:35:00]
So, you talked about it also being contemporary in the current culture. So, what do you think this level of recognition for the film, which is led
predominantly by a black cast and crew, say about where the culture is headed now?
LINDO: I'm not sure. And I'm not skirting your question. I would say that clearly, the recognition, both from the Academy and both from audiences
globally, is an affirmation for the vision of Ryan Coogler. That's one.
As far as I'm concerned, the film represents a cultural moment. It's a cultural, it's touched something in the zeitgeist that results in,
partially results in, its success. And the fact, as I mentioned before, that audiences are going back multiple times to see this film.
Personally, I think that the film, I think it's a work for the ages. I think that it will be studied on university, college campuses. But as far
as the future impact of the film -- and I'm not sure you asked me this, but as far as the future impact of the film, only time will tell. But I do have
a very strong feeling that it will be just as impactful in five, 10 years from now, because I think the work has that kind of magnitude.
AMANPOUR: It really is incredible. Listen, thank you very, very much indeed. It's been really a pleasure, interesting, and entertaining to talk
to you.
LINDO: God bless you. Thank you very, very much. And I'm glad that we were able to share some levity.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
LINDO: God bless and all the very best. Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: Thank you and good luck to you.
LINDO: Take care.
AMANPOUR: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: And now, we revisit a moment that shocked a nation. The 1992 Ruby Ridge siege.
It was an 11-day armed standoff in the mountains of Idaho between federal agents and the Weaver family. It left three people dead. In his new book,
"End of Days," Chris Jennings argues that the episode rooted in apocalyptic, racist, and anti-government ideology helped pave the way for
today's conspiracy-driven politics. Walter Isaacson spoke with him on the legacy of that widely televised event and what it reveals about America
today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Christopher Jennings, welcome to the show.
CHRISTOPHER JENNINGS, AUTHOR, "END OF DAYS": Thank you, Walter. It's a pleasure to be here.
ISAACSON: It's been 34 years since the tragic events at Ruby Ridge. Remind everybody what that story was and why you want to revisit it now.
JENNINGS: Sure. The story in its most basic form was a tale of a family who had moved to northern Idaho from Iowa to separate themselves from a
civilization that they thought was doomed. They thought the end of the world was coming. And the man eventually became ensnared in a minor crime,
selling two illegally modified guns. And the situation spiraled from there.
They had a very conspiratorial view about the United States government that came out of a fundamentalist background that they had been praying and
worshipping in these various fundamentalist churches.
[13:40:00]
And so, he refused to go to court. And in the effort -- a very protracted, expensive effort to get him to come down the mountain and face the rather
minor charge for the guns, the situation devolved and there was, his son was killed and a U.S. Marshal was killed and their dog was killed. And the
following day, his wife, Victoria Weaver, was shot and Randy was shot. Victoria died and their friend Kevin Harris, who was living with them, was
shot. And a protracted siege began with none of them in the family wanting to come out of the cabin.
And it was really a tragic situation, but I wanted to revisit it because I thought a lot of the elements that are active in our contemporary political
life are sort of there in seed form. The conspiracism, deep distrust of the government, issues over whether, when and when federal agents can use
deadly force against citizens, all the things that we're talking about today.
ISAACSON: Well, Ruby Ridge became a big symbol for the clash between, you know, government and the sort of, well, end times prophecy philosophy,
right?
JENNINGS: Yes, that's right. I mean, I think the story has usually been told as a matter about free speech and gun rights and freedom of religion
and government access. But really, the way I tell the story and what I think is the most relevant thing at play is the religion, the theology that
has been present in our national life for a long time.
But this particular strain of fundamentalism that breeds this conspiracism and this deep distrust in the government and, you know, what happened at
Ruby Ridge was a lot of those theories were sort of vindicated in the minds of the people who already held them. These were people who said the
government's going to come and kill you. And then in their case, as it happened, the government did.
ISAACSON: Well, wait. Remind us what end times prophecy, what that movement is.
JENNINGS: It's -- you know, in the book, I narrate how American history, as Protestant theology, has evolved in a pretty significant way from, say,
the founding until the present, especially starting at the end of the 19th century and really accelerating through the 20th century, where the
prevailing belief among a lot of American evangelicals and fundamentalists flipped from a belief that the sort of kingdom of God was coming to Earth
and the world was gradually going to be perfected through the spread of the gospel and material progress to an apocalyptic faith, the idea that the end
of the world is nigh and that you can read biblical prophecy through current events and sort of map, you know, the book of Revelation onto the
daily newspaper and say which country represents what biblical nation.
And those beliefs really spread over the course of the 20th century, especially in the '60s, '70s, and '80s when the Weavers were getting deeply
involved with their faith.
ISAACSON: How is end times prophecy at all relevant today?
