Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
U.S. Markets Soar As White House Appears To Soften On Tariffs; Report: Trump Administration Accidentally Texts Reporter War Plans; Crackdown In Turkey; Arguments Underway In Alien Enemies Act Hearing; BYD Posts More Than $100 Billion Sales In 2024, More Than Tesla; DNA Testing Firm 23andMe Files For Bankruptcy. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 24, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:07]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street. Solid green throughout the whole session. The
market went up and never looked back and it is the same reasons that we will go through over the course of the program.
Oh, dear. We've all gone a bit frozen at the moment. Well, they have done the bell. Well, here we go. There we've got the gavel. The market is now
closed. Strong gain, even better gain by the way, on the NASDAQ, which I will tell you about shortly. But these are the markets and the main events
of the day.
President Trump says he may give a lot of countries a break on tariffs. His Treasury Secretary is targeting the dirty 15.
U.S. officials accidentally texted a journalist plans for military strikes in Yemen.
And DNA testing firm 23andMe, a pandemic darling files for bankruptcy.
We are live from London on Monday. It is March the 24th. I am Richard Quest, and in London, as elsewhere, I mean business.
Good evening.
We started off by showing you the U.S. markets that are soaring and the reason, reports the Trump administration is softening its stance on
tariffs, at least that's the thought. Remember I told you a second ago, look at the NASDAQ, up two-and-a-quarter percent. Overall, the NASDAQ has
been doing the best session of the day.
Bloomberg and the "Wall Street Journal" are both reporting that April the 2nd's tariffs won't be as sweeping as expected. The White House is instead
looking at specific industries.
President Trump named a few of them during his Cabinet meeting earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And we will be announcing cars very shortly and we already announced steel, as you know,
and aluminum. We will be announcing pharmaceuticals at some point in the not too distant -- because we have to have pharmaceuticals. We don't make
pharmaceuticals anymore in our country.
And if we have problems like wars or anything else, we need steel, we need pharmaceuticals, we need aluminum, we need a lot of these things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Now, the U.S. Treasury Secretary says the White House is going to focus on what he is calling -- what Scott Bessent is calling the dirty 15
percent of countries with the largest trade barriers, the biggest deficits in many ways.
And so here we go, the U.S. ran the biggest deficits in goods last year with the countries on this map. These would be in the 15 percent. Let's
start for example, with China. Now there, you have a deficit of nearly $300 billion. And the United States says the Chinese firms benefit from state
investment and flood the export markets.
So you're really talking not only -- you're talking here about not so much nominal tariffs, but tariff barriers, non-tariff barriers, and that's also
the case with Mexico. Remember you've got the USMCA between Canada, the United States and Mexico. If you look here, you have a deficit of $171
billion.
But here is where it gets interesting, because obviously, lower cost production in Mexico, foreign companies deliberately went to Mexico to
access the U.S. market under the USMCA. And who negotiated the USMCA? President Trump in his first administration.
On the other side of the world, once again, you go back this time to Vietnam, because this is an interesting one. $123 billion is the bilateral
deficit and companies moved to Vietnam. Why? To avoid China? Because avoiding China, when the U.S. was having tariff wars with China back in the
first Trump administration, you went to Vietnam. By the way, you also went to Cambodia and a whole lot of other places.
Mohamed El-Erian joins me now, the President of Queens College at the University of Cambridge.
Good to see you, Mohamed, as always.
Now, look, I've got my charts and my maps here, but the reality is staying one step ahead of tariffs is almost impossible because you don't know -- I
mean, you're talking about very long lead times for factories.
MOHAMED EL-ERIAN, ECONOMIST AND ADVISOR, ALLIANZ: That's correct and that's why quite a few CEOs say, just tell me what the tariff regime is going to
be like and then let me adapt.
You have three sets of distinct tariffs. You have reciprocal tariffs. That's what you talked about. We will treat them as they treat us. Then you
have a second set of sectoral tariff, and you heard the president talk about pharmaceuticals, aluminum.
[16:05:14]
Then you have a third set of tariffs and those are sanction-like tariffs and today, we had quite a change in those because we had the equivalent of
secondary tariffs.
So it is -- I give you the image for business, it is like trying to drink from a fire hose. It is just very hard to internalize all of this
information coming at you.
QUEST: Everyone -- on this question of using of tariffs, neither of us, I don't think and you'll accept maybe the first Trump administration, but I
am guessing neither of us can remember a time when tariffs has been, quite simply, the core economic industrial policy du jour.
