Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and Former Iraqi President Barham Salih; Interview with "Sentimental Value" Director and Co- Writer Joachim Trier; Interview with "American Struggle" Author Jon Meacham. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 18, 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)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I really want it all to end as soon as possible. Because it's very difficult. It's difficult for everyone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Desperation as Russia's war on Ukraine is about to enter its fifth year. Negotiations still going nowhere after the deadliest year yet.
I asked U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Barham Salih about the heavy toll on civilians.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We can't really talk. My father is a very difficult person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Sentimental Value," the new Norwegian family drama that's received nine Oscar nominations. I speak to co-writer and director Joachim
Trier.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. JENS LUNDGREN, PROFESSOR OF VIRAL DISEASES, UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN: We have come to realize after having made some mistakes, also early on in
the vaccine program, that it's entirely based on trust.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the Trump administration wants to model its childhood vaccine program on Denmark. But can that really work in America? Dr. Sanjay Gupta
reports from Copenhagen.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JON MEACHAM, AUTHOR, "AMERICAN STRUGGLE": The American experiment was supposed to empower all of us. And I think that's at risk.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: -- Trump's war on history. Author John Meacham tells Walter Isaacson why people must remember the American struggle.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
U.S. mediated peace talks between Russia and Ukraine wrapped up in Geneva today after just about two hours. Both sides, though, say there's progress.
Russia's lead negotiator described the talks as difficult but businesslike.
Earlier, after the first day of talks on Tuesday, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, accused Russia of trying to drag out negotiations that
could already have reached the final stage. Those were his words. But it's Zelenskyy who's under pressure to compromise. Before the talks even began,
Donald Trump told reporters that Zelenskyy, quote, "has to move or risk losing a great opportunity." I had asked Zelenskyy about that at the Munich
security conference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Are you -- obviously, I mean, this is pressure. Are you feeling the pressure?
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: A little bit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Still, Russian aggression continues unabated. Moscow launched a wave of aerial attacks just hours before this round of talks even began.
And 2025 has been the deadliest year of the war with the most civilian lives lost in Ukraine.
Bahram Salih has just been appointed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, having previously been president of Iraq. He is in Ukraine
now and he's joining us from Kharkiv. High Commissioner, welcome to the program.
I think I need to remark that the lights have gone down. There have been air raid sirens. So, the threat is very real as we talk. Tell me what
you've been seeing on the ground since you've been in Kharkiv.
BARHAM SALIH, U.N. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES AND FORMER IRAQI PRESIDENT: I do see a human tragedy. This is not just an abstract
geopolitical event. And we are on the verge of the fourth anniversary of this war. The human tragedy is real. Hundreds of thousands of people have
been killed and injured, including thousands of civilians. 3.7 million Ukrainians remain displaced within the country. And more than 6 million
people, Ukrainians, have already taken refuge in neighboring countries and in Europe and beyond.
Behind every statistic is really a life devastated, a family torn apart, a childhood disrupted. It's truly overwhelming. And this human tragedy has to
be brought to an end.
AMANPOUR: You know, I realize you're not here to talk in your political capacity. And I don't even know whether you'll answer this. But having been
a president of Iraq, of all places, where negotiations throughout, you know, so many years, particularly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, were
crucial and difficult. Do you have any advice or any thoughts about how to unlock this deadlock?
[13:05:00]
SALIH: I would say that peace has to take precedence. At the end of the day, humanitarian action sustains lives. But peace restores futures. And
there is no military solution to this conflict. There needs to be peace, durable, just peace. And for that matter, international engagement will
have to be there to make sure that the parties come to a closure to this conflict.
This has gone on for far too long and has caused so much damage, so much suffering. People need to go beyond this dynamic of conflict and war.
AMANPOUR: And as we know, this was an illegal Russian invasion, breaking all U.N. rules against invading your neighbor. You are a U.N. high
commissioner. But about the humanitarian issue that you're focusing on, let me just give you some of the statistics. This last year, 2025, civilian
casualties in Ukraine rose 31 percent. As I'd said, it was the deadliest year since 2022. Yes. Over 2,500 civilians were killed.
Now, amid all of this and the attacks on infrastructure that continue apace, 10.8 million, nearly 11 million people are in need of assistance.
That's according to the UNHCR. So, with the cuts to the U.N., not least by USAID and U.S. other funding and basically other cuts, how do you think you
can meet this moment?
