The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie Podcast

The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie

387 Followers 100 Episodes Claim Ownership

CNN's Scott Jennings: The Conservative Movement's Identity Crisis

Jan 7th, 2026 4:00 PM

This week, guest host Billy Binion is joined by Scott Jennings, a political analyst best known for his viral debates on CNN, where he is often the lone conservative voice. Jennings is also the author of A Revolution of Common Sense, a new book arguing that President Donald Trump's political comeback is rooted in what Jennings calls a common-sense governing platform. Jennings and Binion discuss whether Trump's policies on such issues as tariffs, deportations, and foreign affairs live up to that description a year into Trump's second term. They also talk about Jennings' experience working at CNN, his criticisms of the legacy media, and why he feels Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are more similar than they appear. The conversation also turns to the growing civil war on the right, including recent public infighting among conservative factions and influencers. Jennings explains where he draws lines within the conservative movement, his views on free speech versus free association, and why he believes some figures are doing lasting damage to conservatism's ability to articulate a coherent set of values and priorities. The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie goes deep with the artists, entrepreneurs, and scholars who are making the world a more libertarian—or at least more interesting—place by championing free minds and free markets. 0:00–Introduction 0:59–Being a conservative at CNN 6:53–The future of media 17:01–Going from Trump critic to Trump supporter 19:53–The influence of Mitch McConnell 24:00–Limited government and the One Big Beautiful Bill 30:25–The Trump administration and free speech 39:31–Trump's immigration and tariff policies 56:45–The shortcomings of DOGE 1:01:24–Antisemitism and conspiracy theorists on the right 1:09:08–Alignment between the GOP and libertarians Transcript This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Billy Binion: Scott Jennings, thank you for talking to Reason. Scott Jennings: Hey, glad to be here. Thanks for having me in. So you've been very critical of the mainstream media, and you're also on one of the most visible mainstream media networks. So I'm wondering, what is your objective at CNN? And do you think that you get a fair hearing on those panels? Well, my objective is to participate in debate. I think debate is good. I think the country was founded on debates—and some muskets—but also debates. And I think to the extent that we can foster more debates in our political culture, it's gonna be a good thing for America. CNN used to, years ago, sort of pioneer this. You know, this was the network of Crossfire. And then we got away from it, and there's really not that much debating content out there on the air. And so last year, they decided to do this debating show. And I thought, "This is a great idea." And it's worked. I think it was supposed to be a temporary thing. And then it was so popular, they left it on the air, and it's still going here over a year later. So my purpose is to participate in debates. My purpose is to give half, or more than half, or sometimes 90 percent of the country, like, somebody who can argue and articulate on their behalf. And I just—I'm here to pop bubbles, you know? I think it's bad when we get stuck in our ideological bubbles. I meet a lot of people in this line of work who—I might be the only Republican they know. That's a bad thing, ok? This is not a good thing for America. And so that's my purpose. Do I get a fair hearing? I mean, I think I make it more than fair out there for my point of view. I mean, certainly, there are more people out there who would disagree with me than agree at the table. And none of the hosts agree with me, of course. But no one's ever censored me. No one's ever told me, "You can't articulate that view." No one has ever put a script in front of me and said, you have to do this. So to the extent that I get to do what I do and say what I wanna say, it happens every time. To that point, why do you think that the makeup is always you being outnumbered? Do you think it would be better if it were just 50–50? What do you think about that? Well, I don't know. I'm not a television producer. I mean, I think it actually is sort of interesting when you have one person, you know, fighting a mob, you know? I mean, just for television. I mean, to me it's kind of interesting. And certainly people who are of my political persuasion like it that way. They think it's kinda neat that one guy can disarm, you know, four or five people at the same time. At the same time, I think you could probably do quite well, you know, putting an even-handed thing out there. But for what CNN is trying to do and what they have done, I don't have any criticisms at all because they're the only network that actually has stepped its foot back into the idea that debates are a good thing to platform. I go all over the country. I hear two things: I love you and I love the debates. I don't care for you, but I love the debates. The commonality is the debates. And so CNN and our CEO, Mark Thompson, realized this and they decided to put some debates on the air. And most of the time, I think it works pretty well. Could you make a go of it with a totally evenly split show? Probably. But that's not what they've chosen to do. And that's…for me right now, that's perfectly fine. I do think there could be other evolutions of this and other iterations of it, but that—that's above my pay grade. How do you think the legacy media is doing covering Trump this time around? Do you think it's better or do you think it's worse, the same? Not great. I mean—no, look. I think… Trump broke a lot of people—he broke a lot of institutions and he warped a lot of things. One of them is institutional media, which has decided that it needs to defeat Trump, that it needs to subdue Trump, that it needs to finally get Trump. That's different than covering Trump. And it's been that way for 10 years. And so do I think there are people out there covering him fairly? Yeah, I do. Do I think that there are people out there who are grinding axes and basically executing on a political agenda? Absolutely. And I think—look, I mean, don't take my word for it. Look at the Gallup poll. You know, they take this confidence-in-institutions survey every year. Trust in the mainstream media is lower than it's ever been. There's a reason for that. And so I think there is a way to cover Trump where you can tell the truth, and where you can be critical, and where you can shine lights. And I think there's also a way to do it where you can appear to just be grinding an ax to fit a narrative. And I think a lot of times the ax grinding and the narrative building is what you get, right? The show versus tell quandary. Yeah. And I also think, you know, a lot of mainstream media is very insular. And they don't really consider the viewpoints of people outside of their little bubble. And that's not good either. So look, you know, I think—I believe you asked me, why am I at CNN? I believe in a free press and a trusted free press at that. I also believe in popping ideological bubbles. And I also believe that conservatives need to be represented in news organizations. So there's a lot of reasons for someone like me to do this. But one of the ways that they could reform themselves is to take a little bit of an introspective look at: How are we covering not just Trump but all conservatives, all Republicans? How do we cover that movement or that political persuasion versus our preference? And if they were able to do that, I think, and do it, you know, with a really critical eye, they might find some shortcomings in what they've done. And it would help explain why people don't trust them, or why they have fled to independent journalism or independent news sources. And it might be a little bit of a roadmap back. That is a perfect segue to something I wanted to ask you. In your book, Common Sense, you talk a lot about how the influence of the mainstream media has receded over the last few years. How have you experienced that shift? And what do you think the future of media is? Well, I've experienced it for the last 25 years in politics. You know, I'm in media now, but really, for the last quarter century, I have been a political operative. I've worked on presidential campaigns, Senate campaigns, all kinds of Republican politics stuff. I've been in public relations, and now I'm with CNN and Salem Radio. So I've seen this from all angles. And for most of my career, what the mainstream media said in a presidential campaign mattered a lot. You know, the narratives that they would strike, the storylines, the vectors—what they said mattered a lot. It mattered, frankly, more than TV ads, or the paid advertising. That just wasn't true in 2024. I mean, you think about what you heard in October of '24 about the narratives that were closing out the campaign—you know, all the Puerto Ricans are mad and Harris is going to win Pennsylvania because of it, or there's a poll in Iowa, or…You kept hearing these things. What they wanted people to believe the vector or the momentum of the campaign was was something altogether different than what was actually happening in the country. That was borne out on election night. And so what I learned in 2024 is that, probably in my career, this was the least influential the mainstream media has been in a presidential campaign cycle. Not to say that there isn't influence, and not to say that the mainstream doesn't have an impact. But in terms of overall influence, if you look at the way Trump ran around them and did all sorts of things in alternative formats, that obviously was extremely helpful to him. And if you looked at the ways Harris kind of ran towards the mainstream media—I mean, all she was really capable of doing was standard-issue mainstream media stuff. And even at that, she didn't do it very well. But she was not really capable of the unscripted, outside-of-the-mainstream. Right, the criticism of her was that she was inauthentic. Exactly. And you have to have some of that in order to participate in the new media stuff. Trump obviously did it, and his people understood it. And they kind of ran circles around it. And so they just didn't live or die by the narratives of the mainstream media. They created their own communications ecosystem outside of that. It obviously worked. And so that's why I argued in the book that it seems to me that in 2024—and I said this on election night—this was kind of the death of the political information distribution complex, which has heretofore controlled the narratives in our politics. But I don't think that's true now. We're seeing this White House prioritize some of these independent creators, smaller right-leaning outlets, which I think is interesting and good in a lot of ways. I will also say, though, some of the people who have gotten the opportunity to be in the briefing room who otherwise wouldn't have been have gotten some criticism for using the chance to kind of lob more softball questions. You know, like there was one guy who asked about, like, "Will Big Balls get the Medal of Honor?" or that kind of thing. I very much agree with you that the mainstream media has squandered a lot of credibility by being very deferential to one side—and very obviously so. And so I'm wondering what you think the right's role is in rectifying that. Well, I agree with you that it's good for the White House briefing room to be reformed. I think it's good that they brought in other people. Look, a lot of these people—and I'm new to this—but a lot of these people I'm learning have millions upon millions of followers. And they get lots of views. And in some cases, they have more views than certain mainstream outlets. Totally, yeah. I mean—and so in terms of audience, if I'm the White House—and the, you know, the White House that I worked for, we came just before the advent of social media. Bush 43 was kind of the last old-world White House before 24/7. You know, I think Politico came out in 2007 and then social media comes shortly thereafter. And so that was basically the dawn of Twitter. Right. Exactly. And so we existed before. But if you had told me back in those days, well, you have all these different channels where you can talk to hundreds of thousands or millions of people without having to get, you know, hammered by The Washington Post or whatever, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. So it's smart for the White House to do this. It's also good, because there's a lot of people that get news and information that way. So that's a good thing. You know, the right's responsibility here, I think, is to produce honest, true content and understand that we're in a moment where the marketplace is desirous of new political content. They want it presented in authentic ways. They have questions they'd like to get answered. And so my only advice would be: Do something creative. Do something authentic. Do something that's pleasing to the viewer. I mean, after all, it is a business. But do something with your time if you're given a seat in there. Ask a good question. Think of something that no one else has asked. I try to do this on the shows that I'm on: What is nobody else saying? What is the question that no one else wants to ask that would lead to a line of conversation that might be new and unique to your deal? That will enhance your position in all this. I don't want to single out or be critical of anybody who's gotten a seat in there, because I think it's good what they're doing. But if I were giving any of them advice, it would be: What's the thing nobody else is willing to ask in here that actually might be illuminating to the overall conversation? That's a good way to do it. So right now, CNN is in the spotlight with this merger. What do you make of Trump's role in the media merger and, you know, purporting to have a voice in CNN's future? Yeah, he has lots of opinions about