EL-ERIAN: I certainly don't. It was a long, long time ago in the 30s, but we haven't had it recently and for good reason. It is once you let that
genie out of the bottle, it is very difficult to get that genie back into the bottle because you not only -- you don't only get the U.S. imposing
tariffs on others, you get others imposing tariffs on you, and then you get this whole third thing.
Well, if you trade with Venezuela, you'll be subject to an additional 25 percent, so it looks like a spaghetti bowl at the end of this and it is
very, very difficult to figure it out.
QUEST: Now, as related to this question is, I mean, it is one thing to have the tariff policy. It is quite another to have it changing so rapidly in
every different direction at the whim of what the President says.
For example, today, widespread tariffs on April the 2nd, but the president said that the tariffs are coming in very near future is what he said, very
near future. That's worth a bell.
Hours later, he says, I may give a lot of countries breaks and hours after that, he says we might be even nicer than that. It is hard to obviously --
the back and forth, but the stock market doesn't -- it is almost like they are now discounting all of these comments. What's your view?
EL-ERIAN: I think you're right. Initially, and look at what has happened in the last six weeks. The markets took it very seriously, and the result of
that was a correction, a 10 percent decline in the S&P and an even bigger decline in the NASDAQ.
More recently, example, today, the markets are saying no, on balance, I like what I am hearing, even though there is a lot of uncertainty, but I've
realized this uncertainty is not a bug, it is a feature of how I am going to have to operate. And on balance, I think today was better news.
QUEST: Is this proof that to some extent, all the talk about the President being worried about the stock market isn't necessarily relevant because he
knows at a whim's moment, he can switch it on.
I mean, if things got desperate, all he has to do is start saying, I've revised my tariff thinking and the market would rally several thousand
points.
EL-ERIAN: It would with one important qualification, Richard. There has been a lot of money that's been taken out of the U.S. market into Europe
because people are excited, in my view, overexcited about what is happening in Germany.
So yes, he could bring the value back up, but the issue is the flows and reversing some of these longer term allocations away from the U.S. and to
Europe, that doesn't happen quickly.
QUEST: You teased -- your tease, Mohamed, because you just gently let on that you don't -- that you think that this Germany thing might be a bit
overdone. Everybody is off to the races on the idea of huge defense spending in Europe.
Now, there is going to be a lot more money spent, but you're giving us a bit of a caveat. What is it?
EL-ERIAN: I am. Is defense -- is infrastructure, it is spending on Europe by Europe, and all three take time. The market is reacting as if they're
going to happen very quickly and easily. I doubt that's going to be the case.
They will happen, but they're going to take quite a bit of time.
QUEST: When you're advising people and you're advising, you know, large investors, the wish is always to have the result yesterday, isn't it? I
mean, you wish you did it yesterday and you want it -- and tomorrow might even be too late. It is quite difficult to make sure -- to balance that
short term prognosis with longer term goals.
[16:100:01]
EL-ERIAN: It is, but the questions that I am being asked today is very different than before. The question today is if I end up making a mistake,
look, I don't want to make a mistake, but the world is really uncertain. But if I end up making a mistake, what is the most recoverable mistake? It
is not go out and invest in something that will take you five years, just wait.
So the wait and see attitude among companies is quite pronounced, Richard.
QUEST: That's fascinating. The irreparable, irrecoverable mistake that you told us, which, by the way, has become the mantra now here on QUEST MEANS
BUSINESS.
Good to see you, Mohamed, as always. Thank you for taking time and joining us.
EL-ERIAN: Thank you.
QUEST: Now, there are major questions about U.S. National Security after a journalist from "The Atlantic" was apparently included in a government
group chat about the U.S.' plans to bomb Yemen. Not just any journalist, the editor-in-chief of "The Atlantic," Jeffrey Goldberg.
He says that the National Security adviser, Mike Waltz, invited him to the chat. It reportedly also included Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio, Secretary of State.
A National Security Council spokesperson says the messages appear to be authentic. The President himself had a different response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't know anything about it. I am not a big fan of "The Atlantic." To me, it is a magazine that's going out of business. I think it
is not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?
REPORTER: They were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials, and --
TRUMP: Having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about.
REPORTER: The Houthis?
TRUMP: The Houthis? You mean the attack on the Houthis?
REPORTER: Yes.
TRUMP: Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that. I don't know anything about it.
You're telling me about it for the first time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Jeff is with me. Jeff Zeleny at the White House. Let's not dwell on too much time on whether the President knew or not. I mean, time will show
on that. It is really the extraordinariness, I find "A" that they were using Signal in the first place. You think they might have something a
little bit more proprietary than sort of -- and "B," did he just add him by accident? He had his number in his phone and he just added it by accident.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It is extraordinary, in fact, that, you know, no one has ever seen anything like this, at least
in the modern age of technology. And that is, of course, exactly what we are talking about here. So I agree with you.
