Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Walmart Warns Tariffs will Force it to Raise Prices; U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Birthright Citizenship; Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza Deepens by the Day; Canadian Tourists Shun Travel to the U.S.; Harvard Copy of Magna Carta is Actually an Original. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired May 15, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:17]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: So a tiny gain on the Dow today. You know, many, though still wondering whether or not that relief rally after
that trade deal, if it has more legs. We will continue to keep an eye on that. Those are the markets and these are the main events.
Walmart, the world's largest retailer, warns it will raise prices because of tariffs.
More signs Canadian tourists are saying no way USA, the Canadian Ambassador to the United States joins me.
And Harvard Law School bought a copy of the Magna Carta in 1946. The price tag 27 bucks. It turns out, yes, it is an original.
Live from New York. It is Thursday, May 15th. I'm Paula Newton in for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
And a very good evening to everyone. Tonight, a warning on tariffs from America's largest retailer, Walmart. It says Donald Trump's trade war will
force it to raise prices starting later this month.
Now, the company shares fell after it announced those earnings. CEO, Doug McMillon said tariffs are just too high, even at the current reduced
levels, and that the price of electronics, toys and some food will have to rise.
Now, during the earnings call, he said price hikes were just unavoidable.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DOUG MCMILLON, CEO, WALMART: We will do our best to keep our prices as low as possible, but given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced
levels announced this week, we aren't able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins.
We are positioned to manage the cost pressure from tariffs as well, or better than anyone. But even at the reduced levels, the higher tariffs will
result in higher prices.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Sobering thoughts there. Nathaniel Meyersohn is with us now.
Okay, Walmart does seem to be signaling a tipping point here, both on prices and what was mentioned in their results was the uncertainty, right,
that the trade war at this point is still on and it will be felt by consumers.
NATHANIEL MEYERSOHN, CNN BUSINESS REPORTER: Yes, Paula. This is a really big deal. As you mentioned, Walmart is the largest retailer in the world.
It just has such big implications across the retail sector and for consumers and what I thought was so interesting, Paula, is right now you're
seeing a lot of companies kind of really subtly talk about tariffs or kind of walk around it a little bit.
But Doug McMillon, the CEO, he was very blunt when he said that higher tariffs are going to mean higher prices and that even Walmart, which has
the size and the scale and so much buying power, even Walmart can't fully absorb these tariffs.
And so that means that prices are going to go up for middle income Americans, for lower income Americans, that the Walmart business serves and
so that's going to have a major impact. And you're also going to see other retailers follow Walmart's lead here.
You know, once Walmart does something, everybody else follows.
NEWTON: Yes, and this may be shaking the tree again on tariffs in terms of that trade war. You know the United States may be the trunk, there are many
branches there that a lot of viewers are worried about at this point in time.
If we look though to Walmart to determine what's ahead, some headwinds still, right?
MEYERSOHN: Oh, absolutely. And also some major risks for Walmart as well. You know, the president, Donald Trump, he has gone after companies that
have said they're going to raise prices -- Amazon, Mattel. Just last week, trump threatened Mattel with a hundred percent tariffs.
So Walmart by being this blunt about tariffs is definitely exposing themselves to some risks and to some potential backlash from the President.
But I spoke with a person familiar with Walmart's decision, and they told me that Walmart felt that it had an obligation to talk about the impact of
tariffs.
And it just -- you know, Trump's kind of threats against companies for raising prices is just another challenge that businesses have to face as
they navigate the tariffs. You know, we see companies raising prices. There are also companies that are cutting products that they just can't make
anymore because of the tariffs, and then plus, the political risk.
So just enormous challenges for business right now when it comes to trade and political uncertainty and that's likely to persist for the foreseeable
future here.
NEWTON: Yes, and as you point out, it was interesting that the CEO of Walmart did decide that he was going to speak bluntly about this as the
results came out today.
Nathaniel Meyersohn for us, thanks so much.
Now, beyond Walmart, American consumers are showing signs of strain. Retail sales rose just 0.1 percent in April, sharply lower than the 1.7 percent
increase in March.
[16:05:06]
Economists say shoppers may have stocked up ahead of tariffs. Yes, no kidding, and are now pulling back on spending.