lots of things in the media business, and that's not gonna stop— He's a showman after all. I think it is hard. He's a television producer… Right, exactly. I mean, in some of the interactions I've had with him and observing him over the years, I think he—and look, he had one of the most successful television shows out there. He knows a little about the TV business. And so I'm not surprised that he has opinions about it. And of course the federal government does have some regulatory oversight here in terms of how this goes. So I don't really know how to answer that, other than to say: not surprised Trump has an opinion. And it's a little bit above my pay grade. You know, when you're talking about this amount of money, it's way above Scott Jennings' pay grade. But I don't know who's going to own it. I don't know what it's going to look like. But do I think Donald Trump is going to continue to voice an opinion about what he sees on CNN? One hundred percent. I assume he will not answer this, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Do you have a preference? I do not. I have no answer for that question, other than to tell you that I'm quite happy with my deal and quite happy with my role. And as I said earlier, for all the criticisms of the right of CNN—some warranted—it was CNN and Mark Thompson who brought back the debating format that ultimately put conservatives in a position at CNN to articulate our viewpoint. And look, I think that show and what we've been able to do there has actually made CNN safe again, you know, for some conservatives to watch it and to come back on it. I've noticed since we put that show on the air, there are now more Republican elected officials who are willing to come on and do interviews and do things. You've been there since 2017. Did you feel like they were skeptical before of coming on? Yes. Oh, I think we went through a period where a lot of Republicans did not want to come on. They didn't feel like they were going to get a fair hearing. And I think we were having trouble booking Republicans at one time. I mean, there's always, you know, a person here or there. But now it feels to me—and I don't have any metrics to back this up—it just feels to me now like there are more Republicans willing to engage with CNN. I attribute some of that to what we've been doing with the debates, because it shows that CNN actually does have a commitment to allowing people with authentic conservative views to voice those views and not feel like they're just going to be shouted down or run out of the room or, you know, maligned for eight minutes or however long they're on there. So I'll just say, however this goes, whatever happens, it is CNN right now that's giving the American people debates. And I don't think anybody else is doing that. For the listeners who are very online, they may know that sometimes there is like a gossip cycle when, you know, when you are pictured with someone like Kaitlan Collins or something like that. Before we move on to, you know, politics in general, can you just talk about the relationships off the camera? Why you think that animates people so? Yeah. Well, first of all, the people who work at CNN—we're very collegial internally. We have a community. In fact, it's one of the best parts of the job, actually, is the people who've been there together for a number of years. We spend a lot of time together, and in some cases we even travel a lot together. My two best friends at the network are Van Jones and David Axelrod—interestingly. Staunch Dems. And I love them both and have really benefited, I think, from knowing them and conversing… David Axelrod was an Obama guy, right? He was Obama's chief strategist. Right, right, right. And Van Jones, you know, is one of the most prominent left-wing commentators, Obama White House staffer, and has been aligned with a lot of left-wing causes and organizations. But I think they're both—look, the best debaters and commentators have experience, are thoughtful, they listen. I mean, you can always tell the difference between the good and the bad out there. The people who can only sort of say what they wrote down in advance versus the ones who listen and can engage in the debate. Van and Axe are debaters, and they listen and then they can react. Those are the best kinds. But off the air, those are my buddies. And with the anchors—I mean, I have great relationships with the people that I'm on the air with. I mean, I think we have some interesting and sometimes heated exchanges, but I respect what they do. I think they respect what I do. And the community of CNN has actually been quite a pleasant thing to be involved in. I want to talk about the changing GOP. Something that's always kind of fascinated me. And I would like to preface this by saying I do not mean this as a gotcha. You know, in preparing for this interview, I saw that in the 2016 election, you weren't necessarily Trump's biggest fan. Nine years ago, correct. And you were worried that he might have some authoritarian tendencies. For the record, I mean it when I say I don't want this to be a gotcha, because there are a lot of Republicans who share that—our vice president being one of them—who has kind of had this evolution over time. And I'm wondering for you what that journey was like, if there was like an aha moment, if there was something that really changed your mind, or if it was gradual. How did that happen for you? Well, in 2016, like a lot of Republicans, I didn't really know Donald Trump other than just Donald Trump the entertainer, the businessman, whatever he was. And I wasn't trained in his style of politics. I never thought of him as a Republican political actor. I didn't know him. And he comes along, and I guess the best way to describe it is, I just was completely and totally unfamiliar with him or with an election cycle where someone from outside the party would come and take control of the party. So in 2016—my unfamiliarity with him and, you know, questions about him—I did have a lot of questions about him. I did vote for him. Voted for him three times, actually. And probably just fast forwarding to 2024, felt closer to him in '24 than I ever felt. And I'll get to why that is in a moment. But back in the early days, I, along with millions of Republicans, were somewhat skeptical and didn't really know what to make of it. I'll tell you one thing: Had he not won the election—you know, I wonder what would have happened to the Supreme Court, for instance. And that was one of my motivating things about my vote for him. I actually think it's one of the reasons he won the election. Mitch McConnell holding open that Supreme Court seat—I think this is one thing that a lot of Republicans looked at and said, you know, "I don't know a lot about Trump…" I remember that news cycle. It was very controversial. "I don't know a lot about Trump, and I'm not a little sure about it, but I sure as heck don't want Hillary Clinton filling this." And so, I mean, that changed everything. And so that was persuasive to me at the time. So, you know, Trump—there's not a politician alive that I agree with 100 percent of the time. Not even the ones that I like very much. And certainly Trump has done things over the years that I, you know, wish he hadn't done that, or I would have done it differently. The same was true for George W. Bush. The same is true for Mitch McConnell. But I'll tell you this: If he does 95 percent of what I want, and the left does 0 percent of what I want, it's an easy choice for me every time. You mentioned McConnell, who was one of your mentors, correct? I would not have gone to college, I don't think, if it hadn't been for Mitch McConnell. Why is that? Well ok, I'm a poor kid from west Kentucky. I'm the son of a garbage man and a factory worker. I didn't have much. And I got a scholarship to go to the University of Louisville at the McConnell Center for Political Leadership. They give a scholarship to 10 kids a year. I got one of them, and it's a full ride to the University of Louisville. Now, this changed my life. It changed the trajectory of my life. And so—he doesn't pick the kids, and he raises the money for the scholarship. But had that not existed for me, I don't know what would have happened to me. And later on, I did work on his political operations and political campaigns over the years. He's been a mentor. What was the most important lesson you learned from him in politics? And do you think that there was a failure of that version of the Republican Party that left open this opening for Trump? Or is that a misunderstanding of why Trump is now kind of the leader of the Republican Party? What did I learn from Mitch McConnell? Number one: focus. I think in campaigns, it's easy to chase every tail out there. You know, it's like—lots of things happen. What actually matters, and what do you have to focus on? So don't chase your tail. Focus is important. Number two, in terms of just tactically—you know, McConnell's kind of famous for: If you throw a pebble at me, I'll throw a boulder at you. And in some ways, he and Trump are actually quite similar in that. Now, they're different attitudinally…different disposition. McConnell's not a showman, Trump is. But in some ways, I perceive similarities in their desire to thoroughly destroy their political enemies in the heat of a campaign. I recognize that trait in both of them. But really, it's focus and a willingness to do what you have to do to win. McConnell never lost a race, even in a state that, when he started, was extremely Democratic. There's a reason for that. And so I really, you know, as a political operative, learned a lot from Mitch McConnell on that. Do I think he led to the rise of Donald Trump? No. I think that— I didn't mean him specifically. I more so just mean that kind of older version of the Republican Party. There was something that was missing. Oh, well, I think that a lot of people voted for Trump and liked Trump because of the way he handles our perceived enemies—whether it's the media or whether it is the Democrats. I think there was a perception, certainly in 2016, that in coming out of the 2012 election—which I also worked in—that the party had just, you know, basically rolled over to the left, rolled over to the Clintons, rolled to the media, whatever. And you talk about in your book kind of like how when you were an operative, compassionate conservatism was the response to a lot of these things, right? Like you just need to be nicer. Well, yes. But, you know, as a tactical matter, I think there was a belief among Republicans that we just sort of turned the other cheek all the time to people who were never going to do the same for us or give us the benefit of the doubt. Why should we do that for them? And look at 2012. I mean, most Republicans would tell you that Mitt Romney was eminently qualified, eminently moral, had good ideas—and what did they do to him? They called him a murderer. They assailed him for having the controversial idea that he might appoint more women to the government. These are the things that made Mitt Romney history's greatest monster. And we just did not effectively understand what we were dealing with. And Trump comes along and says, "No, no. I get it. I am going to fight these people to the end." And it was that fighting spirit that people believed the 2012 operation lacked, the '08 operation lacked, that even back in the Bush years—you know, why do you allow yourself to be consumed by these entities that exist only to consume and destroy Republican presidencies and Republican presidential candidates? So I think what Trump provided was, "Hey, whatever happens, whatever we do, I promise you I will not be consumed by these people who have eaten up everybody else we've nominated for years." In your book, you talk a lot about the Republican Party being the party that takes a stand against big government. And I think particularly emblematic of that in the book is—you talk about Elon Musk's kind of fracture with Donald Trump over the One Big, Beautiful Bill. And, you know, Elon Musk, of course, being the tech entrepreneur who was very close to Trump with the Department of Government Efficiency, leading that agency for a time before he left a few months into the administration. Elon Musk famously said that a bill can be big and it can be beautiful but it might not be able to be both. What do you make of that? The criticism, I guess, of the One Big, Beautiful Bill was that over 10 years it was going to raise the national debt by somewhere between $2.4 and $3 trillion. Is that compatible with a party that wants to spend responsibly? Well, the White House disputes that. I mean, the White House's disputing of that is: Look, we're locking in permanent tax rates. We're deregulating energy. We're creating, effectively, an engine for more economic growth, which will create more tax revenue, which will not explode the deficit. I mean, that is their counterpoint to your argument. But Elon—I interviewed him for the book on Trump's 101st day in office. And I could tell he was a little bit out of shape with Washington generally at the time. I don't think he believes he found anyone in Washington who shared his urgency for all the things—particularly fiscal—that he thought were going to lead to the downfall of the country. And he obviously did not agree with this bill. I do think maybe he had some misunderstandings about the vehicle of reconciliation and what the purpose of this bill was versus other things that he might want to do that I don't actually think are mutually exclusive. I think you can do the Big, Beautiful Bill, and I think you can also meaningfully tackle our fiscal situation. But they weren't going to happen in the same vehicle. And so, you know—anyway, I guess it's water under the bridge now, because they're back together. But I think, just to focus on the book for a moment, my impression of Elon is that he believes one of the things that is going to lead to the downfall of America is this debt that we have, and that it will lead to the devaluing of our currency, and that this will put us into a fiscal spiral when combined with mass migration, when combined with low birth