SALIH: Christiane, let me also say, we are talking about an exceptionally harsh winter in Ukraine and temperatures dropping below 15 degrees
centigrade, minus 15 degrees centigrade in many areas near the front line. And this is at a time when sustained attacks on civilian infrastructure
means hundreds of thousands of people are basically denied regular access to heat, to water and to electricity. Really, the conditions are really,
really difficult, especially for the civilian population. The United Nations system and the humanitarian system is suffering serious cuts.
I can tell you, as far as UNHCR is concerned, we have requested $470 million of funding in order to provide for the emergency assistance needed
for the people displaced across Ukraine. However, we have only been able to be funded at about $150 million. So, the gap between the needs and the
available resources are really big.
I call upon the International Community to come forward. This is not the moment to look away. We need help. The people of Ukraine need help. And I
hope that the International Community will be there to help the people who desperately need this help.
AMANPOUR: And again, you're in Kharkiv, which is up to the northeast part of Ukraine, quite close to the front line, essentially, quite close to the
Russian border.
SALIH: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And there's a lot of bombardment. Can you just wrap up for us or surmise for us the attacks on the infrastructure? What have you been told?
What have you seen about this -- what -- yes, tell me.
SALIH: Many power plants have been attacked, leading to the suspension or interruption of electricity supply to the various communities. And again,
talking about the harsh winter we're talking about, this is really devastating for people and their livelihoods. And it's a real, real
problem. And it is happening at sort of escalating rates.
And you mentioned 2025 was an escalating year in terms of attacks and English civilians suffered a great, great deal. And it seems from what we
have witnessed in the early parts of this year, the intensity and the escalation is not abating. So, we have to be concerned. And this is the
moment to redouble efforts to bring this war to an end with a just and durable peace that can allow people to restore their lives and restore
their futures.
AMANPOUR: And just a broader -- to broaden it out because of the U.S. funding cuts for aid, which affects its global, you know, issues. There are
some 117 million people now forcibly displaced around the world, including 42.5 million refugees. Last year, your own organization had to make drastic
cuts. 5,000 staff were laid off. That's a quarter of your workforce. 185 field offices were scaled back. And you've just said what you're seeking
and the giant gap between what's been pledged and what you're seeking.
So, expand out from Ukraine, and you've got the crisis in Sudan, you've got a crisis basically all over the place, not to mention Gaza and elsewhere.
How are you able -- what have you -- you've only just taken up the job. What are the most urgent requirements?
[13:10:00]
SALIH: This is an unprecedented level of displacement globally. 117 people. And at a time of shrinking humanitarian space. And it's really
making our ability to deliver help to the people who need it really very difficult and deniable. So, the United States has recently offered two
billion dollars to the U.N. tool fund for humanitarian assistance. We are hoping that there will be more coming. But this is the moment I will say
for us not to look the other way around. We have to really be there with the resources needed to help the most vulnerable and displaced people
around the world.
There is one other problem. Christian two-thirds of the population of refugees in the world are stuck in protracted displacement dependent on
humanitarian assistance. That is a staggering number. We are focused on finding ways pathways by which these people could be moved from dependency
on humanitarian assistance to more sustainable responses and agency that they can contribute to the economies and the lives of the host nations that
host them.
And remember, nearly 70 percent of the population of the world live in low income to middle income countries. So, while much focus is on immigration
and issues in the global north, we have to remember that the real scale of the refugee problem is in those countries that are themselves pressured and
have huge, huge needs in their own way. But they also have to shoulder the responsibility of hosting these large numbers of refugees.
AMANPOUR: I need to ask you another question about a potential pending war in the Middle East, right next door to your own country, and that is in
Iran. You know, you obviously know, I don't have to tell you, but the war that displaced Saddam Hussein also created and triggered massive
instability, mass terrorism, mass refugee crisis. You were president of Iraq during so much of the upheaval.
What do you think another war, this time against Iran, can achieve or what will be the fallout, do you think, humanitarian wise?
SALIH: To start with, I want to say that Iran has been hosting large numbers of refugees, Afghanis, Iraqis throughout history for that matter,
as refugees. So, of course, war is a bad option. Nobody should be seeking another war in that part of the world.
I hope that there will be a political outcome, a diplomatic outcome by which security, stability, and the rights of the Iranian people will be
respected, and stability and peace across the Middle East is respected. That is a better option. I hope it will not come to war and confrontation,
but essentially the rights of the Iranian people, security and peace across the region, that is what should be at stake.
AMANPOUR: Certainly, it's in the focus because there's a massive military force gathering in the region there. Just a last question personally.
You're the first former head of state to lead the UNHCR. You're also the first refugee. You did flee Iraq as a teenager in 1974. What does this
moment mean to you to now be leading an organization that has historically helped refugees?