The Fed Chair says tariffs may cause increased volatility in the months ahead, and that could cause a problem for the Central Bank as well. Listen
to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: Higher real rates may also reflect the possibility that inflation could be more volatile going forward
than during the inter-crisis period of the 2010s. We may be entering a period of more frequent and potentially more persistent supply shocks, a
difficult challenge for the economy and for Central Banks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Simeon Siegel is a senior retail and e-commerce analyst at BMO Capital Markets, and he joins us now.
I really appreciate you being here because for so many weeks now, the data has been incredibly noisy. I mean, what's your read on where consumers are
right now? And if the worst of that tariff fallout is yet to come.
SIMEON SIEGEL, SENIOR RETAIL AND E-COMMERCE ANALYST, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS: Thanks for bringing me on for such a cheery topic. This is great. So --
NEWTON: You can correct me, you know.
SIEGEL: I do. Well, by the way, I do love -- I am an analyst, I work at a Wall Street firm, I am not supposed to be optimistic. No, but I do love
that you said it is incredibly noisy, the data; not as incredibly negative, because I do think we have to acknowledge we have been worried about
recession for a while.
We had this COVID bliss, which sounds ridiculous, but with stimulus giving everyone a lot of money and the fact of all the supply chains we kept
hearing about, I mean, there was no product on the shelves. It was a good time to spend if you could find something to spend on. Let's just think
about Pelotons and dumbbells and everything else that went out as soon as it hit the floor.
We've been talking about the next year until about now, people have been worried, when does that get tougher? Because we've had this thing called
inflation. Tariffs just compounded that.
But I think what is important is even if we look at this retail sales number, that's sequential. Year-over-year, there's still growth. And so
what is interesting and my buddy, Nathaniel, who you just spoke to was on like yes, we are talking about Walmart, which obviously is a huge business
and represents a huge swath of U.S. spending. They still grew year-over- year.
And so I think that another company that reported a lot smaller, but another company that reported today was Birkenstock and they aren't talking
about price increases. They are talking about brand strength. They're talking about people willing to spend.
And so I do think there are different versions of the data when we look at them where there are winners, there are losers. And I think it is not just
high versus low income. I think, it is just an important message that we should keep. I guess, watch it.
NEWTON: Yes, but also to get more to that kind of I wouldn't call it contradictory data, but just other data to look at. We've heard theories in
recent weeks that historically low consumer confidence does not always translate into less buying, right?
People feel unsure right now, but they are, by and large, employed and they're still spending.
SIEGEL: By the way, it is not only that it is not always, I think it is rarely. Like the correlation -- I don't know if you've ever filled out a
survey, but I can't. I am going to acknowledge on national T.V., international T.V. that when I fill out a survey, I am not always telling
the truth.
Like, it is just what you believe is very different than what you spend and I think that's really important. And so, yes, I think what we know, healthy
or not, the U.S. consumer is overly resilient. Wise or not, the U.S. consumer spends oftentimes beyond those healthy levels.
And that's just a reality, and so that's what I think is so fascinating that what we are seeing -- we are again, that Walmart number, Walmart's
revenues went up there year-over-year, and so I think we give customers a reason to shop and they are shopping. Obviously, there is a difference
between discretionary and staples. There is difference between a quart of milk that you need versus a pair of Birkenstock sandals that you want.
But I think what we are seeing is on both fronts, there are people that are willing to open their wallet, even if it hurts.
NEWTON: And we get to the point about whether or not it hurts and the point about, you know, prices, inflation.
You obviously deal with e-commerce as well. We had this issue of de minimis. I am not going to explain what it is, but to remind our viewers,
we had an exemption for that for goods coming in from China, $800.00 below. It was basically what I call frictionless trade, that apparently is still
gone. Now, it will be gone.
Do you see the upheaval in the supply chains? Do you see that putting pressure on prices? And at the end of the day, if it does, consumers still
only have pretty much a fixed amount of money to spend, even with the credit.
SIEGEL: So I think you're exactly right. I think that that point, consumers only have a fixed amount of spend is a very important point that I think
does get a little overlooked.
We are of this view because tariffs really haven't been a huge thing in our lives. So we think about them in terms of classrooms. In the classroom,
every economist who is a lot smarter than I am is going to say everything I am saying now makes no sense and that's okay. I will go with it.
But at the end of the day, people are believing. People want to say that tariffs are giving companies the right and the permission to raise price.
That's not true. Tariffs don't give you the right to raise price. Shoppers give you the right to raise price.