rates. You can see these huge forces rapidly leading to the decline of America. That's what he believes. But a lot of it is wrapped up in the idea that we have this debt, we're not dealing with it, no one here cares about it all that much, and I'm kind of frustrated with Washington over it. Right. I edit an economist for Reason, named Veronique de Rugy, who's a very talented economist at the Mercatus Center, she wrote something along the lines of—and I would wonder if you'd agree with this, being a former political operative—"The House agrees to spend one dollar, the Senate agrees for two dollars, and then we end up spending three dollars?" You know, the idea being that somehow spending is just—I mean, what is the solution to that? Well, the one issue that we've never sort of dealt with is, three-quarters of federal spending is non-discretionary. It's basically on autopilot. And then you have a quarter of it that's discretionary. So you can adjust that and change that, but if all you're ever dealing with is the quarter that's discretionary, and you don't ever touch the non-discretionary piece, you can see how you'll never meaningfully get your arms around it. Ultimately, if you really wanted to tackle this, it's going to require some pretty massive structural changes in entitlements and other things that are effectively just on autopilot right now. That, coupled with some kind of long-term period of growth, would—in a conservative's mind—make a difference in this. We just haven't really grappled with the idea that roughly three-quarters of the federal budget is just on autopilot, and tinkering with the 25 percent is never really going to catch up on it. Totally. And there seems to be misunderstanding that you can get away with not reforming things like Social Security and Medicare and that kind of thing. I mean, it feels like a political death wish to even suggest it. You know, Rand Paul is—I feel like—the only person who's like, "Hello?" Thomas Massie, that kind of strain of the Republican Party. Interestingly, by the way, just to cut in for a moment. When I asked Elon, for the book, "Did you meet anyone in Washington that you actually think gets it?" He only gave me one name, and it was Rand Paul. Interesting. What do you think of that? Well, they're both more libertarian, right? I mean, they come from that wing of the conservative thinking. If Elon—I didn't really ask him what he considers his political ideology to be. I assume he would describe himself as more libertarian than anything. But that was the one person that he named. And then again, they tend to think about our fiscal situation in more drastic terms than the average, you know, other Republican. Or at least more drastic terms in what they're willing to say about it. Plus, you have Trump on top of all that, who's made a long-term campaign promise: I will not cut Social Security and Medicare. That's not something I'm interested in doing. He got ahead of that early on and has really never wavered from it. There was one quote from Elon Musk in the book that I wanted to see if you—I wasn't sure what he meant. He said something to the effect of: "Not all Democrats are criminals, but all criminals are Democrats." What do you think he meant by that? Well, he believes that Democrats and the Democratic Party have gone all in on protecting illegal alien populations on the one hand. And on the other hand, they have dedicated themselves to criminal justice reform that seems to be only aimed at allowing violent criminals to roam the streets and let them out of jail, and so on and so forth. So he's looking at these two issues saying, "What is it about the Democratic Party that they're coddling illegal populations and coddling violent criminals? And this seems to be where all their energy is." Frankly, I think he's onto something here, as a political matter. I think it's one of the things that's holding down Democrats' ability to rise up above where they currently sit. I mean, the image of the Democratic Party is quite low, and it has been low now coming out of the 2024 election. To me, those two issues I mentioned are a big reason why people look at them and say, "Well, you don't really seem to spend any time on just the average law-abiding American citizen, but you spend a lot of time on illegal aliens, and you spend a lot of time letting people out of jail. What are you doing for me, the person who follows the laws, pays his or her taxes, and just is trying to make it in this world?" I think it's one of the biggest anchors around their party right now. I want to talk a little bit about free speech. In your book, you say that Trump's respect for free speech is something that connects him to some of your former bosses. You said that's something that will help preserve Western civilization, which is a big theme in your book. I think Trump has gotten some criticism for not being super friendly towards free speech. A few examples being, this woman from the Tufts entering deportation proceedings over an op-ed that she co-authored, the Jimmy Kimmel thing, where the FCC had, you know, I guess there was a—and there was schism in the conservative movement over this too, right? Whether that was jawboning or not. Similar to the Biden administration trying to pressure social media companies to censor certain types of content. And then you have people like Stephen Miller saying things like, you know, calling someone a fascist—which is often an inappropriate thing to call someone—but that that is an incitement to violence, which is not compatible with, in my view, a reading of the First Amendment. Because the First Amendment is also supposed to protect, you know, kind of detestable speech. If it was just popular speech, you wouldn't have it. How do you think that the actions comport with the First Amendment? So let me just start with the Millers, because I know them a little. Stephen and his wife, Katie, have to live on a military base because they can't live in a house like you or me, because they're under constant security threat. So I'm a little defensive of them on this. I will say that's terrible. Unacceptable. And I sit at a table a lot of nights where I hear people throw around words like "fascist" and "Nazi" and "white supremacist," and so on and so forth. That's the go-to insult to people who they just politically don't like. And they often ascribe it to Stephen Miller and Katie Miller. And I think it's wrong. And so I think their perspective is quite different than mine and yours, which is, you know: Gosh, is it an incitement to violence? I don't know. I'm the one living on a military base because I can't raise my children out in the open. So that's number one. And look, I think if you look at some of the violent attacks that have emanated from the left—I mean, they tend to use the language that you just used. Either etching it on the bullets or, you know, in describing their worldview: "I'm going to get the fascist." You know? I mean, there does seem to be a connection between that language and the violent attacks on that front. I think you could pick out any individual moment and say, "Oh, what about this? What about that?" Generally, my argument is: Trump is friendlier to speech and friendlier to the First Amendment and friendlier to the press than virtually any other president in my lifetime. Look at the number of questions this man takes on a daily basis. Look at how open his Cabinet secretaries and his staff are. They're in constant, open dialogue with the press all the time. I mean, I actually regard this as a good thing. It's a transparent thing. The people asking the questions may not like all the answers, but compare that situation that we have today to the Biden years. When you can't talk to the president. And when you are talking to him, it's not—I mean, he's reading notes off of cards that his staff has handed him about who he's talking to and what he needs to say to that person. It was embarrassing. And then I'll tell you one other thing. I talked to that character Chris Whipple the other night, who— Vanity Fair. Yeah, who interviewed Susie Wiles now to great fanfare. And he was saying, "Well, you know, honestly, she's transparent, she's candid, she's blunt." And then he was comparing it to his time trying to interview the Biden people. And he said to me, he said, you try to interview them and it's like, "Well, I'll do it, but it's gotta be on background, you can't use my name, and you have to send me all the quotes in advance for approval"—the opposite of transparency. And so when I think about the way this government operates and how transparent it is to the average American—love it or hate it—it's very transparent to you. I think you can make a really fair argument that his commitment to free speech and the First Amendment is really high. Can you pick out anecdotal moments where you could make an argument that they didn't adhere to that? Absolutely. Ted Cruz, for instance, took them on over the Jimmy Kimmel thing. Now, I think Brendan Carr had a point on the Jimmy Kimmel thing. And all the late-night shows, you know, they get away with portraying themselves as, you know, the "get-the-news" carveout or whatever. And so that means they can have on 275 Democrats and never have on a single Republican. And it's kind of ridiculous. And what Jimmy Kimmel did in that monologue everybody was mad about was also blatantly false and kind of ridiculous. Is Jimmy Kimmel still on the air? Yes. Did anything materially bad happen to Jimmy Kimmel? No. And so, do I think it's ok for the administration to have a point of view about people who may be abusing their position in that way? Sure. So, you know, without quibbling over every single moment, I would say that, looking comparatively at Biden and also looking comparatively at Obama—their transparency to and treatment of the press and the media in general—far more open, open kimono, than what you got out of the last two Democrats. What do you make of some of the lawsuits, like the lawsuit against 60 Minutes, for instance? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. For listeners who don't know, he had sued 60 Minutes for allegedly deceptively editing an interview with Kamala Harris. That was his view. Well, I think his view is that some mainstream media does things to help his opponents instead of presenting information fairly to the public. And so, you know, he filed a lawsuit over it. You know, my view is, if they were so sure they hadn't done that, why not fight it out? Could part of that, though, like—you know, there is some, I think, anxiety in the business community over whether or not he will approve some of these business deals and that kind of thing. Could that be part of it? I mean, look, I don't know. I'm not those people. All I know is that I don't know that 60 Minutes necessarily has the cleanest track record over time when it comes to how they present information to the public. And look, Trump has also, as a tactical matter, said, "I have priorities, and sometimes I'm going to use the courts to enforce those priorities." He's done the same thing with universities when it comes to what they're allowing on their campuses as it relates to antisemitism and violence around antisemitism. And so, you know, look, I think if you felt real clean about this and you felt great about what you did, you wouldn't have had any worries at all stepping into a courtroom or into a deposition. Maybe they felt otherwise. You mentioned the Vanity Fair profile, briefly. I would be Interested to hear your general thoughts on it. Yeah, I first of all, I think Wiles… His chief of staff. Susie—is, I mean, incredibly blunt, transparent, and candid. And sometimes I think the chief of staff, or top sort of consigliere for a president, can say things that presidents can't say. Maybe there's a message in that. I don't think she does anything by accident. And I think everything she does is intentional and meant to ultimately serve the president's interests as she sees it fit, trying to execute his agenda and deliver messages. I don't think any of these things happen by accident. Look, I'll go back to my answer previous. Do I think it's a good thing that this administration is pretty darn transparent and has opinions and views, and they're not afraid to air those views? Quite interesting. I actually think it is good. That was my take, for the record. I don't know what the problem is. I mean, I think in Washington, it's so unusual for administrations to be transparent instead of, say, opaque and sycophantic like you had during Biden, that it freaked everyone out. But out in the country, it was like, wait a minute, she just answered questions honestly? Ok, what's the problem with that? I mean, to me, the biggest problem with the deal was the photographer. I was gonna say, the photos were ridiculous. It was terrible. It was mean-girl behavior. Exactly. And so, you know, we talked earlier about the press. What's the state of the press right now? That's the state of the press. So you get the White House chief of staff and these senior staffers to participate with you, and what do you do? You mean girl them with these photographs. I mean, doesn't that just prove to the average conservative that there's no reason to engage with the mainstream media? I mean, here the Trump people show up and say, "Ok, we'll do it, we'll participate." And you reward that behavior and that attitude with, you know, putting like a super close-up picture of Karoline Leavitt in there. I mean, it was ridiculous— Where you can see every pore. I mean, look, so the next Republican administration, whoever that is—J.D. Vance or whatever—and Vanity Fair is gonna come calling, what would you say if you were their press people? Look what they did to Trump. They're gonna do it to you too. And so I think there's a lesson in this for the mainstream media, which is, do you want engagement with Republicans or do you not? Because that kind of behavior tells me, perhaps you don't. Another interesting part of your book was the idea that Trump essentially would workshop policy at crowds. You had talked about your experience with polling and how it's very unreliable—and not very, but it