Never mind if the President knew or didn't know. We've heard him often times say he is hearing something for the first time. You get the sense
they're buying themselves some time here.
But the reality of that conversation, when you sort of look at the -- really the discussion that was going on by the top National Security
officials just in the days and hours leading up to the first military action of this administration is quite extraordinary.
We will show you a sample of that that was included in "The Atlantic" story from a Jeffrey Goldberg, a screenshot, if you will, of this chat that was
on a Signal. It was a conversation with the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. And you can see right there this is the Vice President saying, if you think
we should, let's do it.
And the Vice President, J.D. Vance, is saying, I just hate bailing out Europe again. Let's make sure our messaging is tight here and if there are
things we can do up front to minimize the risk to Saudi oil facilities, we should do it.
But then it goes on to say, after this attack happened on March 15th, a variety of emojis, the reactions from Mike Waltz, the National Security
adviser, was a fist and an American flag and a flame there. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State. Good job, Pete, and your team.
Stephen Miller, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff. Great work all. Powerful start. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, a good start.
Well, John Ratcliffe will get to answer more questions on this tomorrow, as will other officials when they are appearing before a Senate Committee
talking about worldwide threats. This really has, really caught the attention of Capitol Hill, both Republicans and Democrats alike, who are
scratching their heads wondering how such a classified conversation could have been happening on an encrypted channel, but on a cell phone that
everyone has. So that certainly is going to be one central question tomorrow.
And the White House is not questioning the legitimacy of this conversation. And they said, in fact, it shows that it was a deep and thorough review,
never mind where it happened -- Richard.
QUEST: Well, yes, yes, I think I might question whether it is deep and thorough with fists, flags and flames and but you're probably too young to
remember President Obama getting his Blackberry, and they had to actually put in a brand new system just because Obama refused to have his own, to
give up his Blackberry.
[16:15:05]
Now they are using whatever phone they want with Signal. It is just beggar's belief.
ZELENY: I actually broke that story for "The New York Times," Richard, so I am not too young.
He did not want to give up his Blackberry, I covered the Obama campaign from start to finish for "New York Times," covered the Bush administration
as well.
So, I've seen five presidents, no one has done this.
But even though there is better technology now, that does not change the fact that the Situation Room and classified computer systems are where
these kind of conversations are intended to take place.
So the technology has improved, and perhaps that's the issue here. Once upon a time, you had to bring people into the Situation Room to have these
conversations face-to-face, but look, there are going to be recriminations from this. There is no doubt about it. and they are going to begin tomorrow
on Capitol Hill at the Senate hearing.
QUEST: Jeff, you're aging much better than me, sir. Much better than me. Thank you. Good to see you, Jeff Zeleny.
ZELENY: You bet.
QUEST: At the White House. Thank you.
Still to come, Turkey cracks down on protesters following the jailing of Erdogan's main political rival, what the Turkish President is saying about
the mass demonstrations, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Now we have pictures for you tonight coming to you from Ankara in Turkey, where there are demonstrations as there have been -- this is
Istanbul at the moment a short few moments ago.
Across the country, Ankara as well, the capital, both demonstrations, sometimes large, sometimes small, always noisy, Turkey says more than a
thousand protesters have been detained since Istanbul's mayor was locked up.
According to the Interior Ministry, the protesters are taking part in illegal activities. President Erdogan slammed the demonstrations as a
movement of violence.
CNN's Nada Bashir brings us up to date.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER: Well, demonstrations in Turkey are continuing for a sixth day, despite the violent crackdown that we have seen by police
forces over recent nights, with teargas and pepper spray being deployed against those demonstrating in Istanbul over the weekend.
For days now, protesters have been gathering in the thousands to oppose the incarceration of Istanbul mayor and key opposition figure, Ekrem Imamoglu,
who was jailed on Sunday on corruption charges.
[16:20:10]
The politician has been the target of a sweeping investigation, facing allegations including extortion and bribery.
Imamoglu has denied the allegations, taking to X to describe his arrest as a dark stain on democracy in Turkey. But on Monday, President Erdogan
pointed the finger of blame squarely at Imamoglu's opposition, CHP Party for the unrest currently gripping turkey.
RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, TURKISH PRESIDENT (through translator): What we have witnessed. In the last five days has shown us the truth again. A country
like Turkey has a main opposition party that is too small, too primitive and too weak in terms of foresight, vision and quality.