And so if the shopper -- you can raise price all you want. If the shopper says, I don't have the money, I am not taking that price lift, I promise
you promotions will come back.
[16:10:11]
I promise you discounts will be there. Now that again, quart of milk versus something more want-based shop piece of clothing is going to be different,
and they're going to have to decide where they're willing to allocate those dollars. But just because your costs go up don't mean your prices do.
You might want them to, but you have to have a strong brand. You have to have a strong, compelling argument. You have to have customers that are
willing to say, okay, I get it, I need to or I want to spend on this product.
And I think that is where we are going to see a big distinction. It is not just tariffs, therefore spending. And so I think that's a really important
point and so that's where you will start seeing that wallet tighten as you're talking about that if, you know, if everyone feels flush because of
stimulus, then anyone can raise price.
But now you're going to have to find -- we are going to see who is allowed to raise price.
NEWTON: Interesting. Simeon, thank you for your insights. Again, it is about uncertainty. But being uncertainty doesn't mean it is good or bad or
good for everyone or bad for everyone and we will continue to see what this trade war brings us.
Simeon Siegel for us, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Now, the United States and the UAE have reached a deal on A.I. The two nations announcing a data center in Abu Dhabi as President Trump prepares
to wrap up his tour of the Middle East.
We will have that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: The U.S. Supreme Court seems open to the idea that lower courts went too far in blocking Donald Trump's order to end birthright
citizenship. Now, justices heard arguments earlier. At issue is whether a lower court can, on its own, remember, on its own issue a nationwide
injunction. The court seems open to backing the President on this one, even as they acknowledge practical issues of the administration's policies.
James Sample is a Law Professor at Hofstra University, and he joins me now. Really grateful to have you on board here as we continue to try and parse
the arguments today in front of the Supreme Court.
What did we learn about how the justices may be looking at this case?
JAMES SAMPLE, LAW PROFESSOR, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: It is great to be with you, Paula.
There are principled arguments and principled, non-ideological, non-results oriented concerns about nationwide or so-called universal injunctions
issued by federal district courts in an isolated federal district, but applying against the entire nation or in the entire nation.
The contrary version of that is that the government is the defendant in all of these cases, and the government of the United States is the government
of the United States in every district.
[16:15:09]
And so when an injunction tells the government that what the government is doing is illegal, stop doing that illegal thing, that is, in effect, an
injunction against the government everywhere.
And so in that sense, birthright citizenship is either going to enjoin the government's policy on birthright citizenship, the executive order, is
either going to be enjoined on a nationwide basis, or its going to have to be pressed one by one by individual plaintiffs in every single jurisdiction
around the country. Neither one of those is perfect, but up until today, the long-standing practice and the law, the absolutely clear law on the
substance of the question was that the nationwide injunction practice was the way in which that would be addressed.
So today, the court did seem sympathetic to the idea that isolated universal injunctions from isolated judges are potentially a concern, but
on the other hand, birthright citizenship is the classic case where they are valuable because you don't want citizenship to mean different things in
different places.
NEWTON: Yes, and to be clear, that means that you could be a citizen in the state of New York, where I am right now and not be a citizen if you go to
the state of Nevada, for instance.
When I first started looking at the implications, though, of this case, it was indeed startling to me because, put succinctly, if this ruling
restricts the use of these nationwide injunctions, it could have implications for other constitutional rights. I mean, not just birthright
citizenship. Gun rights were brought up in court today. Can you explain some of that?
SAMPLE: Absolutely.
I mean, the nation here has a Constitution, right? The Constitution isn't state specific. The Constitution isn't district specific. The Constitution
isn't even federal circuit specific.
If you think about the gun context, the example that was raised in court today is imagine a scenario where a different president, so you take this
out of the results oriented or the partisan lens of thinking about Donald Trump and thinking about birthright citizenship. Imagine a very different
executive who declared by executive order that he wanted to or she wanted to take away every gun from every gun owner in America, and then every
single individual gun owner would have to challenge that policy specifically as applied to them, or go through the process of forming a
class action to do so.
That's not the rule of law. That's not a constitutional right. That's the rule of law for those who have the resources to press a case. The
Constitution is supposed to apply nationwide to everyone, regardless of whether or not they have the resources, the time, the energy, the access to
counsel to press a case.
So to your point, Paula, the concern about striking down universal injunctions is a real concern, not just in the birthright citizenship
context, but in the context of our separation of powers. The solicitor general of the United States stood in the well of the Supreme Court today
and effectively declared war on the courts of the United States.