can be unreliable—and how he would kind of workshop ideas, like measure the applause. Which is interesting to me. There has been some polling that has come out recently, that Americans—though they voted for Trump in large part on his immigration policy—are uncomfortable with some of the deportations and the kind of, you know, very muscular approach to them. I think the last poll that came out was from Pew Research, and its 53 percent of Americans are not so sure about it anymore, which has been steadily growing. Does that mean that he should change course? Well, first of all, I think Americans are being lied to, frankly, about what they're doing with immigration. I think there is a propaganda campaign going on out there to mislead people. I sit in these debates sometimes, and I hear flippant things said like, "Well, you know, they're detaining and deporting Americans every day," which is just simply not true. Absolutely not true. And I think certain situations are portrayed to make it look like ICE agents are doing things untoward, when, if you looked at the situation in context or you looked at all the details, you would say, "Oh, that—that's actually what a reasonable person would have done." The one the other day about, "Oh, they raided a daycare center." Well, no. They were chasing an illegal alien who then pulled into the daycare center and ran inside. And then—you know—or, "They're zip-tying children," which didn't happen. But they do sometimes separate children from dangerous situations, where they're—I don't know—in a building with a bunch of MS-13 people. So I think the way this is being portrayed is having an impact on the polling. That's number one. Number two, I think if, after 10 years, you're unsure about what Donald Trump's intentions are on immigration, I don't know what to tell you. I mean, this is the number one motivating and animating issue for this man since he started his running for president back in 2015. He has signaled forever that he intends to deport illegal immigrant populations, that he intends to close the border, and that he intends to enforce existing laws. We haven't passed any new laws on immigration since Trump became the president—zero laws. We are simply enforcing the ones that are on the books. And I—my personal view is it's still his best issue. It is still the expectation of the people who voted for him that he would do this. And again, I think he's up against quite a propaganda machine right now to portray what ICE is doing as something untoward or illegal or un-American, when in fact all he's really told them to do is simply enforce the existing laws. Sure. The poll referencing it was essentially drawing a distinction between, you know, deporting the violent criminal and deporting the gardener who's been here and been otherwise law-abiding. Do you see those as distinct, or do you think, "Oh, you're in this country illegally, you gotta go?" Well, look, I think they're two different kinds of people. And I think they are deporting violent people. Again, I think part of the propaganda of this is to say, "Oh, they're ignoring the violent criminals and they're only deporting—" Yes, they have definitely deported some violent criminals. One hundred percent, they have. But do I think there are two different types of people? Yes. I think the question for them—and I'll put myself in position as defending their position, which is: How permissive do you want to be? Because a permissive attitude on any part of it then emboldens people to come here. And I think they would argue that the permissive nature of our immigration enforcement is what led people to come here by the millions in the first place. And so when you start to loosen up on it and say, "Well, you might be ok if you came here," or "Well, this kind of person might be OK if they broke our laws"—then all of a sudden, you get back to a permissive situation where people start showing up saying, "Well, maybe I'll fit into one of the permissive categories." I don't think it's unreasonable for them to assume that any permissive attitude would immediately reopen the floodgates. So, look, I give them a lot of latitude here because they inherited a complete and total mess. The border was open. Millions of people came here. Also, look how hard it is to get rid of people. I mean, Kilmer Abrego Garcia somehow is still in the United States. The man's seen 20 judges, has an existing deportation order, and all sorts of bad evidence—and somehow is—the so-called "Maryland man" is somehow still here in the United States. All these people came here. It's very difficult to get them out. I think for a Republican voter, for someone who thinks he's basically right about immigration, I give them some latitude. I'll just say one other thing. I know he hears about this issue from people in agriculture and also people who are in trades that depend on immigrant labor. And so his base is not unified on exactly what to do. His administration isn't either. Yes. He's got different voices in his ear—internally and externally—about what to do and how to do it. And there have even been stories in the first year where it sounded like there were internal deliberations, specifically when it comes to agriculture, about: Ok, well, what do we do about this particular sector? So even, I think, in his own mind, he's probably hearing from people who are saying, like, "Well, we like basically what you're doing on immigration, but you're going to have to carve out X so that we can continue to do this kind of business." I know he's hearing about that. I don't know that they've really settled on that internally about how to deal with it. But this is a situation where Trump has a pretty large coalition. And on this issue, I think there's a lot of agreement that it was broken. There's a lot of agreement that he needed to do something about it. And there's some disagreement about, Ok, what to do about it as a prescription here. Because there are some interests inside of his coalition that probably tend towards more permissive than "deport them all." I will add with the Kilmer Abrego Garcia case—and that was initially because he was deported to a country that he was not supposed to be deported to, correct? El Salvador—he had withholding of deportation from the country, which has made this process longer than it otherwise would have been. I just—I feel the need to… And why was he—and why was—why did he get a withholding? Because he claimed it was unsafe for him to go there. OK. I mean, look, I don't want to make the whole interview about this particular case, but to the average person, this is ridiculous. The guy came here in, like, 2011 or 2012, lived in the country illegally for 13 years, at some point got a deportation order, still was somehow living in the United States because they argued he couldn't go back to where he came from. And since that moment, his lawyers, I guess, successfully have argued he's not able to go anywhere else either. That's how hard it is to get rid of one illegal alien who is clearly, you know, not an upstanding—well, citizen's not the right word. He's clearly not an upstanding person, if you believe the evidence that's come out against him in a lot of different fronts. And yet still in the United States. So, look, I see why Trump gets latitude from people on immigration. Because they look at that case and they say," I don't get it. If you came here illegally and you lived here illegally, and yet you did get due process because a judge saw your case and gave you a deportation—even if the Trump people messed up by sending him back to one country—why isn't he being sent somewhere else?" And then, at the same time, they look at a United States senator like Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who spends his time flying down there to meet with this guy. I mean, he's an illegal alien living in Maryland. This is not your constituent, ok? Like, this is not who you are elected to represent, and yet that's—you've made this your cause of the year. I think it's confusing to most Americans. I do think if there's one thing we can agree on in this issue area, it is that the immigration system is incredibly red-tapey and it's bogged down by an enormous amount of cases and not enough judges. I think that is something that would be—Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, whatever—would be interested in addressing that. Well, look—also, it's not just one judge or one part of it. In Wisconsin the other day, you had a state judge in Wisconsin who was convicted of helping an illegal immigrant—an illegal alien—in her courtroom evade ICE. And this happened back in April. And all the liberal legal intelligentsia came out and said, "Oh, this will never make it to a jury. This is an outrageous abuse of power." She was convicted of obstruction. She may go to jail for five years. So you have elected judges in certain places who think it's their job to help illegal aliens somehow evade federal law enforcement. So it's more than just red tape. It's more than just bureaucracy. It's malign actors in the system who are supposed to be upholding the laws who are helping illegal aliens evade the laws. Again, just put yourself in the shoes of an average American citizen. You're looking at this thinking, "If I broke laws like this, would a judge help me evade law enforcement?" I doubt it. I would like to think that most judges are doing their best. I know you'd like to think that. And I would like to think that as well. Unfortunately, we keep getting examples of judges who believe it's their job to upend Trump's stated policy as opposed to uphold the law. This is where I have a problem. Even if you are a judge who's very liberal and you hate Donald Trump and you hate everything he did… You're supposed to be applying the laws as written. Yes. And it seems to me that a number of judges and a number of parts of the bureaucracy have said, "Well, I'm going to put my political interests ahead of my duties to the law." That's wrong. And it would be wrong if a conservative judge were applying their views to a Democratic president. I mean, the thing is, you're either a nation of laws or you're not. And in this case, we have parts of our judiciary that have decided, "I'm applying politics. I'm not applying the law." And it's happening even at the Supreme Court. When you look at the decisions and the renderings of a Ketanji Brown Jackson—I mean, she clearly believes she was put there to be a political actor, not apply the law. And she's pretty open about that. That destroys confidence in the rule of law and in our overall judicial system. As an aside, I will say that Congress could do its job and change the laws that people are unhappy with. They could. Well, on immigration, you're 100 percent right. If you don't like that we deport people, you can change the laws. That's always my argument is that the Congress is supposed to be the one making that call. Trump has passed no immigration laws. He is enforcing laws that have existed and that he inherited. And somehow people are mad at him. I interviewed Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, earlier this year for my radio show. He's been with the agency for a long time. He told me during Biden, they were instructed not to enforce the laws. Trump simply said, "Just enforce the laws." Wouldn't most people think it was reasonable to enforce the laws as they're written? And if you're mad about it, ask Congress to change them. I couldn't agree with you more. But right now, the laws are what they are. They should be enforced. Congress should do something. On trade, I want to talk about trade. Your book is called A Revolution of Common Sense. I think some would argue that the tariff regime has not necessarily been commonsensical. Like on Liberation Day, when tariffs and that sort of thing—the tariff regime has changed a lot. It's oscillated a bunch. And that has created, I think, some instability in the private sector. You know, and also we've seen manufacturing lose jobs for seven months in a row when it was supposed to help manufacturing. How do you reconcile that with common sense? Is that common sense? So the tariff—I write about this extensively in the book. I'm of two minds on it. One, as a Republican political operative for the last 25 years from the pre-Trump era, I was not trained to believe that tariffs or taxation was a good economic model. We believed in the Ronald Reagan theory on this. This was the way the party had existed for decades before I came along—and certainly after I came along. And I write about that in the book. On the other hand, as someone who grew up in rural western Kentucky with parents who were in and out of factories and who dealt with layoffs and dealt with sort of the hollowing out of our manufacturing economy, I understand the impulse to try to do something about that, and the impulse of some voters to look at the situation and say, "Well, they told us that if we engaged in all this free trade, it would inure to our benefit. But all we've ever seen is job losses and outsourcing and so on and so forth." I also understand that. I personally lived it. So—and I also think that it's true that when it comes to Republican orthodoxy, this is the area where Trump has changed it the most. I mean, I can't think of another area where… …it's kind of 1950s protectionist Democrat vibes. Well, 1990s protectionist Democrat. I mean, look, a lot of the Clinton—my dad's one of them; I write about him in the book—a lot of the biggest Clinton guys, the union Clinton guys, are now the biggest Trump guys. We inherited all those people and some of their economic theories. That's the biggest change to the Republican platform—is Trump's belief in tariffs. I think in his heart of hearts, if he could reorganize everything, there'd be no IRS, there'd be no income tax. We'd just be a tariff-based nation. We would do everything based on tariffs. That's what he believes. He's, by the way, never going to change. Well, he's believed that since, like, the '70s. It's his longest-held belief. It's his most deeply held belief. And even though he's negotiated around the edges, he would also tell you it's not just an economic