SALIH: Christiane, I can say that I know what displacement means. I know what losing a home, losing your friends and your community, and facing
uncertainty and insecurity means. And I also know what protection and opportunity means. I hope my story can tell that with opportunity and
protection, refugees can contribute to life.
After a while being a refugee, I returned back home, and I became in government, including head of state. I hope that this story can tell that
refugees are also people with agency, with aspirations, with ways that they can contribute.
And also, this moment for me personally means I come with the empathy, with the experience, the living experience of a refugee that makes me feel far
more responsible in delivering on the mandate of UNHCR, helping refugees with protection, providing assistance, but also helping them with beautiful
solutions so that they can live a normal life with dignity.
AMANPOUR: High Commissioner Barham Salih, former president of Iraq, thank you so much indeed for joining us. And stay with CNN, because we'll be
right back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, awards season is in full swing with the BAFTAs this Sunday and Oscar campaigning well underway. One film that's a particularly strong
contender, "Sentimental Value," with nine Academy Award nominations, including for Best Picture and Best Director. It's the story of a film
director played by Stellan Skarsgard, hoping for a late career renaissance. And it's about his daughter, an actor also protecting herself from his
toxic influence. It is a tale probably as old as King Lear and as relatable as any complex father-daughter relationship today.
And it's all the brainchild of the Norwegian director Joachim Trier, who's joining us now from Los Angeles. Welcome to the program.
JOACHIM TRIER, DIRECTOR AND CO-WRITER, "SENTIMENTAL VALUE": Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Look, it's a really a film that has taken everybody by storm, obviously the critics, obviously the awards season and audiences. And I
guess potentially because it's very relatable. I mean, it's about a dysfunctional family and their pain and their conflicts and resolution.
What is this film? You tell me what it's about, why you came to it.
TRIER: No, thank you. It is a film, as you say, about family and the family grappling with an absent father who's trying to come back into his
adult daughter's life. And I would say it's about all the stuff we don't know how to talk about. It's about how there's all this transference, all
these things that parents and children go through that there's no language for. And we were trying to make this sort of ensemble piece about those
unspoken things, I guess.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And again, Stellan Skarsgard is the lead character, I suppose you would call it. It's all revolves essentially around him. He is
the absent father. Gustav is his character. And you just explained, you know, he left his wife and his children and he went off to do his great
career, which was a brilliant career. And now, as you say, he's come back to try to get his daughter, particularly one of the daughters, Nora, to act
in his latest film that he hopes will be a great finale. Why did he leave home?
TRIER: No. So, I think the film is dealing with generational trauma. I think Gustav Borg is a man who was born in the early '50s in Norway, where
right after the Second World War. And I know this also because I have had a grandfather who was actually in the resistance during the war and
imprisoned. So, that whole generation trying to move on, trying to create a society where they leave trauma and the past behind without really maybe
quite talking about it. And that generation after, who's then Stellan Skarsgard's characters, is growing up in a home where there's a lot of
trauma that's unspoken.
And without revealing too much of what happens in the film, I would say he's also a representation of that generation, of a man who maybe hasn't
been allowed to find an emotional language to convey himself to his family and then found refuge, ironically enough, making films that turn out to be
very emotionally engaging. So, it's the paradox of this man who, on one hand, is incapable of really being close to his family, but on the other
hand is embraced by the whole world for making these humanist, loving films, you know.
And so, he comes to his oldest daughter, played by Renate Reinsve, who's an actor. And he offers her a script and says, I wrote it for you. But she
feels rather, what's the term, commodified or used, like, oh, you want me to help you finance this, but she needs a father.
[13:20:00]
She declines. He goes and finds an American star at a French film festival played by Elle Fanning. She comes to Norway to play the role of the
daughter. And before you know, you have this kind of tragic and slightly comical situation of a family trying to reconcile with each other.
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, you've just set me up for two of the clips that we have. So, let us play first this exchange between Nora, the older daughter,
who Gustav, her father, wants to play the role in his movie. Here's this little clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): You had something you wanted to discuss with me?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Yes. The film is about a young woman, a mother who -- well, I want you in the lead role. I wrote it for
you. You're the only who can play it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: So, that's his pitch. She doesn't even deign to read the script. And then, let's get to where actually, as you say, the American actress
played by Elle Fanning, Rachel Kemp, she's called in this. She then gets involved and then she has a come to Jesus about all of this with Nora. I'm
going to play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): There's one major difference. I know you think you're incapable (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, Joachim, sometimes the best laid plans, that was not the clip I was intending. However, it's a really important illustration,
obviously, about the fundamental relationship between the sisters. And I actually found that really moving. And it came very close towards the end
of the movie. And you get this real sort of connection between the two sisters and how the younger one admits that it's the older one who's, you
know, had to be on her own forging the path for both of them and how she always felt safe because her older sister made her feel safe when her
father left and her mother, you know, I guess couldn't cope really.