JENNINGS: Some of the sort of like moods and attitudes that it brought into American Christendom and then sort of subsequently into American life
in general derive from end times prophecy. This belief in creeping globalism, that conspiracy is the true engine of history, that there's a
secret battle between light and dark playing out just beneath the surface of events.
I mean, if you look at anything from QAnon to some of what's being written about the Jeffrey Epstein case, all of these things, if you've read enough
prophecy, you can hear echoes of this long history of popular prophecy in the United States.
ISAACSON: And why did northern Idaho become such a haven?
JENNINGS: Well, northern Idaho became a haven not just for fundamentalists, but for anyone looking to sort of escape from what they
regarded as an America in decline. It was an inexpensive place to live, it was lightly peopled, and it was overwhelmingly white. The Aryan Nations,
which plays a key role in this story because it was through their involvement with the Aryan Nations that the Weavers ended up in legal hot
water, established itself in the Idaho panhandle. And a lot of other groups that would go on to sort of form the nucleus of the militia movement.
And there was a couple of sort of hard-right terror organizations in the '80s, most famously the group called the Order who committed all kinds of
acts of terrorism, bombings, robberies, murders. They were all centered up there. It was an area that while people tend to think of the Old South as
the sort of homeland of organized white supremacy in the U.S., by the '80s and mid'70s to early '90s, it was really the inland Pacific Northwest where
the action was happening.
ISAACSON: How important is racism to this whole phenomenon? And was it really white supremacists or was it that just sort of tangential to the end
times prophecy?
JENNINGS: Well, in the case of the Weavers, I mean, part of how the story was sort of processed and became a bit of a morality play about the
excesses of big government, the racial part and the sort of neo-Nazism part got scrubbed out of it a little bit.
[13:45:00]
But the Weavers were true believing, hardcore white supremacists. And pretty much all the people in their community were -- not all the people in
the community where they lived, but the community of activists with which they took part.
And I think that the theology and the white power stuff were inextricable for them. They interpreted the Bible. There was a movement called Christian
Identity, which taught a way of interpreting the Bible through the lens of race very explicitly, in which the Jews were the agents of anti-christ and
they were going to be the ones to usher in this end times government that would oppress Christians and similarly dark views of people of color.
ISAACSON: Well, Randy Weaver seems paranoid and conspiratorial. But when he gets arrested, I'm going to quote your words, it really did come to
resemble a version of every paranoiac's most outlandish nightmares. Was there some truth to that conspiracy and paranoid feeling?
JENNINGS: The Weavers, for more than 10 years before they fell under siege from the, you know, elite FBI hostage rescue team, had been saying, someday
our home will become under siege by federal agents. And we had literally filed an affidavit five years before any of this even started, saying we're
going to kill a federal agent and then in self-defense and then they're going to come and kill us all. They prophesied with shocking precision what
actually ended up happening to them. So, you can either say it's because Vicki Weaver herself was a real prophet or you can say that there is a way
in which these deep paranoias can fulfill themselves.
ISAACSON: You said that one of the most fateful decisions comes aboard. I think it's an FBI jet flying from Washington, D.C., out there. Tell me what
that was.
JENNINGS: Sure. I mean, the government made a lot of mistakes in just their failure to understand what they were dealing with people like the
Weavers. But the one that was sort of most unambiguous was this decision to revise their own rules of engagement, which is basically the written
document that says when an FBI agent can shoot at a citizen.
And onboard that jet, laboring under the misbelief that they were sending their tactical team into an ongoing firefight with a band of zealous white
supremacists' intent on killing as many federal agents as possible, when, in fact, what they were going to confront was a family cowering inside of
their cabin waiting for themselves to be killed.
They revised their rules of engagement to say that any adults with a gun, once a surrender announcement has been issued, and bearing in mind, this is
after a U.S. marshal has already been shot and killed by Kevin Harris, the Weaver's friend. They said any adult with a gun can and should be shot on
site after a surrender announcement. And the whole thing unraveled from there in really tragic ways.
But subsequently, when the government did a long postmortem on everything that had gone wrong, that was the most obvious and most obviously
unconstitutional act was that revision of the rules of engagement.
ISAACSON: How did the change in federal policies that came after Ruby read? How might that affect the investigations happening into the shootings
in Minneapolis now?
JENNINGS: Yes. I mean, the analogy between the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti and the killings that happened at Ruby Ridge are -- there's
something to them because there was this matter of qualified immunity. There was an effort to prosecute the sniper who had shot and killed Vicki
Weaver. And I think the analogy kind of breaks down after that, because that was unsuccessful. Qualified immunity was used as the federal defense
in that that sniper never saw trial.