NEWTON: Yes, assuming that they would not have the jurisdiction that in practice they had always have. And I want to stick with this concept of
taking this out of the political realm, because do you agree that both Democratic and Republican presidents, you know, at times do not believe
that lower courts should have this power?
SAMPLE: Absolutely, and that's the point about the principled concerns about nationwide and universal injunctions and there is no question that we
have more universal injunctions today. The practice is much more pervasive than it has been at any other point in American history, but that's really
a byproduct of the fact that we also have more volume and more sweeping scope in terms of executive orders.
So if the executive is issuing executive orders that change the meaning of the Constitution, that change the meaning of federal law on a regular
basis, on a wholesale basis, and on a broad, broad basis, then you're going to see more universal injunctions, because the alternative is that the law
only applies if the executive agrees with it and that's basically the exact system that the American revolutionaries fought against.
NEWTON: So fascinating. James Sample, we will have to leave it there, but we will continue to watch this case with interest. Really appreciate it.
Now, the Trump administration announced another deal during the President's final stop on his Middle East tour. The Commerce Department says the U.S.
and the UAE agreed to an A.I. partnership with plans for a joint data center in Abu Dhabi.
Now, it is part of an effort to support regional A.I. demand.
The announcement coincides with Mr. Trump's stop in Abu Dhabi. He was greeted by drums, chanting, and a military honor guard lining the hallway.
Trump toured the grand mosque and took part in meetings at the Presidential Palace.
[16:20:07]
Now before leaving Doha, President Trump again proposed that the U.S. take over Gaza. This time, he pitched what he called a freedom zone. He said
people would be given housing while Hamas is, in his words, dealt with.
U.N. agencies say, meantime, that the humanitarian disaster in Gaza just deepens by the hour. It has been more than two months since Israel allowed
aid shipments to get in. Men, women and children are now resorting to absolutely desperate measures just to stay alive.
Jeremy Diamond has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Amid the crush of bodies clamoring for food, children are being put to an unthinkable test: Who will
manage to fill their family pot? And who will have to wait another day to eat?
This is how Gaza's children are being forced to live as Israel continues to block the entry of food. A total siege that is now in its 11th week.
A boy burnt by the small prize of lentil soup he has managed to win; a girl scooping what remains with her bare hands. But before it all, a search for
food for them and their families with no guarantee of success.
(MOHAMMED speaking in foreign language.)
DIAMOND (voice over): "I wake up every day, then we go find a kitchen. If we don't find food, then we go to another kitchen and another kitchen,"
Mohammed (ph) explains. "If we don't find anything, we go all day without food."
Nearly all of Gaza's population now experiencing crisis levels of food insecurity or worse, with 56 percent at the emergency or catastrophic
level, meaning very high rates of acute malnutrition and large gaps in food consumption.
Unless aid gets in, more than three-quarters of the population are projected to fall to those emergency levels.
TOM FLETCHER, U.N. UNDERSECRETARY FOR HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS: Every single one of the 2.1 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip face the risk of
famine, one in five face starvation.
DIAMOND (voice over): As this man-made crisis worsens, Israel and the United States approving a new, tightly controlled mechanism to get aid into
some parts of Gaza.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says it plans to launch its operations within two weeks. Until then, it called on Israel to allow aid in through
existing mechanisms. Israel has yet to publicly agree.
A person involved in the planning said Israel has agreed to allow some aid into Gaza in the coming days, but Israel has yet to say so publicly.
The U.N. says it won't participate, saying the new plan will make things worse, facilitating forced displacement and putting civilians at risk.
In Gaza, people are running out of time as charity kitchens like this one run out of food.
(NIHAD ABU KHOUL speaking in foreign language.)
DIAMOND (voice over): "Fourteen pots were not enough," the manager of this kitchen says. "Those who didn't get food will not eat anything today, and
will come back tomorrow and might not get anything again."
Cases of acute malnutrition are spiking and people are being pushed to the brink, like Reda Ahmed (ph), who fainted yesterday from a lack of food.
(REDA AHMED speaking in foreign language.)
DIAMOND (voice over): "I swear I can't walk anymore. There is nothing to eat," she says.
As for the children who stand waiting for a chance to be fed, too many are now learning what it means to go hungry.
Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: So the Gaza Soup Kitchen is among the groups providing hot meals throughout the enclave. Family members say its founder, Mahmoud Almadhoun,
was killed by an Israeli drone strike in December while delivering food in Northern Gaza. CNN reached out to the Israeli military for comment and has
not heard back now.
Now, the Gaza Soup Kitchen continues its work despite all the challenges its co-founder, Hani Almadhoun whose brother says a third of U.N. supported
kitchens have been shut down over the last 10 days and Hani joins us now.
Given what we just saw in Jeremy's report, what can you tell us about the situation on the ground as you guys have worked for so many months to try
and get the bare necessities of food to so many people?
HANI ALMADHOUN, CO-FOUNDER, GAZA SOUP KITCHEN: Yes, thank you for having me. Obviously, the news is not good. The situation is very dire where we
are not only seeing starved kids, we are in fact -- we are in a medical point where we hook up the people to IVs because this is exhaustion,
starvation, famine. These are real stories we document every day through our Instagram feed.
It is unfortunate that agencies like UNRWA and the World Food Programme are being stopped from getting food to people in Gaza.
[16:25:10]
They could fight this. They could do it. There are 3,000 food trucks waiting outside of Gaza, just literally five minutes away from the center
of the famine and they are not allowed in.
I do not believe this new plan by the Israelis and the Americans is workable. In fact, some people go as far as to call it a gimmick or a scam,
because it is not going to solve the hunger and starvation problem within Gaza because it is really weaponizing aid and taking families into
militarized zones.
We continue to work, the Gaza Soup Kitchen is able to cook, but you can imagine we are not cooking for two million people, maybe at most, we are
cooking for 30,000 people per day, and food is scarce. It is expensive, outrageously expensive. Some of the items are a thousand times more
expensive than they were in October 2023.
We work with local farmers. The local supply is basically we cook lentils, white beans, and rice and pasta and there is no flour. A bag of flour cost
about $600.00, the same bag you would buy at Aldi for $3.00, the same bag you buy at Aldi for five bucks, and that's just the situation in Gaza and
you understand the scale of this destruction. And people are dropping at the hospitals that are already overwhelmed, and we are trying to keep
people alive.
You've heard in the report about half a million people in Gaza facing starvation. And, you know, we need these agencies like UNRWA to respond and
deliver and they are ready, but they need the permission from the Israeli Army and -- go ahead.
NEWTON: So, about this plan. And I understand it is imperfect and I understand the U.N. has said it just won't be involved, and yet isn't some
kind of a plan, some kind of food given the necessity that you just described worth it to at least give it a try, to let some food in?
ALMADHOUN: Well, you're being kind by saying it is imperfect. It is actually a sinister plan because it is going to force people to move into
militarized zones. I will give you an example.
My family is in North Gaza. They will not be able to collect food unless they move from North Gaza to go to the area where the Israelis can give
them food, and that violates a lot of these humanitarian principles. And guess what? It is not the U.N. that just is saying no, the U.N. and every
respectable American NGO have declined to participate in this.
Don't get me wrong, we need food in Gaza. This is not the way to do it. If you look at the details of the plan, more than 50 percent of the dollars
will be spent in security and logistics, not on food. This is not a good plan. We have an infrastructure that already works. It is tested, it is
with the U.N. and outside the U.N. that can deliver the food.
NEWTON: I do want you to listen to the IDF that spoke to CNN yesterday just about the complications they say with letting any aid in. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DORON SPIELMAN, IDF SPOKESPERSON (RET): The only way, ultimately that they will send our hostages home is if they are at the absolute brink of
disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: You know, you heard that IDF spokesman there. They're saying that, look, hostages need to be brought home and it was very clear, they do not
believe that their loved ones will make it home unless this desperate situation continues in Gaza.
I mean, what do you say to the IDF, but also to Hamas?
ALMADHOUN: For the IDF, I will remind them about 53,000 Palestinians will not be coming home because they are six feet under and this is a
humanitarian crisis. Feeding a hungry child is not a political statement. The polls in the U.S. show that Americans are moving toward supporting more
aid to Gaza, to Palestine, it is not complicated. They want you to believe it is complicated, it is not.
UNRWA has an end-to-end process to deliver aid from the truck to the home of people. It already exists. But for some reason, the Israelis want to
stall and hurt the Palestinians. So this way, I hope all the hostages get home to their families. Trust me, every Palestinian wanted to go home, but
it seems, and this isn't my personal capacity, the current Israeli government is not interested in a deal.