It has become apparent once again that they cannot be trusted to run a country, let alone local government.
BASHIR: The timing of Imamoglu's arrest has, however, raised questions about possible political motivations, with his charge being handed down on
the very same day his secular CHP Party nominated him as their next presidential candidate.
Imamoglu is widely considered to be Erdogan's most serious political rival, winning back-to-back mayoral elections in Istanbul and gaining widespread
popularity, leading many analysts to believe Imamoglu to be on a trajectory to one day lead the country.
President Erdogan, meanwhile, has long been accused of overseeing the erosion of democracy in Turkey over more than 20 years of political rule,
cracking down on dissent, press freedom and now political opposition.
Nada Bashir, CNN in London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: U.S. officials, along with Russian officials have been holding lengthy talks in Saudi Arabia. The Kremlin said focusing on reviving the
Black Sea Grain Initiative. The two delegations are not planning to reach any signed agreement.
Fred Pleitgen is with me in Moscow.
They are putting -- this is clearly the idea of normalizing relations, commercial, diplomatic as fast as possible, but nowhere in sight as far as
I can see, is actually implementing this 30-day ceasefire that the U.S. administration is wanting and demanding.
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and I think that's what the Kremlin is also cautioning as well, Richard. They are
obviously looking at these talks. They are sending high level delegations to these talks as well and trying to hammer things out, like, for instance,
that Black Sea Initiative that you were just talking about.
But at the same time, the Kremlin also came out today and said, look, there are still a lot of very complicated issues that need to be dealt with,
which kind of seems almost like the opposite of what the Trump administration is saying, is where they keep saying that they think that a
ceasefire is imminent and that it could happen very soon.
At the same time, the Russians do want more than just ending the conflict in Ukraine. They are hoping for major normalization of relations with the
United States, sanctions relief, and business deals.
I was able to speak today to the CEO of Russia's second largest bank, VTB, Andrey Kostin, and he says the bank and the Russian economy are optimistic.
They are taking it step by step.
Here is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDREY KOSTIN, CEO, VTB BANK: Our relationship actually, between -- our relationship between Russia and America were ruined basically over the last
years. So, to restore them, it will take time.
But what we definitely see, I think it is a really good intention and sincere intentions on the part of the -- of President Trump and the will to
help Russia to resolve this issue, to restore Russian-American relationship.
PLEITGEN: What about western companies and specifically American companies coming back to Russia? I know there are some in Russia who believe that in
the second quarter that could already happen. How do you see that unfolding?
KOSTIN: Well, I think we've got already a Russian Big Mac, so I am not sure whether we very much need McDonald's anymore. But no, I expect that there
will be process of coming back, though Mr. Putin recently said that there should be price to pay, particularly for those companies who left Russia
abruptly, and An, you know, damaged the Russian economy.
But I think the process of normalization of relations will take some time, but business is much less political. You know, business wants to do
business and I always remember our good relationship with many American companies, American banks.
PLEITGEN: What will it take to get things like trading back? You are right that obviously a lot of Russian companies, a lot of Russian investors also
moved away from dollar trading, for instance.
What do you think it will take to bring that back now that the country is also in a trajectory where the leadership says they are looking actually
more towards the East than necessarily future relations with the U.S.?
KOSTIN: Well, I think it is the area -- the financial sector that the area which shouldn't be weaponized, they should be free from any political
influence or other things. Otherwise, it will undermine substantially -- already undermine substantially the trust and increase the risk. And it has
undermined, I think, the position of dollar.
[16:25:10]
I mean, maybe it is a little too early to say about this, but I know in many countries people think, oh gosh, if it has happened to Russia, well,
it is going to happen to us maybe one day. It is the same in China and Arab World.
So I think we should be very cautious in trying to use sanctions. Probably, we should put maybe a new legal framework of not allowing this to happen in
the future.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PLEITGEN: That's Andrey Kostin of VTB Bank speaking to me earlier today. The Russians, of course, feel that they are getting a lot of very positive
signals from the Trump administration at the same time, of course, they understand that it is still a very long way to go as those negotiations as
you mentioned, Richard, in Saudi Arabia moving on, but that 30-day full on ceasefire still does seem like it could be quite a ways off -- Richard.
QUEST: Fred Pleitgen in Moscow tonight. Grateful, sir. Thank you.
The Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has launched his campaign following the snap election that he called on Sunday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Capital of Saskatchewan?
MIKE MYERS, ACTOR: Regina.
CARNEY: Tragically.
MYERS: Hip.