theory. For him, he would say that most of the peace agreements that he's negotiated this year have been based on the use of—or threat of the use—tariffs. He would say it's a tool of diplomacy, and it's a tool just of the projection of American power to be able to level and levy tariffs. By the way, I don't know what the Supreme Court is going to do on this. The arguments did not go well for the administration. They haven't rendered a decision yet. We'll see what happens. But I'll tell you this: If they throw it out, he'll be very unhappy. Like, it won't be pretty. If I were John Roberts, I wouldn't check my Twitter that day. So for me and a lot of Republicans, reconciling this has been interesting. Because on the one hand, it's not traditional conservative economic theory. On the other hand, a lot of our constituents actually believe somebody's got to do something about the hollowing out of middle America. And so it's probably one of the things I've had to think about the hardest, in terms of: How am I going to debate this? How am I gonna argue it? It is one of your longer sections in the book. Yeah. Well, and I think for a lot of Republicans, it's the thing they've had to sort of learn about the most and come to grips with the most with Trump. He has basically done most of what you would expect a Republican to do: cut taxes, reduce regulations, put conservatives on the judiciary. I mean, these are all things you would expect a Republican to do. On tariffs, that's the one thing you wouldn't expect a Republican to do. And so to absorb that and to learn about it—I get the theories behind it. He would sit here and argue to you that we're bringing in all this revenue, and it's going to help us do a lot of different things. And so we're going to have to see how it works out. I will say one more thing about it, and that is, what they're doing overall with the economy is not a quick-fix thing. I think people—you know, I used to have a boss years ago in politics who said, "Instant coffee ruined the world." People wanted an instant fix to a very, very deep hole. What they're trying to do is completely reorganize our economy and reorganize the way we do business with the rest of the world. This will take a very long time to fully flesh itself out. And that may not comport with what voters want in November, or what they decide they want in November of 2028. But I think what they're doing was not designed to work in 30 days. It was designed to work over years. And they would say, "Look, of course it's designed to work over years because it took years to dig this hole—for America's manufacturing economy. It took years to dig this hole in forgotten America. And it's going to take us years to dig out of it. But this is the way out." Again, the great question in politics is—whether you're right or wrong is almost irrelevant. It's whether the voters are patient enough with your solutions. And in this case, what they have put forward is a long-term restructuring of our economy that again may not ultimately comport with the

Andor Creator Tony Gilroy on Bureaucracy and the Surveillance State

Dec 23rd, 2025 4:00 PM

This week, guest host Eric Boehm is joined by Tony Gilroy, the creator, writer, and director of Andor, the critically acclaimed Star Wars series that reimagines the origins of the Rebel Alliance. While Andor is set in a familiar sci-fi universe, it stands apart for its focus on the mechanics of authoritarian rule. Gilroy discusses how Andor portrays the Galactic Empire not as a cartoonish evil but as a bureaucratic system that centralizes authority, normalizes surveillance, and absorbs previously independent planets, corporations, and cultures. Rather than relying on superweapons or singular villains, authoritarianism in Andor functions through institutions, incentives, and ordinary people just doing their jobs. Boehm and Gilroy talk about how these themes connect to Gilroy's earlier work, including the Bourne films. They also discuss how Andor approaches moral compromise, resistance, and responsibility, why it matters that fascists still care about mundane details like parking spots, and why the series has resonated with viewers interested in liberty, power, and the quiet ways systems enforce obedience. The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie goes deep with the artists, entrepreneurs, and scholars who are making the world a more libertarian—or at least a more interesting—place by championing "free minds and free markets." 0:00–Introduction 1:23–Behemoth 3:21–Andor in the Star Wars timeline 5:04–Cassian Andor's character development 12:04–The moral compass of Andor 18:31–Constructing the authoritarian regime 22:05–The reality of bureaucratic institutions 25:04–Mass media representation in Andor 31:43–Exploiting loneliness and vulnerability 37:40–Would Gilroy return to Star Wars? 39:21–Gilroy's contributions to Rogue One 42:25–The Bourne movies and whistleblowers 46:10–What is the libertarian view of Andor? 53:48–Gilroy's origin story 57:08–Themes in Gilroy's work Transcript This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Eric Boehm: Tony Gilroy, thanks for talking to Reason. Tony Gilroy: Pleasure. Now, you are probably best known—at least right now—as the showrunner behind the two-season Disney+ show, Andor. I don't think I'm overstating things here to say that it is the best piece of Star Wars media since the original trilogy, at least. And maybe even the best piece of Star Wars media ever made. That show is a prequel to Rogue One, which I think we'll probably also talk a bit about in this conversation. You were involved in the writing of that movie as well, and that's also in the conversation as the best piece of Star Wars media since the original series. You're also the writer behind the Jason Bourne movies. We may get a chance to talk about that as well. But you are joining us, if I'm not mistaken, while you're also in the midst of working on a new movie. So I want to start there. This is a production titled Behemoth, and you're shooting this—again, if I am not mistaken—with Pedro Pascal and Olivia Wilde. I am really excited about that. That sounds really cool. Can you tell us anything about the new one? It's an original. It's about movie music. It's about a cellist that returns to Los Angeles to do studio work. I guess that's about all I'll say about it right now, until we get out to sell it, whenever we do. No, it's all about music. I've been living in music for the last year, and I'm fully immersed in it right now. I've been living in California. It's a very California movie. It's a Los Angeles movie. And we're a little over halfway in shooting, so you're catching me on the weekend of a busy time. Well, we are very glad you made the time for us. That sounds like a nice break from Andor, honestly. After all the politics and the drama and the sci-fi-ness, to do something so grounded that must be nice. It's really been a great place to hide out for the last 10 months, yeah, to live in music. It's escapist for sure. That's nice. We all need a little bit of that. So let's talk about Andor, the show that is out there, that is now finished. The second and final season was released earlier this year to widespread critical acclaim. Look, there's obvious political themes to that show. This is a political podcast—we've got to talk about that. You know, one thing that came up to me, I think, as I was watching that…well, I guess we should start here. I imagine most people are familiar with Star Wars and Andor if they're listening to this conversation, but just for anyone who isn't: Catch us up very briefly on where this is in the Star Wars timeline and how this show fits into the broader overarching story of good and evil and Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader—because it kind of doesn't fit into that story exactly. Rogue One is the discovery of the plans to the Death Star that will lead to what people traditionally know as the beginning of Star Wars. This is the five years gathered around the main character of Rogue One, Cassian. One of the main characters of Rogue One, Cassian Andor. It's the five years of his life prior to that film. Our last image, our last scene in Andor, is him walking into what would be the first scene of Rogue One. So it's a five-year tranche of history right before the destruction of the Death Star, and it is a five-year period where the Empire is sort of really tightening its grip around the throat of the galaxy in the most extreme way. You were involved in writing Rogue One, which in a very similar way leads directly into the events of the first Star Wars movie. Now you're sitting down and writing a prequel to a prequel, and you have to get this one central character to the point that he's at in Rogue One, where Cassian is somebody who's willing to do literally whatever it takes for the Rebellion. There's a lot of constraints there as a writer, I would imagine, to have to build this character out. How did you sit down and think about who he was going to be five years before—or two years before—and lay out that arc? What were you thinking about? Where were you getting inspiration from as you were writing Cassian's character specifically? Well, it's two issues that you raise. One is the idea of limitations. Limitations are really good, creatively. Boundaries and limited materials or this is what you can work with. Any kind of restriction is usually very beneficial in the creative process, to fill that vacuum. I was given a five-year— The setting is a five-year piece of history that has some very specific guidelines to it. There's a few canonical markers that happen that are well-established. I guess most notably would be Mon Mothma's departure from the Senate. Mon Mothma is a character Genevieve O'Reilly plays, and she's a big character for us all along the way. There's a moment in canonical history where she calls out the emperor for something called the Ghorman Massacre. And it was never detailed what the Ghorman Massacre was, but she's— Just to clarify, this is a pre-existing thing in other Star Wars media that you had to write around. Pre-existing canonical Star Wars, exactly. So what's the frame? So that's on the calendar. I have a couple of other events on the calendar. Things have to sort of line up. So that's the setting I'm given. And then, dramatically—I mean as a creator, as a writer, as a dramatist—Cassian Andor in Rogue One was sort of an all-singing, all-dancing, brilliant warrior-spy. I mean, he kind of has the full complement of skills. There's nothing he sort of can't do. He can lead; he can seduce; he can lie; he can plan; he can adjust. He's an assassin. He can fly. He does all these amazing things with a great deal of low-key commitment— a very casual, comfortable vibe to it. There was no backstory for that character before. He never existed before. So, dramatically, my approach was to say, "Well, if we're going to go back five years, why don't we put him as far away from that level of competency and commitment and accomplishment as you could possibly get? Let's take a roach and turn it into a butterfly, essentially. How far away could you take him from where he'll end up to make that journey interesting?" That's my approach to how I did it. He's an entirely fictional character, and it's completely free-range what I want to do with it. But I have to put him in the maze of that very specific canonical framework and the rules of Star Wars and the cosmology of it that already existing, and the geography that's already existing, and the calendar. So I roll them back and find out who he is, back five years ago, and it's sort of a wind-up machine and you let it roll. You mentioned that constraints can be really helpful creatively. One of the other interesting things about Andor is that it sort of leaves aside—maybe not entirely—the mystical side of Star Wars. There's a sort of soothsayer, fortune-teller-type character who pops up in the second season there, right? So there's a hint of that. But you really left that aside. Was that something else you decided to do deliberately as a constraint for yourself? Or was that just a result of, "Hey, look, there's so many characters in this story already we can't also have a bunch of Jedi pop up somewhere?" You have to think of Lucasfilm and Star Wars—I've said this many times before—as sort of like the Vatican, in a way. I mean, it has a curia, and it has a whole bunch of cardinals of various… Our attitude was: we're gonna take the Latin Mass out of the church. So we're gonna do it a different way. That was the mandate. One of my original questions to them, to the experts there, was, "In the galaxy—in this huge galaxy—how many people would have ever encountered a Jedi? How many people would ever know about the Force? How many people know about this family you keep rotating these movies on?" And the answer is: nobody, or almost nobody. If you're living in the galaxy, if you're a being in the galaxy, you've probably never had any encounter ever with Jedi or even know what it is, or the Force. So that was my intention. Probably in the beginning, I was never, ever, ever gonna touch on the Force. We're certainly gonna do a show without lightsabers. And we'll certainly do a show that doesn't have anything to do with the same bunch of people that you've been dealing with all this time before. But the Force… We worked on the show for five and a half years. Coming into the second season, there was a really cool way to touch it and have it help us and have it enhance our story. And I think really gets a fundamental emotional feel for it as well—I mean, something that felt of value to me. So we touched on it. I liked the way we ended up doing it. A lot of discussion went into it, a lot of finessing of it. But yeah, we do touch on it a little bit. But as I said, the concept of the show was to put it in the kitchen and get it out of the dining room, and just talk about what happens when authoritarianism and fascism comes kicking down your door, ordinary people, and you're forced to make a choice. A lot of people in the show are forced to make choices because of events. And that doesn't really involve lightsabers, and