How interesting was it for you, the sister relationship and their relationship with their father?
TRIER: It's -- yes. No, I feel that we have several leads in this. It's a real ensemble piece. It's what I call a polyphonic story. We go between
them and they mirror each other. And at the end, we hope we have a bigger picture of what they've gone through. It started with the sisters.
It started with two adult women who had made different life choices and were asking themselves the question, why are we so different from each
other, even though we grew up in the same family? How come parents will never have the same parents, even though they are the same parents? Because
you -- because of personality, you trigger something different in them. You are experienced to grow, growing up maybe at different stages in your
parents' life and so forth. And the way that they kind of then compensate and have switched roles, we thought was something we wanted to explore.
You know, even though this is a bit of a sad and melancholic story, we also wanted it to be warm. And I wanted to make it about a hopeful
reconciliation and not kind of in the sell-out way where everyone just has a conversation at the end and it's all fine. We're trying to find a
cinematic and hopefully truthful way to talk about the good enough family, the family where you also have to accept that there has been grief, there
has been things that hasn't been ideal, but maybe there are baby steps to move forward.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and I don't want to do a spoiler alert, although I know many, many people have seen it and say how it ends up. But I do want to ask
you a little bit about what certainly Stellan Skarsgard told the New York Times. He said that -- talking about you because you, of course, co-wrote
this, that film is the last remaining safe places for weirdos and outcasts. I thought that was funny. And he described you as one of those original
people almost extinct because the system doesn't allow them to live in this world. Do you feel that?
[13:25:00]
TRIER: I don't know. That's kind of kind of him to put me there. I know that I've done six features. I've been fortunate to have final cut control,
worked with great producers and financers who understood that we make film me and my band, I call them the people I collaborate with of a personal
nature, the types of film that aren't primarily done for commercial reasons. But we want to believe in the big screen.
We are showing it in cinemas first for a long time. We want people to come to these films and hopefully experience something truthful about being
human and the difficulties of relationships and all that. And I believe in the cinematic space, you know, and I'm very glad there are efforts. This
film is, you know, being financed out of Europe primarily, where there are still a lot of government fundings and collaborations. And, you know, it's
a Norwegian film.
And now, suddenly, because they trusted us to make our film, we are the possibly -- you know, we have the potential of being the first Norwegian
film to ever win an international Oscar, you know, if we are that lucky. But -- so, I believe that the specificity of making films comes from trust
between the financial entities and the artists.
AMANPOUR: You know, it's obviously not your first film. You've done others that many, many people say are just simply cutting edge and almost have
cult followings. Are you surprised that it was this one that triggered such an emotional response or a connection amongst the critics, amongst the
awards people and obviously with the audience and got you this number of Oscar nominations, not to mention the BAFTAs?
TRIER: Yes. Yes, thank you. No, I you don't you don't plan for these things. Our previous film, "The Worst Person in the World" with Renate
Reinsve again in the lead part, we had two nominations, both for BAFTA and for Oscar. And we're -- that was completely unexpected. And now, with nine.
What I'm hoping and believe is that we are like an indie music band or something, building a rapport with an audience that they keep coming back
and that we keep making personal films and that we have a connection to an audience. But of course, you don't plan for these things. And we're very
grateful for it. And I mean, I had my education in London at the National Film and TV School and walked around those streets not knowing that I would
ever be nominated for a BAFTA. So, this is a big deal for me personally.
AMANPOUR: And you know what, I just want to read these facts because you talked about being, you know, the first international to potentially be
able to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Before "Parasite" broke the foreign language barrier and took home that award in 2020 there were only 11 non-
English films nominated for the top award in the six years since. Ten have been in contention. So, it's a small group certainly that you're entering.
But can I ask you also about frailty in the film? There's the frailty of Gustav, who's not 1,000 percent healthy. There's the frailty of the
cinematographer, who he wanted to work with him and then he saw he was less mobile and said, you know, be blamed it on Netflix as all they want to have
a say in who shoots the film, et cetera. And he himself has had a stroke in real life. And he spoke about having to wear an earpiece and a prompt in
order to be able to learn his lines. Obviously, it works for him.
Tell me what that was like. Have you had to do that with actors before? And how much effort did it take from this amazing actor?