CARNEY: You're a defenseman, defending a two on one. What do you do?
MYERS: Take away the pass, obviously.
CARNEY: What are the two seasons in Toronto?
MYERS: Winter and construction.
CARNEY: Wow. You really are Canadian.
MYERS: Yeah, but let me ask you, Mr. Prime minister, will there always be a Canada?
CARNEY: There will always be a Canada.
MYERS: All right, elbows up.
CARNEY: Elbows up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mark Carney and the comedian, Mike Myers discussing Canadian culture and identity, an issue that has taken on obviously the new resonance.
The election is on April the 28th amid the trade war with the United States. The Prime Minister says he wants to win a strong mandate to be able
to deal with President Trump.
Paula Newton is our correspondent in Ottawa.
Okay, look, if the election were held tomorrow, what do the polls say?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST AND CORRESPONDENT: Before I get to that, do you know what elbows up means? Are you good with that? Do I need
to explain?
QUEST: I was getting to that later. I was getting to that after I'd buttered you up a bit.
NEWTON: Okay, I am looking forward to that.
Quickly, the polls virtually tied between Pierre Poilievre, conservative leader; and Mark Carney, the Prime Minister. He is with the Liberal Party
that has been in power now for almost ten years. Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister and the leader before that.
But Richard, you know so much better than I. This is the Westminster system, right? Which means that it means the efficiency of votes, even
though its virtually tied. If the election were held tomorrow, the liberals would likely take it by the slimmest of majorities. But again, a snapshot
in time and this campaign has only just begun.
QUEST: And the battle is, I mean, besides all the other tax and spend issues and things like that, it really is about the U.S. and which Prime
Minister to be is best equipped to sit down with Donald Trump.
Now, has the U.S. been interfering? Because now we get into mind games, don't we? You know, if Trump wants Carney, do you vote for the other guy
because you think -- you know how this goes?
NEWTON: I do indeed. The President has been asked a couple of times, he basically said he didn't care who won in Canada. I actually believe him
when he says that. He also said as well that, well, maybe a liberal would be better for us. He didn't really show his hand either way.
I think it should be said, though, Richard, at this point in time, given the threats against Canada with both tariffs and annexation, that anything
Trump said would be discounted at this point because they just wouldn't believe him.
I will say that the rhetoric has had quite a tough edge here in Canada, even for Mark Carney. And you know this because you know him well, how he
would normally parse his words as a Central Bank governor, he says now Trump is trying to break us so America can own us. That's elbows up --
Richard.
QUEST: I am hearing words from Mark Carney that I never thought that sort of directness speak. I mean, he was always very direct. He is very direct
in conversation one-on-one, but he is very certain.
All right, elbows up. Give me -- come on. I just know I am walking into a trap here. it is something to do with hockey. It is something to do with
hockey because you're obsessed by it north of the border.
NEWTON: We are not obsessed with it. It is just what everyone else says is our identity, so we might as well lean in. I never played ice hockey. I
only played road hockey. I am a hockey mom. Elbows up. I am not going to do the demonstration.
It means when you're in a tight patch on the ice, you want to defend. You want to get the puck out of the corner. Whatever it is, you get your elbows
up. Completely legal. You will not get a penalty for that, but you will get out of a jam.
Elbows up -- Richard.
QUEST: Elbows up. I think I'd pay good money. I'd pay good money to charity to see you on the ice playing hockey. There you go.
NEWTON: With equipment? Fine.
QUEST: I am not going there. Good to see you. You've got three -- several weeks for this election. It is going to be fascinating. Grateful to have
you, as always, Paula. Thank you.
It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS and we are delighted that we are together on the start of a new week. It is going to be such a busy week.
A U.S. appeals court has been hearing an emergency appeal from the White House over its use of the Alien Enemies Act and the quote of the day. One
of the judges says Nazis were given more rights, Nazis were treated better than those of Venezuelans under Trump. In a moment.
[16:30:47]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:55]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN HOST: I think I'd pay good money. I'd pay good money to charity to see you on the ice playing hockey. There you go.
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: With equipment?
QUEST: I'm not going there. Good to see you. You've got three several weeks for this election. It's going to be fascinating. Grateful to have you as
always, Paula, thank you.
It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, and we're delighted that we are together on the start of a new week. It's going to be such a busy week.
A year's appeals court has been hearing an emergency appeal from the White House over its use of the Alien Enemies Act.