it doesn't really involve a spiritual dimension that will help you. There's something that I actually wanted to ask you about that I think you're getting at right here. You did an interview with Ross Douthat at The New York Times a few months ago, and something that came up in that conversation but sort of got glossed over was: You described yourself as a moralist. You said when you start writing characters—I don't remember if you were speaking specifically about this show or just more generally—[you are] "a moralist." And that sounds like what you're talking about here: that there is a moral compass to this show, to Andor, that the characters are dealing with. It's not necessarily a religious or metaphysical one, right? They're not contacted by the Force and told to do something or not do something, and then making a choice. They're making choices for sometimes political reasons, but oftentimes like moral, calculated reasons here. That was an interesting interview, because he was really trying to pin the show down and pin me down. And to analyze it in a way, but certainly put it in a place where I didn't feel comfortable it should go. I think it's two different things again. One is what my job is as a writer and, again, as a dramatist. You have to just completely inhabit the people that you're writing about—in a generous way—to do it. You have to live through them. If you're writing anybody, you have to get inside them. Everyone's the hero of their own story, and everybody believes what they're doing. I really wouldn't want to… I'm trying to think. There have probably been characters over time that I've judged as I've been writing them, a little bit, but it's really not a great place to be. I want to be free to let them all let their freak flags fly. But I think when you're talking about the moralism, it really came around from him trying to push me into a left–right definition of the show. And I don't see the show in that context. I mean, I know what my politics are, and they're certainly left. But I don't think the characters in the show are ever advocating monetary supply or social safety net or better schools or less drug laws or whatever issues. No one's ever talking about what they wanna have, where they want to get. There's no list of demands. I found that conversation ended up pushing me to a place where—it wasn't a big revelation to me—but what I really do think is universal to the show, and what I really can stand behind as an ideology in the show is it's the destruction of community. And the parallels that people have found in the show—which made all the conversations about selling the show when it was coming out so interesting—and why we ended up in some pretty complicated conversations along the way. What do I wanna say? The parallels to what's happening in our world right now are even beyond moralistic, I think. There's an essential decency aspect to what's happening politically in the world right now that I don't understand. There is a personal decency aspect to what's happening in the world that I don't understand. There is a giddy rush—you'll see people cravenly move toward power because it's gonna benefit them, or it's warmer there, or they have no spine or moral commitment to really back up. What we're seeing now is on a level that I'm not sure… I don't know when the parallel is. People getting on board something—getting on board a train that's on fire that they know is heading toward a cliff. It's just amazing to watch the sort of giddy rush of people stripping off their clothes and jumping onto the fire here. It's quite amazing. And I think that's provoked in me more of a realization that—surprisingly, I mean more than—I just feel there's a level of decency and compassion that's worth fighting for. Were you surprised to see the response to the show being read in such… I mean, it's obviously a show with political themes, but being read as such a commentary on modern events? Oh, we saw that. We did the first season and that was just sort of done in a vacuum. That was done as per just trying to live and get through the show and make it happen. By the time we were in the second season and developing it—and, you know, the Trump resurgence was coming back—as we were finishing the show, it takes two and a half years to do the show. As we're finishing and watching the election coming up, we're going, "Wow, are we heading for a highway collision here or not?" I would have been well pleased to not have the level of synchronicity that we had. As it started to happen—what can you do? It presented complexities for Diego and myself and some of the actors who were out selling the show, because we had to sell the show pretty hard for about six months. It made some of these early conversations very difficult, because we really didn't wanna get… Disney has a lot of money invested in the show, and the Star Wars audience is rather large and complicated and probably includes all kinds of different people. We didn't want to have anybody to tune out. We didn't want to have anybody turn off. We didn't want to make it seem like we were spinach. So we tiptoed our way through the beginning of it. I think over time we gradually just couldn't not face what was happening in front of us. I want to go back to something you said about the destruction of communities as that's sort of a hallmark of authoritarianism. That comes up very clearly in the show—with Ghorman most specifically. But also, one of the arcs I really enjoyed was Bix, who kind of goes off after the first season and is sort of hiding out. You might even read her character maybe as an illegal immigrant doing farm work on another planet, right? And yet even— It's obvious that's what they are. Right, and the Empire comes for her too. The way you've crafted this authoritarian regime as one that just becomes increasingly difficult for people to get away from. Yeah. I mean, this is a period when the Empire is consolidating, as fascism does. In the very first episode, five years back, the inciting incident for the show is that Cassian Andor goes to a pleasure zone on a corporate-controlled planet, looking for a rumor that a long-lost sister may be working in a brothel there. And he's forced—really, by two funky, corrupt cops—they basically try to shake him down and an accident happens, and he kills them. Not intentionally, but he has to. As that rises up, that bubbles up to the Empire's notice, they use that as an excuse to nationalize that corporation, which is, you know, the classic fascist model. What are they doing on Mina-Rau, which is the agrarian planet where the Keredians have gone to hide—our people from season one, the few we brought over? What are they doing there? They're doing a big audit and a big top-down accounting of their agrarians' food supplies, because they're taking larger control of everything. So they're just tightening everything. And, you know, the Death Star is meant to be the final turn in that screw. Yeah. And obviously the Death Star is hanging there in the background—metaphorically, and also literally I suppose. At least in Rogue One, it's there. But what is fascinating to me about Andor is that you've taken the Empire—it has Darth Vader and the Death Star and these terrifying things that are almost cartoonish. They're scary, yes, obviously. But you've created an Empire that is this authoritarian surveillance bureaucracy, and in a lot of ways that is more terrifying, I think, to me and to other people that I've talked with who watch the show. Why do you think that is? Why is it that seeing the inside of this bureaucratic institution—full of grain audits and takeovers of corporations—in some ways seems actually scarier than a planet-destroying superweapon? Anything real—anything that you can identify as reality—is going to be more emotionally connected and more terrifying, or funnier, or more poignant to you. And you know it from any kind of show that you ever watch. There's all kinds of lenses that we put on when we watch things. We're such sophisticated viewers of narrative at this point in our lives and in our culture and our history. I mean, we're the most sophisticated. People could argue that we're living in an idiocracy, and that the general IQ of political emotional literacy has deteriorated. There is no denying that even the lowest common denominator of that formula has consumed more narrative in their life than any 150,000 people did 100 years ago—and a million times more than anybody did. You've been consuming narrative your entire life, and you have a incredibly sophisticated series of filters with which to watch it and how it comes at you. Something that really feels real, something that you recognize, is always going to just dig a little deeper. Our show is always trying to be real. It's always trying to be—what the motivations… And behaviorally, our fascists are worried about their parking places. Our fascists are worrying about whether they're going to get to the commissary in time to get the fresh cheesecake. Our fascists are worried about the person next to them getting ahead of them, or failing to hit their numbers on their quotas. It's very recognizably empathetic for the audience in that sense. Hannah Arendt, I think, said that the sad truth is that most people who do evil things never make the honest choice or the actual choice to do good or bad. And that seems to be, for the most part, what the world you've created here reflects that, right? Part of the success—or part of the game plan—of authoritarianism or fascism, when it's played well, is to create an environment where people will forget, willfully forget, about those things because, "Oh, it's not me," "I was only taking orders," "I was asked to do this," "Everyone's doing it," "It's the system." That inoculation is the hallmark of really successful authoritarianism bureaucracies. Yeah. You talk also about narratives and how we're inundated by them. I noticed that Andor also had a form of mass media, which is something I don't think had ever been in Star Wars before, right? But there is propaganda. There's cable news in this show. Why did you make that decision? Is that a commentary on what you were just talking about—about the inundation of narratives and how that changes the way we look at the world? It changed how some of the characters in the show viewed a conflict that was taking place there. Well, in season one, if you go back to the destruction of community—the destruction of familiarity—the planet Ferrix, which is where Cassian is from: When they come in and look for him, the place rises up. That place is destroyed, basically by fiat, by bad timing, by accident. He then goes to Mina-Rau, which you just said before. They hide out in this agrarian society there, and we watch them come through, and we watch that get torn apart. The main event—if there is a main event in the second season, because the show is so abundant—but it's the Ghorman Massacre. And it's the destruction of Ghorman. As I said before, I had this thing on the calendar for Mon Mothma—this Ghorman Massacre—but it was unarticulated and undescribed. It was a free thing to play. So we invented Ghorman: We invented the planet, the culture, the history, a language, a national anthem, a wardrobe, everything. The whole culture we built. You've seen them destroy Ferrix, which was kind of a "leave-us-alone" salvage enterprise. We've seen them destroy Aldhani, which was a colonial, indigenous people—you could put the Lakota Sioux in there if you wanted to. You could put the Zulus. You could put anybody you want in there. But it's destroying an indigenous society that's not capable of fighting back. We've seen them go after Mina-Rau. We wanted to see something really substantial. What happens when the Empire really has to take down something really substantial—a political force, an economic force? And Ghorman is a really successful. They manufacture all this material, clothing material. They've done it for centuries. It's very bourgeois and very established and politically powerful. So to take them down, you can't just—you know, what's the new weapon that's required for that? That's propaganda. And that hadn't really been done in Star Wars that much before. There was a HoloNews Network that's already canonically true, and we thought, "Well, this is how they do it." In the very first episode, we have something very much like the Wannsee Convention. I don't know how many people in your audience are familiar with the Wannsee Convention, but the Wannsee Convention is where the Nazis—basically over a PowerPoint luncheon, right outside Berlin, about 15 to 20 people—got together, and over lunch and some herring and some Sachertorte set out the detailed logistical plan for the Final Solution over a three or four hour luncheon. And they kept great notes. And they had their lawyers there. And the logicians were there. So we wanted to do that. So we see that the plan for the destruction of Ghorman has happened long beforehand. It's been a long-term plan. And one of the key components is to turn the galaxy against Ghorman and make its destruction seem not only inevitable, but a wise choice. And so propaganda is really part of that. And state-owned media is clearly the way to go. And the show plays with that concept. Syril ends up being stationed there, has conversations with his mother. His mother's perspective on Ghorman is obviously one that's been influenced by the propaganda. He's seeing something different on the ground. And I thought that was a really interesting moment for a character that went through some really interesting evolutions. Syril is a guy who's kind of lonely and looking for meaning, and ends up as part of this imperial machine. Ends up kind of trapped by it. If a different set of circumstances happened, he seems like the type of character who could have stumbled his way into the Rebellion too. I don't know, am I overreading that? No, you're right. I think that's what makes it so tragic. That's what makes his character so complicated and so fascinating to write—and so fascinating for Kyle [Soller] to play—and so heartbreaking. No, I agree with that. I think he's a fantasist. I think he's a