And in the case of Ruby Ridge, I think that the scale of the government's response, if you actually look at it thoughtfully, is mostly a testament to
their effort to avoid any kind of conflict or gunplay. What we saw recently in Minneapolis, to my mind, looks more like, you know, direct carelessness,
not necessarily -- I mean, certainly among the agents on the ground, but the policy itself seems designed to stir up chaos.
I think the question of qualified immunity, what legal liability is there for federal agents who shoot citizens needs to be taken very seriously, I
think, because, as we saw in Minneapolis there, the sense that there is total immunity for these CBP and ICE officers has led to a lot of public
mistrust and obviously a lot of tragedy in the last couple of weeks.
[13:50:00]
ISAACSON: You describe that time period as I think the quote is an era not unlike our own. Why so?
JENNINGS: Well, you know, Ruby Ridge came immediately after the end of the Cold War and before 9/11. It was the sort of moment in which the American
right, especially turned what had been a longstanding sort of well of conspiratorial energy that had been directed outward, largely a global
communism turned inward and became fixated on the notion that the evil was coming from within our own federal government.
And so, it was a time sort of without an obvious foreign antagonist for people to attach their anger and their attention on. And it was a time of
sort of -- it was happening more on the fringes then than it is now. But there was a sort of populist energy and widespread conspiracism. I think
all of those things are very present in our in our current moment.
ISAACSON: You referred to it as a hard-right phenomenon, far-right phenomenon. But to what extent was it just a French phenomenon that had
very little to do with pure ideology and could be hard fringe left to?
JENNINGS: Yes, I mean, I think that's fair. I think in this case, the term hard-right really fits. These were people who held beliefs that are
commonly associated with the hard-right. They were generally deeply anti- Semitic and racist. They hated the government. They were generally Christian fundamentalists. So, all of those things, I think, are fair to
classify in this case as qualities of what we might call the hard-right.
But sure, of course, there are conspiracy theories across the political spectrum in general. I think if you look throughout American history, they
tend to have a rightward valence only because I think conspiracy theories are sort of an allergic reaction to social change. They're fundamentally
reactionary way of engaging with the world.
So, you know, their response to anything new, you know, is Social Security was met with a torrent of end times related conspiracies. The Obamacare, as
you might recall, was met with this. It's usually like large federal programs become the object of these things. Same with large waves of
immigration. You know, there are a lot of conspiracies about Catholics when Catholics were immigrating in great waves. Recently, we've seen a lot of
conspiracies about people coming from other parts of the world.
So, I would argue that while, of course, conspiracy theories exist across the political spectrum, they have historically had rightward valence just
for that reason, that their response to change.
ISAACSON: You write that three decades on Ruby Ridge seems less like a finale than the start of something. Tell me what you mean by that.
JENNINGS: Well, you know, when Ruby Ridge happened, and an important fact is it was very swiftly followed by the disaster in Waco at the Mount Carmel
compound of the Branch Divisions, where the same federal agencies were responsible for the death of a bunch of citizens in very similar
circumstances. And those two events really coming as they did at the end of the century and the end of the millennium looked like features of the 20th
century.
There were all -- you know, there was this fundamentalist ideology. There was all this trappings of neo-Nazism. There was all these aftershocks of
Vietnam. Those things all seemed like what we were leaving behind in the 20th century. But now, I think if you if you read about the Weavers, you
get this uncanny feeling that these are people of our current time. And certainly, the extent to which some of the fringier ideas of that era have
now moved into the mainstream suggests that Ruby Ridge was the dawn of our current age, not the close of the previous one.
ISAACSON: Christopher Jennings, thank you so much for joining us.
JENNINGS: Thank you so much, Walter. I appreciate it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: A fascinating story. And finally, an update on our story from last night about a helmet, a message and a ban. Just hours before he was
set to hurtle down the ice at breakneck speed wearing a special talisman, Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych was barred from competition.
His crime, refusing to remove his helmet, bearing the faces of fellow athletes killed during Russia's invasion of his home country.
A teary-eyed IOC president, Kirsty Coventry, said the rules are the rules. They're in place to protect athletes, though critics question whether
silencing the issue of remembrance serves that goal. This is what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIRSTY COVENTRY, IOC PRESIDENT: He is an athlete. And for me, I was not speaking to him in that room as a president. I'm speaking to him as an
athlete. We have these rules in place to try and be fair and also to try and allow for us to do both things, right, to allow for athletes to express
themselves, but also to allow for athletes to be safe. And I really, truly believe that both he and his dad understand that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: The safety piece is a little unclear to me, but surely this was one of those rules that was made to be broken. Heraskevych, who was
considered to be within striking distance of the podium, said he felt emptiness at not being allowed to compete.
In Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on X, quote, "We are proud of Vladyslav and of what he did. Having courage is worth more than any medal."
And seriously, IOC, isn't there a reason you've decided not to let Russian athletes compete under their own flag?
That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