And the quote of the day, one of the judges says Nazis were given more rights. Nazis were treated better than those of Venezuelans under Trump. In
a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. Together, we'll have more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. The electric car company BYD, continues its rally. It's announced
its earnings and beat Tesla in sales. The genetic testing company 23andMe files for bankruptcy. Maybe they couldn't find their ancestors.
Before we get to it, of course, we'll have the news, because this is CNN and on this network, the news always comes first.
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser accidentally invited a journalist for a government chat group about the United States plans to bomb Houthi
rebels in Yemen. The Atlantic Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg says, the chat also included J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth amongst others.
A National Security Council spokesperson says the messages sent to Goldberg appear to be authentic.
Ukrainian officials say 88 people were injured, including 17 children, following a Russian missile strike on Monday, it happened in the densely
populated residential area in the northern city of Sumy. Authorities say children's facilities and a hospital were damaged in the attack.
[16:35:08]
The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza has published the names of 15,000 children, they say, who had been killed over the last 18 months. 800 of
them were no more than a year old. A quarter of them, roughly 4,000 children were under 5. Israel disputes the numbers and says it avoids
divisional civilian casualties in accordance with international law.
U.S. judges have been hearing an emergency appeal from the White House over its use of the Alien Enemies Act. The White House is fighting Judge James
Boasberg's order to pause certain deportation flights. He temporarily blocked the administration from deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Now, one of the appeals court judges has questioned how the Alien Enemies Act is being applied.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There were plane loads of people. I mean, it was also -- it's a class action. There were plane loads of people. There were no
procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, Your Honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi analogy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: But it is indeed the quote of the day from the case, the head of a major New York law firm defending his deal with the Trump administration.
The president had threatened the firm Paul Weiss for working with his political and legal adversaries. His executive order suspended Paul Weiss
lawyers from getting security clearance even entering federal buildings.
The White House revoked the order last week after the firm agreed to a series of terms, which included doing $40 million worth of free work for
charity.
Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp wrote a letter to his firm explaining why he made the deal. He said, the executive order could easily have destroyed our
firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people and our clients.
Evan Falchuk is the board member for the group Lawyers Defending American Democracy with me from Boston in the world of Hobson's Choice. He had --
the CEO with these wider issues, had no option other than to hold his nose and do the deal, don't you think?
EVAN FALCHUK, BOARD MEMBER, LAWYERS DEFENDING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: Well, he, of course, had a choice, and he made one, but lawyers swear an oath to
uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, and so we have an obligation and a duty to fight back against these kinds of illegal and
unconstitutional actions by the government.
I'm not saying it's easy to make those decisions. People's lives are affected, but if lawyers aren't willing to fight when the government is
putting illegal and unconstitutional action against them. When are we going to fight? You know, when is it -- when is it right to fight? What will be
the right line to draw? This was one of those opportunities.
QUEST: I guess, whatever the seriousness, and it is exceptionally serious, I suppose some would -- you know, Brad Karp would say -- Karp would say,
oh, that's easy for you to say in your comfy seat, or say of me in the tele as I pontificate in the television studio. I'm not employing several
thousand people. The clients will evaporate better -- quicker than Scotch Missed in summer. I don't know what we would have expected him to do.
FALCHUK: Well, I mean, for starters, there is an oath that lawyers take, and you have to fight against illegal and unconstitutional actions by the
government. And all lawyers know that the order targeting Paul Weiss was illegal.
But at the same time, you know, Paul Weiss is going to take a hit from this anyway. We're talking about them here. They're going to lose clients.
They're probably going to lose partners.
You know, reminds me of, you know what Churchill said Neville Chamberlain, where you had a choice between dishonor and war, you chose dishonor and
you'll have war.
QUEST: So, the fascinating part, though, which I having looked at this is that other law firms were weak as water. They didn't rush to defense. That
I'm surprised that the magic circle, that the, you know, didn't all come together and say, we stand together.
Because if you did have Skadden, Arps, Shearman and Sterling, Slate, Meagher, all the big firms saying together as one, stop it or we'll or sue
you collectively, that would have been powerful.
FALCHUK: Yes, that's right, and it's very disappointing, I'm surprised too. But the fact that these other firms didn't do what Paul Weiss wanted isn't
an excuse for Paul Weiss to do what it did.
[16:40:05]
You know, someone has to draw a line. This is why we created lawyers defending American democracy is to give lawyers a voice and a place where
you could say, you have to live up your oath. you have to live up to your oath and fight for what we believe in.
QUEST: Turn to briefly to the matter of this appeal. I mean, it's the line of the day, isn't it, the quote of the day, the Nazis were treated better.
I'm guessing what the learned judge means is, of course, there was a process. There was an appeal process that did not exist here. And can you
see -- how do you see this moving this case?