TRIER: It was a challenge at the beginning. But as it turned out, I think Stellan was in the perfect moment to play Gustav Borg. The character that
he plays is someone who thinks maybe my career is over. He's in a very vulnerable spot. And I think Stellan as well, approaching this film, was
unsure of how it would be to play with an earpiece and all that. I didn't find it challenging.
I found him to be brave and to go even further in him exploring this character than he's done in many years. I'm very proud of him. I've seen
the struggle, and I think he did a great job.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's amazing, obviously. And the results are here for us all to see.
TRIER: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: But it's not the only foreign language film to be nominated this year. "The Secret Agent" from Brazil is also up. Do you feel that there's a
trend or a growing trend in Hollywood to actually embrace foreign language films? How do you account for this?
TRIER: I think the Academy has changed for the better. When I was a kid, staying up late at night in Norway to watch the Academy Awards, once in a
while, you would have Fellini, Bergman, you know, someone like that be nominated. And it made us or people from other places in the world kind of
proud and thinking, hey, they're taking them all into account. It's not just a little group in Hollywood. And I think now the Academy has broadened
out its membership.
And there are people from many places in the world, and it's been reflected in the nominations. And I think it makes for the better. It's now -- you
know, films even from Norway are being considered. And that makes it joyous. You know, it's fun for all of us.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: I'm just going to ask you a final political question. As you know, the Berlin Film Festival, the Biennale Film Festival last week,
there's a lot of politics, right? They started out by saying we're not going to talk politics. And then others were saying why? And we should if
we have platforms. Others said we shouldn't. You know, there are many issues. There's Gaza. There's the United States. There's all sorts of
issues.
Where do you come down on this? Do you think that that artists have the right and the duty to speak out or not?
TRIER: I think it's a personal choice. I think it's absolutely, absolutely right to speak your mind and be open and be critical of these difficult,
complicated times on any issue you want. Of course. And we should be allowed to. But I also think that for a lot of artists, we create a
language which is specific for our art. And maybe on a social level in our own life, there are things we don't know how to word or express as
accurately as in our films.
And I do think it's hard for a film to not be political. We are always talking about the implications of identity, class, gender plays into it.
And then not all films are social comment films. But there are other ways of reading films as political allegories. I'm making a film about a third
generation after the Second World War and in a very subtle way how those generational traumas are being implemented in psychological terms in a
family.
I wouldn't get on a soapbox and say that's explicitly political, but it plays with societal, the societal implication of the individual's life. So,
it's hard to avoid, I think.
AMANPOUR: All right. On that note, Joachim Trier, good luck with all the nominations and the awards coming up. Thank you so much. And we'll be right
back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: In the United States, there is tension over childhood vaccines that's been building. The health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is
pushing to repeal some -- many child vaccination laws. But health practitioners, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, continue to
recommend a full range of immunization.
This year, Kennedy's Department of Health and Human Services reduced the schedule, citing Denmark as a successful example of a leaner vaccine
approach. Dr. Sanjay Gupta headed to Copenhagen to see if Denmark's model can be copied, should be copied in the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Denmark has long recommended fewer childhood vaccines than the United States.
Babies here leave the hospital without any shots. By the time they're 12 years old, most Danish children have received vaccines against 10 diseases.
Now, compare that to the United States.
Until recently, American officials recommended children get vaccinated for 17 diseases. Now, six of those are still available, but no longer
recommended. Hepatitis A and B, meningitis, rotavirus, flu, and COVID-19. Some of those, like hepatitis B, are still a serious threat in certain
parts of the United States, but not so much in Denmark. About 6 in every 100,000 Americans are diagnosed every year with chronic hepatitis B.
Compare that to less than 2 per 100,000 in Denmark. That means around 18,000 Americans diagnosed every year compared to about 100 in Denmark.
DR. GUPTA: So, this is a referral hospital.
DR. JENS LUNDGREN, PROFESSOR OF VIRAL DISEASES, UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN: That's right.
[13:35:00]
DR. GUPTA (voice-over): Dr. Jens Lundgren is a specialist in infectious diseases. He sits on the panel that decides which vaccines to give
Denmark's children.
DR. GUPTA: Did it surprise you when you heard that the United States is trying to emulate their vaccine schedule on Denmark?
DR. LUNDGREN: Yes, I certainly didn't see that coming. You cannot just take what has been carefully thought through in one geographical location
and just extrapolate that and generalize that.
DR. GUPTA: I think part of the reason that they emulate Denmark is because Denmark has the fewest vaccines on the schedule.