romantic. I mean, look, so many people are looking to belong to something, right? The need to belong is really primary for so many people. So where do you belong? And he's found a place to belong that probably—and this may be true for a certain segment of the people that become legitimately fascist or authoritarian—there's a lot of chaos, emotional chaos, in his life. You see his home life. I think the world is very challenging for him, and in a chaotic way. If you become the thing that you're afraid of, it's a great way to pretend you're inoculating yourself against it. Why do so many people who were abused as children become child abusers? How do you become a monster? If I become the monster, I don't have to be afraid of it. I'll be part of it. I think he sees that. I think part of him also has fantasies of dreams of glory. I think he really is a romantic in a way. So I do believe—and always believed—that he was available for all kinds of ideas and had just chosen the wrong way and committed to it. What you see in Ghorman, as the show goes on, is we watch someone who's really, really deeply committed having those scales torn away—in a very explosive fashion. And he just doesn't have time to process the alternatives. Yeah, he doesn't quite have a chance to get there. There's a lot of talk and commentary in the media about the loneliness epidemic, or about people who are searching for meaning—even in a very prosperous, very successful, generally very free country like America. Does that prime the pump, if you will, for authoritarianism? Do you worry about that? Is that something you were trying to say with that character? Or is that something you thought about as you were going back and writing him? I'm not sure. I mean, as you're saying it—yes. I fundamentally do believe that. There's a terrible scene with him in the first. He moves back to his mother's house in Coruscant after his whole police career blows up, and he's in the room that he grew up in. He's all by himself with his crazy mother, and he's got his little figure there. We had a thing where like the sun passes by his room in Coruscant, and it reflects off a thing for like a minute every day. And you just see him alone. Yeah, I don't think I've ever written those lines that go to that, but it's absolutely true. I do think that isolation and loneliness almost always lead to vulnerability of choices. I think social media, I think isolation, I think what's happened economically in America, and the fragmentation of media, the lack of a common narrative—even lack of a common entertainment experience in a weird way—has led to the rise of MAGA. I thought the show went out of its way, like you're saying here, to sort of establish the loneliness of that character. We also have to mention Dedra Meero, since we're talking about Syril. The sort of other— Not a romantic. Not a romantic. Very different. But in some ways, she is also trapped by this machine, and much like him, doesn't really realize it, I think, until—I mean, obviously until it's too late. She's the victim, in some way, of the Empire. Maybe even more so than the overt targets of the Empire are. Right? What does she say? When Syril's mother asks her: "Well, I don't have a family. My parents were criminals." She always says the five: "My parents were criminals. They were arrested when I was three. I was raised in an Imperial kinderblock." So she has been a child of fascism. Again, what's the thing you're afraid of? Become the thing you're afraid of. What's it like to be three years old and have your parents stripped away and be put into a state-run… God only knows what an Imperial kinderblock is really like. We didn't write that. We can imagine what that would be like. But I think she does not have a wavering belief system. I think there's only one path that she's driving. She may have doubts by the end of the show, where we end up. And she certainly has time to think about it now. But I don't think she's been living in doubt along the way. There's one path she's chosen that's been offered, and she's gone for it. So many characters and so many arcs here. We don't have time to spend a lot of time with all of them. Was there a favorite one for you to write in either season? Or was there a certain character… I can't say that, I really… Was there a certain character that revealed something to you that you were surprised by as you were writing? That is one of the perks of the job, is that you find out what you think when you write. Everybody knows that who's ever written anything. If you tell people to write and they start to write, it's always fascinating. Because they'll come back a month later, and you find out what you think when you write. You can find out a lot on a barstool or in a coffee shop or in a conversation like this, but I think I found the most of what I believe when I'm actually alone with a keyboard and writing for something else. So the whole thing has been illuminating. And then—it's very weird—this happens on everything. The first time I went out to sell a movie that I directed, I'd worked on the movie for like five, six years to try to get it made and make it. And you're selling it, and you're out, and you go out and you start to talk about it and do things like this. And you kind of find out why you did it—after you did it. I find the junkets and interviews and stuff afterward, it's sort of a forensic reveal. Like, "Wow, I didn't realize I did this show for this reason, or I wrote this movie for that reason." So there's some of that. You want to be finding stuff all the time, or why would you do it? So do you think you've found something more about Andor through the process of selling it and talking about it for the past year? I have. I mean, the idea of being a moralist—trying to put the show in the context of everything that I had done before. I think there's a consistency in my work that you're unaware of. Even what I'm doing a movie about music, and then my son said to me, "Gosh, look at the Cutting Edge." I'm always dealing with economic disparity. Even in Cutting Edge, even in a rom-com—the first thing I had—there's an element of class struggle in there. So I think there's a consistent through line, weirdly, through all. And there's no consistency to the kinds of projects. If you put my credits up in a row, they don't really make a lot of sense. But I do think I can feel myself all the way through there. That's probably a great place to transition to other topics. But before we leave Andor, I did want to ask: Would you ever go back to the Star Wars world again? I don't know if Disney has approached you to ask about that. Would you be interested at all, or have you told the story that you wanted to tell there? I spent a year on Andor, and then this was like six years. We did 24 hours of the show. The way we think about it, we made eight Star Wars movies in five years. That's essentially what we did. We really made eight full films, and that's a lot. And I think it's hard to imagine the circumstances that would lead me to go back, but I would never say never. But it was a gas to do. I doubt I'll ever be prouder of anything I ever do. I'm very proud. We're all very proud of it. We're not just proud of what we ended up with—we're proud of how we made it. We're proud of the community that we built doing it. We were proud of the process that we had, our efficiency. It was a lifetime achievement, I think. And it must be really satisfying to tell a story and know that it's done. In TV, so often that's not the case. I think that's why the show is good. That's one of the things is that we knew where we were ending. And I think knowing where you're going—I can't imagine working on a project and not knowing where I was going. There's a lot of great things that have happened, and you've seen a lot of shows—and they can remain nameless or not—where people start something and it's a really cool idea, but they don't know where they're going. And if they don't figure it out in a decent amount of time, it turns into mush. I was a big fan of Lost back in my younger days, so I am very familiar with that feeling. We're not going to really have time to talk a lot about Rogue One here. I know you were brought into that process—I mean, Andor wouldn't exist without Rogue One. You were not part of that process, if I understand correctly, at the beginning. You were kind of brought in midway through. This is just a pure writer question for me, but being dumped into that and asked to do whatever work it was that you did to move that script along and into the final form that it took—what was that process like? I know you've described yourself in the past as not really a Star Wars guy. You were coming in somewhat cold, and then it turned into this, you know, three-project-long… It's very different, though. I mean, the side hustle for a successful screenwriter is weekly work and doctoring work and rewriting and repairing. So you have two different— Andor is a completely original. I take full ownership from the first minute to the last minute. It's all mine. I'm absolutely invested. But Rogue One was completely the opposite. And I've done a lot of work like that—a lot—like a lot of screenwriters before me, where you come in and there's a huge problem. And you're just basically…script doctoring is the most apt term. Because you're just coming in. The less emotionally connected, or the less territorially connected, you are to the material—in fact, really, really cold-blooded disdain for what's happened before is often the best approach. You just come in cold. I mean, you don't want your heart surgeon to really give a shit about anything else other than what's on the table. So I mean, I've done a lot. That's a big side hustle for successful screenwriters. And I came in on that job like that. It morphed into something else over time, and I don't really—I've said everything I want to say about that. But it was a completely different experience in terms of my commitment to it. Yeah. I know there is still a great deal of speculation out there in the fandom about what the original draft of that movie looked like. I can't imagine that's something you're able to or want to disclose here, but like I have to ask for the sake of asking: What were the changes that were made in Rogue One? What elements did you add? Was it Cassian? What was the through line? I won't. I'll only say that the easiest way to say it is: Writers Guild arbitration is a very… Who gets credit on a screenplay is a very articulated, legal, and important process, and something that screenwriters argue and bicker about all the time. There's a threshold for coming in on a rewrite where one has to contribute a certain percentage to get a credit. The easiest thing to say is that I came in after the film was finished, and I have a full screenplay credit on the film. So I'll leave the rest—the math—to somebody else. Fair enough. We'll leave it there. Let's talk about some of the other things you've done in your career. I just went back and watched, actually, the Bourne movies to prep for this conversation. And The Bourne Ultimatum really stood out to me as one I wanted to ask you about. Maybe this is just the libertarian journalist side in me, I don't know, but amid all the car crashes and the awesome fight scenes and the special effects and all the great action sequences that are happening in those movies, one of the most pivotal scenes happens at the end of Ultimatum, when the assistant director of the CIA makes the decision to fax some information about the assassin program to someone. We don't know who gets it. We don't know where it goes. We just are left to assume. And there's this sort of confrontation that happens over a fax machine in a small office in the center of the CIA's headquarters in New York or whatever. Maybe it's because I've seen Andor now too, and I'm thinking about conflicts of interest and drama within an authoritarian bureaucratic regime or something like that. But that stood out to me as this important moment in the movie that comes well before, you know, Edward Snowden or anybody like that was leaking secrets. Was that scene something that stood out to you at the time of making the movie? Am I overemphasizing the importance of that? Or is that moment saying something about the way in which—in the same way that Andor is—kind of the way in which these regimes contain their own destruction, in a way? I think you could probably do a whistleblower film festival if you wanted to. I don't think there's anything wildly new about that. I think maybe what you're recognizing is, in general, it's an approach. And I think probably if you go back to the beginning of our conversation. My approach is really small. Really, really small. Start small. All these big things will take care of themselves. It's really what happens right now, and what's happening between these two people? What's happening at this meeting? If you go in to try to make a movie and say, "I want to do…" Use Michael Clayton for example. "I want to do a movie about evil corporations and pesticides and legal malfeasance." If I tried to write a movie with that as a starting point, I'd sit here forever and never get anything. Ever. I start with like, "Oh, man, there's a lawyer. You know what? They have these lawyers in these law firms that fix things. What's that guy's life like? What would that be like? What would he fix? How would he be treated at the law firm? How will the other lawyers deal with him? What comes out of that?" I really start just lighting safety matches. I'm not making a bonfire. I'm just trying to light little kindling on the thing and what happens. I trust that my opinions, my worldview, my attitudes, my obsessive gathering of information over time will lead me someplace ultimately larger. But I don't want to ever start larger. Arguing over a fax machine is right in my wheelhouse. A small thing that has great significance is really valuable to me. And it's a pivotal decision that, as you say, is over ultimately a relatively small bit of action in a movie that's consumed by much larger, more impressive action sequences. Pushing a button on a fax machine doesn't really add