FALCHUK: Right. Well, I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that cases like this or the Paul Weiss story, or business as usual,
politics as usual. It's really not. It's something else.
The Constitution requires that the government give people due process a chance to prove that what the government is saying is true.
And in this case, they just rounded up a bunch of people. They said they're all part of a gang, and they shipped them out of the country to a prison in
El Salvador. There's no finding that these people actually belong to that gang, and they might, but there's a process, and the administration has
decided it doesn't want to follow the Constitution.
QUEST: So, on a wider issue, if I may, and you may trained as a lawyer, and one thing that still fascinates me is the, you know, reading these reports
of the judges and the appeals somewhere in every description, appointed by Obama, appointed by Bush, appointed by -- I can't think -- I mean,
certainly not in the English judicial system, no one would ever know appointed a member of that of the Supreme Court or any of the benches of
the high court or courts of appeal.
And certainly no one would ever suggest that it was sort of a politically motivated decision other than a philosophical jurisprudential of a
conservative or liberal nature.
FALCHUK: Yes, you're absolutely right, Richard, and I think it's -- I mean, no disrespect to the media, but it's a problem that the press reports
judges in that way, because in a time when everything is politicized, it makes it seem as if judges who are trying to follow the law and uphold
their own oaths, who take their jobs very seriously are acting with some political animus, which is just generally not the case.
And I think it's a disservice to the public when people act in that way, and you're absolutely right to raise it, I'm glad you are.
QUEST: But it's -- but it's relevant in the sense of those judges are following their judicial philosophy of conservativism or liberalism.
FALCHUK: Absolutely.
QUEST: And that, I think, is different in the United States to other countries, where it will be based purely on judicial capabilities.
FALCHUK: Well, I think there's some truth to that, and that's the nature of our -- of our system. But I think the reality is, the judges, by and large,
are trying to do their best to interpret the law.
And you know, in these cases, these aren't hard cases. You know, it's not a hard case to decide that a group of people can be mass deported without due
process. That's not a hard case. That's not a political case.
QUEST: I'm grateful for you, sir. Thank you. We'll talk more on this in the future. Thank you.
Now, Anna Stewart puts me right. I call it bid. It's BYD of course, she laughed in my face. But anyway, it's the Chinese E.V. maker, bid or buy or
bid or BYD. It's reported more than $100 billion in sales last year. Cheaper cars, faster charges and a real threat to Tesla.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:43]
QUEST: The Chinese E.V. maker BYD says its annual sales last year topped more than $100 billion, that is more than its rival Tesla. BYD shares
closed three percent up in Hong Kong, adding to a massive rally that began in January. It's been rolling out less expensive models and announced a new
high speed charging system.
Anna is with me, Anna Stewart. Go on, just put the knife in.
ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: With BYD, not bid, old man. This is a fascinating challenger to Tesla. So originally, I would say these Chinese
car makers like BYD would challenge Tesla on price. Now they're actually challenging Tesla also on innovation, five minutes charge time, and you can
drive 250 miles, they say, on their latest models, far outstripping Tesla.
QUEST: So, what are they doing that's got them to this position?
STEWART: Firstly, it is about price. The Chinese car makers have this advantage, whether it's the raw materials or the fact that the Chinese
states really value and have strategized the sector. So, you know, tariffs, subsidies and all sorts of incentives. It's enabled these car makers to get
where they are.
In addition, a bit like Tesla, BYD makes its own batteries, actually started as a battery maker, which is really important when you're looking
at this technology.
Add all that in and an aggressive expansion plan. It's got factories around the world. It's opening more in Europe.
QUEST: So, at what point does it become cool to have a BYD?
STEWART: I think for some people, it's already cool. And I think brand awareness is increasingly important in Europe, a lot of people are shunning
Tesla, for example, particularly in Europe, given Elon Musk's, you know, endless interference with politics, whether it's in the U.K. or Germany,
we've seen a huge slump in Tesla sales.
In February, just last month, Tesla sales down 44 percent. BYD and granted, they've got a much smaller share at the moment, their sales were up 94
percent in February.
QUEST: OK, so we've got Tesla, we've got BYD. Who else is there? I mean, all the major car companies have their product, but none of them seem to be
making the same sort of inroads.
STEWART: Well, the Chinese ones are, I'd say you've got Polestar, you've got BYD, Volvo and Geely is not doing so well, but these are the big
challenger brands.
Now, what does -- what do markets around the world do? Clearly, President Trump wants big tariffs in autos. He's made that very clear even today.