DR. LUNDGREN: But you see, that's not a good argument, right? So, why do you want to contend your vaccine program against the fewest vaccine? You
want to have the right vaccines for the public health that you have in your population.
DR. GUPTA: You believe these vaccines that we're talking about on the childhood vaccine schedule, you believe they are safe and effective.
DR. LUNDGREN: Correct.
DR. GUPTA: That's not the concern here.
DR. LUNDGREN: That's not the debate here.
DR. GUPTA: So, what is it fundamentally about?
DR. LUNDGREN: We have come to realize after have made some mistakes also early on in in how the vaccine program that it's entirely based on trust.
The trust. Parents need to trust when we come with a new vaccine into the program, they need to trust that that's very sensible to do. And they would
therefore adhere to that.
DR. GUPTA (voice-over): Lundgren and his colleagues are now considering adding another vaccine, the one for chickenpox. Most Danes trust their
government. Of the world's most advanced economies, it ranks near the top. And here's the United States, dead last. Just 28 percent of Americans trust
the government.
Danish trust in government goes far beyond vaccines. Even after parents leave the hospital, child rearing looks a whole lot different here.
DR. GUPTA: I want to show you something pretty extraordinary. We've come to visit two-and-a-half-month-old Esther. Of course, we expected to find
her inside the house, given how cold it is. But instead, here she is in a stroller outside freezing cold temperatures.
DR. GUPTA (voice-over): You'll see this everywhere in Denmark. Parents swear by the fresh air for their heavily swaddled babies. The family is
waiting for a home health nurse to arrive, who will come, free of charge, five to six times during the baby's first year of life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Oh, you're so strong. Should we start by weighing you, or should we start by measuring you? Oh, am I
getting a smile?
DR. GUPTA: What I'm struck by is Denmark is so different than the United States. You're here. Parental leave. Nationalized health care system.
KENNETH SEJR HANSEN, FATHER OF THREE: Obviously, there's a lot of people in the U.S. who are not that fond of the government actually running
anything at all.
EDITH MARIE NIELSEN, MOTHER OF THREE: It's two completely different countries, right? And it's run differently and politically, governmentally.
But I would want for the people in U.S. to have some of the benefits that we experience, because I do believe it benefits me as a parent. I believe
it works. So, I basically trust the system, right, that they have decided it for me. And it works.
DR. GUPTA (voice-over): Vaccination isn't the only reason that outbreaks are less common here in Denmark. The National Serum Institute, or SSI, here
in Copenhagen, keeps meticulous medical records of all Danish citizens, helping them track illnesses to help predict and even prevent outbreaks.
DR. GUPTA: What makes Denmark's superpower this data tracking?
LONE SIMONSEN, PROFESSOR OF POPULATION HEALTH SCIENCES, ROSKILDE UNIVERSITY: Whenever someone is tested for something, it goes into one
database. Whenever someone is vaccinated, it goes into one database. It doesn't go to all kinds of places. It's one place. And then it's quite
doable to link all this together.
DR. GUPTA (voice-over): Americans might be uncomfortable with that level of tracking, but it is one of the many factors that makes the Danish system
work. It's easy to see reflections of the MAHA movement here. Danes emphasize personal health to ward off disease, and they are skeptical of
too much medical intervention. But the success of the Danish system is based on so much more than the number of vaccines parents give their
children. Nationalized health care, high trust, and a lot of strong codependence on one another.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Sanjay Gupta reporting there. And trust being the real important element there. It's just incredible to hear. While back in the United
States, measles cases in 2025 surged to the highest rate since 2000, when the disease was declared eliminated. And three people died. The first
reported measles deaths in the United States in 10 years. Measles cases continue to spread rapidly in 2026.
[13:40:00]
Now, an exhibit featuring people enslaved by George Washington must be restored in its original place. That's the ruling from a federal judge
after the Trump administration removed the display from Philadelphia's National Historical Park last month. This follows new presidential guidance
for the Interior Department to quote, "restore truth and sanity" to American history at national sites and institutions across the country.
Our next guest, renowned presidential historian, Jon Meacham, argues this is part of the administration's attempts to sanitize America's history. And
he's joining Walter Isaacson in conversation now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Jon Meacham, welcome back to the show.
JON MEACHAM, AUTHOR, "AMERICAN STRUGGLE": Thank you.
ISAACSON: Your new book is titled "American Struggle." And I thought, OK, fine. And then I realized you actually mean that. To what extent has
struggle been an animating force in our history?
MEACHAM: It is the animating force. It is -- we're a popular government, which implicit in a popular government is that people form it. We are of
different dispositions politically. Jefferson said that people had divided themselves into Whigs and Tories and haves and have nots since Greece and
Rome.