up. But yet, that's kind of the most consequential decision that anybody makes. I want to ask you a question. What is the libertarian view of Andor? What's the libertarian interpretation of Andor? I can tell you that you have a lot of big fans here at Reason magazine, at least. But I think I see it as a story about anti-authoritarianism and about the— You know, we talked earlier about the morality or the political compass of the show, right? I agree your conversation with Ross was, like, left-right doesn't make a lot of sense. But the libertarian perspective here would say, "Yeah, sure, a left-right dichotomy is the wrong way to look at the world anyway." It seems to me—I'll throw the question back to you—is it that the political compass on Andor is more complex than that? And it seems like it's more of a moral compass to me. It's like: How far are different people willing to go before they are radicalized or they're willing to fight back in some way? That takes different forms for different people. Right. I mean, that's human and universal. I know libertarianism… What I know about it probably has a lot of gaps in it. But no, I'm just curious. I was trying to think before we came on this morning—how the show lines up with that? For me, I can just say—I don't want to speak for all libertarians—but showing the cracks and the problems in a bureaucratic machine is something that you don't see enough of in media. One of the things we talk about a lot in libertarianism is that when people go into government, they don't become angels. They are still human beings. They still have the same basic incentives that any human being has. And that's why I think Syril and Dedra stood out so much to me. Their characters are responding to real incentives. They're not evil bad guys in the same way that, you know, Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine are evil bad guys for these huge, metaphysical reasons. They're doing what—I think you said earlier—they're just doing what puts food on the table. Or they're doing the thing that seems like it makes the most sense to them at the moment. The Bureau of Standards, where he works, is really the total libertarian nightmare, isn't it? Yeah—just like the endless rows of desks. No, no, no. All right. No, I'm just—I am curious. OK, cool. I think that would definitely be our reading of it. And I think it stood out. Something else I had on my list to ask you is this: So much media with a political message to it seems like it's hackneyed or boring or just too obvious. And I think the various ways that people read Andor and found some meaning in it—whether it's the libertarian interpretation or something else—it must be, to your point earlier, because you're starting by writing these characters in these scenes. You're not going into this thinking, "I'm going to make a statement about the ways in which people oppose authoritarian regimes." I want you to care about the people before they tell you how they got there and what they believe. No, I really need you to be deeply invested in them, and then you can decide if you trust them or not along the way. It's the behavior. If I'm writing a libertarian character—someone says, "You have to write"—my first instinct is not, "Well, Jesus, I have to find out all about the specific… What's the spectrum of libertarianism?" And it is confusing in some ways. You have libertarian MAGA. How do those people—how do you deal with church and state? I have all kinds of questions. I'm sure there's a lot of different parsing that goes into your community, I'm sure. But my interest is: What leads somebody personally? What happened? What's leading that person? What led you to this? And why are you there? And what are you getting out of it? How shaky is it for you? Those are the things that interest me. Yeah. And it's interesting too—again in Andor, not to just constantly be pulled back to Andor, but it's a fascinating show—you've got these different factions that form the Rebellion, right? And because we know the future of Star Wars, we know they will all eventually come together and successfully fight the Death Star and all of that. But they've got different incentives. They've got motivations. Some of them are more violent. Some have ideological differences with the Empire. Many of them are just motivated by politics or economics. Finding that Luthen being the one who's kind of trying to thread that needle is a really interesting… Now he's your real bureaucratic revolutionary accelerationist. Saw Gerrera's an anarchist, basically, I think. I think he's pretty much—as he says—the only one with clarity of purpose. But he runs down a whole list of other factions that he thinks are foe. But yeah, fascinating. Yeah. There's a paranoia that inhabits some of your stories here, and this goes beyond Andor—this goes to the Bourne movies too. There's definitely a sense of paranoia that is embedded in those movies. Are you a paranoid person? Or do you think that's just a sensible way to think about authoritarian regimes, whether it's the Empire or the CIA? Just to always be worried about what they might know in their sterile rooms? I would say that the overwhelming wheelbarrow of history would be on my side here. I don't think it's paranoia. I think it is reportage, really. I'm an anticipatory human. I think I have a very—I mean, look, I get paid for a couple things. I get paid for being a grinder and working really hard. I get paid for the discipline of having figured out how to make people come alive and write shootable scenes and understand the structure of how stories go and how to keeping your interest. But I primarily make my living off my imagination. This is ultimately, after all the books and stories about screenwriting and all the rest of the crap they have, ultimately: Can you make shit up? And make a lot of it up? And Andor was the maximal expression of that. Part of a constantly unstoppable imaginative engine is you wanna anticipate. Sometimes it's really good for you. It's good if you're traveling. It's really good if you're in an emergency. It's really good if you're trying to figure out a whole bunch of different problems. It's not really good if your imagination works against you. If you're ill it can really fuck with you. So—what am I answering? What was the question? I mean the imagination is the key here. I don't think I'm a fantasist. I don't think there's anything that I've written… I don't think there's anything in Bourne… Is there a world of assassins? Not probably as much as that. Are there government pharmaceutical programs that were like The Bourne Legacy? I think there are. I don't think there's anything where I'm pushing the fantasy into the point of unreality. I think that's interesting. Obviously science fiction, always, has been a good filter for bringing real-world issues into media. Let's finish up here in the last few minutes with some more concrete building out the character of Tony Gilroy here. You didn't go to college, if I understand it correctly? Or didn't finish college? I went for two years. Yeah. Why did you not finish? Do you regret not finishing? Would you recommend to other people in this day and age whether they go to college or not? Oh, I went when I was 16, 17. I sort of got a plea bargain from high school. They kind of threw me out—asked me to leave. Then I got into BU. At that point, you could just go to college if your father could pay for it. So I got in there, and I was a musician. And by my second year in college, I actually liked college. I really liked it. I had been encouraged socially all through my schooling. There was no path to popularity by being a good student where I went to school. So I was constantly anti-authoritarian. I mean, I'll tell you the truth: That's it. Really, I don't know, I've never been able to figure this out. I've never gone deep enough into any kind of analysis. My relationship with my father was just fantastic. I had a great father. No issues with him whatsoever. He's just an absolutely wonderful, benevolent, interesting, fascinating dude. Why I am so rebellious against any kind of authority in my life, I don't understand. I've always been very good at working with everybody down below. I chafe at a hierarchy above me. I always have. And I have to guard myself against it, because sometimes I make the wrong decision just because it's an instinctive thing. I don't know where that's from. I hated school. I hated it all the way through. I hated school. I got to college, and I was like, "Wow, it's OK to be smart here. It's OK to do well here." I really liked it. I was just working too much as a musician in my second year. And I was like, that's what I want to do. And, like, I was making a living, and it's like, I don't know, "I'm gonna go do this other thing and become a rock star. I don't need to go to college." And, I mean, I liked it when I was there. I mean, I never stopped reading. I never stopped being an autodidact my whole life. But it just I get uncomfortable in a classroom, I guess. We get that anti-authoritarian streak. I can only imagine what some of your emails with the Disney executives must have been over. Oh, wow. Won't ask you to reveal any of that. You know what? I'll say this: We never took a note, creative note, on the show. Really? Wow. No. Kathy protected us and protected the show. The show's so complicated—either people didn't pay attention, or… We originally said "Fuck the Empire," and they said, "You can't say that. You've got to say 'Fight the Empire.'" So we changed that bit. But many, many, many controversies over money in the second season. So, yeah. There's a lot of people who see my emails appear in their mailbox on a Sunday morning or a Saturday night and don't want to open them. That's for sure. Two more questions and we'll let you go here. You mentioned it earlier: You wrote The Cutting Edge. I think that was the first movie you wrote. If I—again, if I'm understanding the history correctly—this is a— First one I had made. First one you had made. That was a romantic comedy about a figure skater and a hockey player in the Olympics. The second one you had made was Dolores Claiborne, which is a Stephen King adaptation about a daughter and mother, and there's a murder involved. These are very different movies, and they're very different from the Bourne movies and from Andor and things like that—at least at first blush. So, Tony Gilroy, what is the theme of your life's work? Find me the through line there. You mentioned earlier that you think there is a consistency. What is it? Sum it up for me in two sentences. Oh, I mean, you've been talking about it. I do think there's a moral… I did Extreme Measures, which is about human experimentation and philosophical, and The Devil's Advocate, which is literally a Nietzschean approach to— Yeah, sure. Exactly. I'm trying to think back. Proof of Life. They all have… Look, I always want to do things that interest me. I don't want to do anything like what I just did before. I'm doing this music movie now. My game is I have to be able to see it. I have to see what it's about. It has to be about something. I can't start something if I don't know what it's sort of about—or feel that what it's about will reveal itself to me before I actually start the script. I have to start seeing scenes for it. I just want it to be exciting. There are things that I've worked on that I loved that didn't get made, and then later on you want to revive them. And somehow, as exciting as they were—some of the best things I ever wrote—I feel like the moment's passed. I think there's a timeliness about things, that you want to be on the spot, on the moment. I want to be part of the conversation. I want to be relevant. I want an audience. I want your attention. I do. I mean, I'm desperate for your attention, so I think I'm honest about that. But I want to look forward to going to work, you know? I want to look forward to, like, "Wow, I want to get into this, and I want… I want to be here for a while." Well, you've certainly got our attention. We're very excited about Behemoth. I know you're in the middle of making that movie, so you probably don't have a lot of free time, but I also wanted to wrap this up just by asking: What is the most recent movie or show or anything you saw that you were impressed by? That you liked? Give me a recommendation for something. Oh, my God. I hate these questions. I mean, I don't know. I turned down like five of these things in the last week—the year-end thing. It's so hard. Number one—also—I've been intensively making something, and it's really hard for me to take a lot of other information in while I'm doing that. So I don't consume. I'm not as much of a consumer. I've certainly not reading. I don't read a lot when I'm doing this, because I don't want a lot of other stuff. I mean, I don't know what I'm watching. What do I like? I have been enjoying The Diplomat. I think that it's really well-written. I think she's doing a really great job on writing that. So, I don't know, I was watching it. But I don't know. My TV here is weird in the house I'm staying in, so I have a western channel that I've been watching. So I've been watching a lot of westerns when I come home. I watched The Professionals the other night when I got home at night. So I don't know. I don't have a good answer for you. That's a good—we'll come back to you next time. The Geese album is really good—like everybody else says. The Geese album, I think, is really good. That's on constant rotation this week. I don't know. Sounds good. Well, you're a busy man at the moment—we'll give you some time to catch up with the latest in media. That's Tony Gilroy. I'll insert the obvious libertarian joke here at the end and say that I'm already excited about the sequel to Behemoth, which I assume will be called Leviathan. Although maybe you aren't… There's a great movie called Leviathan already… That'd be a good one. Tony, thank you so much for joining us. This was a great conversation. Be well. Producer: Paul AlexanderAudio Mixer: Ian KeyserThe post Andor Creator Tony Gilroy on Bureaucracy and the Surveillance State appeared first on Reason.com.

Create Your Podcast In Minutes