Europe already has big tariffs on a company like BYD.
QUEST: They were put on it years ago.
STEWART: It faces a tariff of 30 percent right now, and it can still challenge the European brands and Tesla.
QUEST: Fascinating.
STEWART: It's extraordinary. We'll all be dry -- we'll be driving BYD soon, I'm sure.
QUEST: We'll drive a BYD.
STEWART: A BYD. Do we want to understand what you were saying?
QUEST: It's not the first time. Thank you, Anna Stewart.
The DNA testing company 23andMe has filed for bankruptcy. How do you go from a pandemic darling to chapter 11? Well, we'll explain in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:23]
QUEST: The DNA testing firm 23andMe has filed for bankruptcy and the CEO is stepping down. The shares tanked. They were off 60 percent, you don't see
that every day. It's now worth less than $1.00 or thereabout.
A far cry from the pandemic peak. The company struggled in recent years under the weight of weak demand and reputational damage from a 2023 data
breach. Clare Duffy is with me. I mean, how -- talk about hero to zero.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is a company that really has always struggled to find a sustainable business model on top of those sort
of controversies that you mentioned. The company went public, as you see there, in 2021 and has never turned a profit.
And this is a tricky business model, right? Because you're getting people to send you this potentially really valuable genetic information, but in
order for people to keep using your service, you have to have some safeguards around that, and the subscription model where people pay to
learn about their family history just wasn't enough for this company to really create a sustainable business around.
Last year, the company laid off 40 percent of its workforce, and its independent board directors all resigned en masse over frustration around
CEO. Anne Wojcicki's strategic direction. Her desire to take the company private. She has now resigned as CEO.
Remember, she is the co-founder of this company as well, and she says she plans to bid on it during the bankruptcy process, but we'll see if that
works out.
QUEST: Right. So, I mean, that's why she's gone, isn't it, because she wants to have a free hand and no conflict to actually bid on it.
But what happens to all the DNA? Now they're in chapter 11, not chapter seven. So, but I did, you know, in my -- in my morning perusing, I did see
a headline that said, get -- take your DNA back now, get it out of 23andMe. Are people's DNA protected?
DUFFY: That is really the big question here, because the company is pursuing a sale. And the question is, what happens to the genetic
information that users sent to this company if it ends up in the hands of a new owner.
I actually dug into the privacy concerns around these genetic online testing services for this week's episode of Terms of Service, and I spoke
with Anya Prince. She's a law professor at the University of Iowa. Here's why she said our genetic information is so sensitive. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANYA PRINCE, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Genetics is so personal, right? It tells you what you look like. It can tell you who your family
members are. It can tell you who -- you know, what diseases you might get in the future.
Now, it doesn't tell you everything. It's not a magic crystal ball, but I think people have very personal opinions about their data and their genetic
data. Specifically because it feels so core to who they are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:55:09]
DUFFY: And look 23andMe's privacy policy, which currently says, for example, that users have to opt in if they want their data to be used for
pharmaceutical research, that privacy policy says that if the company is sold, the privacy policy will still apply, but the privacy policy also says
that the privacy policy can change at any time.
So, it really means that the new owner could fundamentally change how people's data is handled, and users do now have the option before the
company has sold to request that their data and their accounts are deleted.
QUEST: Clare, I'm grateful. Clare, thank you very much. Quick look at the markets before I love you and leave you, and how the thought that Donald
Trump might soften the tariff plans really set the market up, and it never looked back. It was solid green throughout the session, with the best gains
being in the NASDAQ.
I think it would be a fool that thinks we are off to the races again, bearing in mind the ability of the president to pull the rug out from
underneath it all.
Anyway, Tesla's up 10 percent, by the way, after all the losses. So, just thought we show you that one before we take a profitable moment after the
break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight, profitable moment, the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers, Henry VI of Shakespeare. Well, perhaps reflecting on that, the way
in which the law companies and the law firms have been treated by the administration. I don't blame Paul Weiss for what they did. They had almost
no choice about how to proceed. They had the full weight of the government on top of them. Clients were about to leave, and it would have been
existential for the firm.
What I blame are the other law firms. This was a moment when all the biggest law firms needed to come together and say what the government was
doing is wrong and would not be tolerated.
Collectively, all the -- all of the law firms, the big ones, the ones that make billions, could have put the sufficient force necessary that this
could have moved forward. Instead, arguably, they did nothing. Paul Weiss was left on their own. And then, of course, you saw what was going to
happen.
And of course, as the all farm -- as the old saying goes, and then they came for me.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in London. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable.
END