And so, partisanship, political conflict is part of the air we breathe. The issue has to be, and the reason the founders, Benjamin Franklin, your man,
and so many of those critical figures at the end of the 18th century, their great insight was that reflexive partisanship was an enemy. Reflective
partisanship was fine and what we should do.
And I go back again and again now to, in our own moment, to Alexander Hamilton's dichotomy, where he wrote in the Federalist, this is a test to
see whether reason and deliberation can take a stand against force and accident.
ISAACSON: And Hamilton in that Federalist paper too, kind of foreshadows the possibility of a tyrannical leader, right?
MEACHAM: As you know, they expected this. I think it would have surprised them it took this long. I was struck by looking at Lincoln's first major
speech, 1838, and it's a kind of -- it's a reflective address to the Springfield Lyceum. And there was this moment in the 1830s where this was
the first post-founding generation and they were worried. Lincoln called them the men of iron, and they wondered whether they would be commensurate
to the task of continuing the work of the founders. And Lincoln says in that speech that a towering genius could appear within the United States,
within the Republic, and destroy that Republic.
ISAACSON: Do you think that's what's happening now?
MEACHAM: I think it is -- we're running it far too close to the wind. I do. I think I remain fundamentally hopeful about the life of the country
and the durability of the Constitution, the relevance of the Declaration, but it would be foolhardy and unreasonable for those with eyes to see and
ears to hear not to accept the fundamental fact that illiberalism, that a tyranny of a particular partisan and personal interest is imbalancing the
Republican lowercase r structure. Absolutely.
ISAACSON: The underlying theme in the book and in the perennial struggle of america, one of the great themes, is race, of course.
MEACHAM: Yes.
ISAACSON: The Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney, really rejects that whole notion that that second sentence of the Declaration says
we're all created equal. And it is a document that inflames Frederick Douglass. And that helps set up the tension in your book, too.
MEACHAM: It does. And Frederick Douglass -- I'm on a small campaign. I'm going to enlist you. We need a Frederick Douglass memorial in the Capitol.
I don't think this is perhaps the season to do it, but I think that he's one of the most important Americans who ever lived and certainly one of the
two or three most important Americans of the 19th century.
Imagine what it takes for a formerly enslaved person, for someone born into enslavement who had to escape Maryland, to say in the face of the slave
order and in the face of the Dred Scott decision that the Constitution is a glorious liberty document, that the words of Jefferson will prevail, and
that all the powers of the earth, use a phrase of Lincoln's, may be conspiring against the black man in America.
[13:45:00]
But as Douglass said, I for one do not despair of the republic. The fiat of the almighty, let there be light, has not yet spent its force. And Douglass
is this persistent voice, insistent on the fact that he's not going to give up. Insisting that the Supreme Court for a moment may be wrong. The
Congress may be wrong. The presidency may be wrong. All the powers may be aligned against justice. And that sentence. But in the end, Douglass had
faith that its truth would march on.
And it did through the cataclysm of civil war. Wasn't easy. Nobody in our native region woke up in the middle of the 19th century and decided, hey,
let's end human enslavement, right, we had to fight a war that killed probably 750,000 people. We continue to live with the implications of that.
Out of New Orleans came Plessy versus Ferguson. Out of Tennessee came the Ku Klux Klan.
You know, our history is tragic and bloody and complicated and painful. And also, noble and grand and elevating. And it's -- but the noble, grand and
elevating moments came because individual people insisted that that sentence prevail.
ISAACSON: You quote Douglass as saying that these founders gave us a platform that was broad enough and strong enough upon which we could stand.
But let me read you something you wrote in this book. You say, it has fallen on us to repair it, to restore it, and then summon the courage to
stand upon it. However ferocious the struggle. Are we in a ferocious struggle now?
MEACHAM: Absolutely. I think that there are fundamental principles of the American experiment that are on trial. The rule of law is on trial. Due
process is on trial. Our customs and norms are under siege. Our cares and concern -- the cares and concerns of many Americans have manifested
themselves in, again, an illiberal moment.
I -- like Douglass, I for one do not despair of the Republic, but I also don't think that the experiment is automatically self-renewing. I think it
requires all of us to stand on that platform, to use that metaphor, to stand in the arena and to be willing, and Walter, I think you'd agree with
this. You have to be willing in a Republic to lose. You have to be willing to accept verdicts and facts and decisions of voters that cut into your
immediate interest.
And the thing that I worry about the most is for the first term of President Trump, I believed he was a difference of degree but not kind.
That we'd basically seen much of what he wanted to do before, perhaps not at the presidential level, but it was recognizable, right?
Then comes what I think of as the unfolding January 6th after the election of 2020, when President Trump really introduced into the body politic this
virus of distrusting and delegitimizing elections simply because you didn't like the result. And you're a historian, you know this as well or better
than I do, that didn't happen with Adams and Jefferson. It didn't happen in 1824 with Andrew Jackson who went back to Tennessee and ran again. It
didn't happen in 1960 with Richard Nixon. It didn't happen in 1968 with Hubert Humphrey. It didn't happen in 2000 with Al Gore. It didn't happen in
2016 with Secretary Clinton.
Elections that were incredibly close, but the verdict was accepted because a mature democracy, a mature citizen recognizes that sometimes you have to
lose for a season. And when you have a political order, a political movement that's fundamentally based on the idea that the leader of that
movement can do no wrong and can only win moves us back -- all the way back before Tom Paine, all the way back before the declaration.
[13:50:00]
It moves us back to the world of autocracy and kings and the whole history of the world as was running into the American Republic was largely
determined by the whims and appetites of individual people who happened to be in absolute power. The American experiment was supposed to empower all
of us. And I think that's at risk.
ISAACSON: But let me ask you about whether Trump is the cause of this or a symptom of something deeper in our society. Because you say the United
States has grown stronger, freer, and more just when it has opened its arms rather than clenched its fists, when it has built bridges, not walls. But
the sentiment, the popular sentiment now seems to be one of clenched fists.
MEACHAM: It is. And we can't dismiss the cares and concerns of those who have cast their lot with President Trump. The elections of 2016, a
significant number of folks in 2020, the election of 2024, and this particular moment clearly demonstrate that you're right, that there is an
enormous amount of unhappiness with the institutions formed by this constitutional order that I'm sitting here defending. And so, are these
institutions under siege rightly? You can certainly argue that.
You and I were journalists in an era in which, if you think about the 21st century, if you were born in the 21st century, like the students we're
privileged to teach, why would you believe in the great public sector? It starts with September 11th, the failure of intelligence about weapons of
mass destruction, COVID, the rise of Trump, January 6th, the Great Recession, school shootings and drills that implicitly say we can't keep
you safe in one of the places you're supposed to be safest. Why would you think?
You and I grew up in a world where our parents, grandparents had defeated tyranny, had fought fascism. The civil rights movement had unfolded. The
public sector had risen to the occasion. It's why the story matters so much. We have to tell this story.
ISAACSON: You tell the story in this book. It's all about the history of the struggle. You also helped publish a wonderful book by the late David
McCullough, "History Matters." And in both those books, you talk about history now in a polarized era being a battlefield itself, a source of
contention. We even see it with the administration taking some of the plaques down on the old Philadelphia house where General Washington lived,
that talk about slavery. Tell us about history as a matter of contention now.
MEACHAM: Well, the mechanics of memory matter. I'm sitting here arguing that an understanding of the story of liberal democracy from the late 18th
century through the freedom movements of the 20th century is an empowering, elevating narrative. There are those who would like to argue that that
history is different, that there were -- that are alternative narratives like alternative facts from the first term that is more valuable.
And you're also seeing with the plaques that President Trump put up in the White House, this kind of, again, kingly, kind of autocratic history, a
narcissistic history. If you read the plaques that are now up in the colonnade of the West Wing, it's all about every other American president
and their relationship to President Trump, right?
So, it's not about us, it's not about we the people, it's about him. And by controlling, by attempting to control historical narratives by pushing
aside the uncomfortable elements of our history to make it more heroic, you're failing, it seems to me, to keep faith with the people who fought
and bled and died for the country.
The men who hit Omaha Beach, the soldiers at Gettysburg, the folks on the Pettus Bridge, the women at Seneca Falls, the women who were force-fed in
the suffrage movement, they were confronting wrong and urging us to make the suffrage movement.
[13:55:00]
They were confronting wrong and urging us to make it right. If we remove the wrongs from our narrative, then we are failing to honor the work they
did and failing to find inspiration for our own era.
ISAACSON: John Meacham, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
MEACHAM: Thanks, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Important look back to history. And finally, tonight, this Olympian proved that the Winter Games can mean so much more than just
medals. U.S. athlete Elana Meyers-Taylor made history at the monobob event. After taking first place, she became the most decorated Black athlete in
Winter Olympic history. And at 41, the oldest person to win a gold medal in an individual competition. Now, beyond her athletic career, Meyers-Taylor
has also garnered praise for speaking openly about being a mother to two children with disabilities.
That is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