Unfortunately, while this happens, we are going to continue to feed our communities through the Gaza Soup Kitchen and pray for America. We know
that the kids are really going to the hospitals for care because they're not eating. Kids with skin next to the bone, there is nothing in between
and this is something that is going to be irreversible for a while.
We are taking a great risk to continue to cook for our neighbors and our friends, but we should not be the only actor inside Gaza. We need a U.N.
level response. We need any type of response. But to do a gimmick like this Gaza Foundation, humanitarian foundation I do not believe it.
Now, don't get me wrong, we need aid in Gaza, but there is an infrastructure that already exists. But every respectable NGO in this space
have declined to participate not because they're heartless, but did not want to violate the principles they abide by.
NEWTON: Hani, I have to leave it there for now. But we will continue to, you know, to obviously follow this story. And I do want to point out that
you wrote an opinion piece on CNN just days after you know -- just days into this conflict, so long ago, you know, bemoaning the fact that animals
were going hungry in Gaza.
It is absolutely with despair that we bring your viewers what is going on with Gaza so many months later.
Hani Almadhoun, thanks so much. I appreciate it.
ALMADHOUN: Many blessings. Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, Canadian tourists are staying away from the United States. I will have the Canadian Ambassador to the United States with me next to
discuss the knock on effects of Trump's trade war. I will do when we come back.
[16:30:45]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Hello, I'm Paula Newton and there's more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment when I'll be speaking with the Canadian ambassador to the United
States about the status of relations between the two countries, and a copy of the Magna Carta, bought for just $27 in 1946. It turns out to be an
original 700-year-old document. We speak to the man who made that discovery. Before that, though, the headlines this hour.
U.S. President Donald Trump is wrapping up his Middle East tour with a trip to Abu Dhabi. There, Mr. Trump visited the Grand Mosque and invited UAE's
president to the White House. Earlier in Qatar, he said, Iran has sort of agreed to terms on a nuclear deal, but warned of a violent step if an
agreement is not reached.
Talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegates are still expected to happen in Turkey, just without their presidents. Earlier, Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with his Turkish counterpart in Ankara. Meantime, the Kremlin announced Russian President Vladimir Putin will not be
attending the highly anticipated peace talks in Istanbul. So now Mr. Zelenskyy is sending only a delegation there.
Mexican authorities are investigating the murder of a TikTok beauty influencer killed as she was livestreaming.
[16:35:05]
They say Valeria Marquez was shot by a male intruder in her beauty salon in a case of suspected femicide. That's the killing of a woman or girl for
gender based reasons.
So Canadian tourists are staying away from the United States. The Federal Reserve's latest Beige Book says Canadians are noticeably absent at some
large attractions. Airlines are also noticing the trend, and Canada says people aren't driving across the border either. It says the number of
return trips fell 35 percent last month from the year before, the fourth straight month of decline.
Kirsten Hillman is Canada's ambassador to the United States, and she joins me now from Washington, D.C.
Really good to see you, Ambassador. Listen, you and I know these tourism numbers because we hear the anecdotes, but this is hard data and they
really pack a punch emotionally and economically for Canadians. They're mad as heck. What I'm wondering now is how much does that anger, if we call it,
strengthen your hand both at the White House and on Capitol Hill.
KIRSTEN HILLMAN, CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Well, first, thanks for having me, Paula. I think that what we're seeing with Canadians, as you
say, is an expression of Canadians' frustration around this tariff tit-for- tat that we've gotten into. It's having really important impacts in Canada, job losses and slowdowns. Here too in the United States. And I think that
it's a testament to the will of Canadians to try to do something to express their perspective, their feelings, their -- have some influence in a
situation that's very difficult for average citizens to feel they have any control over. So that's what we're seeing.
I think that the good news is, you know, last week we had a meeting between Prime Minister Carney, our prime minister, and President Trump in the White
House. It was a good meeting. It was a very cordial meeting. And we were -- those of us who are working on this were really given the task by the two
leaders to come up with a deal between Canada, the United States that's going to return us to a place of stability. A deal that, as they both put
it, is good for both countries and will be helpful to our economy.
So that's what we're focused on. But, yes, Canadians are trying to express themselves in -- with the power that they have, power of the purse.
NEWTON: Yes. And they definitely are loud and clear. Now, I have to say, while certainly the tone is different after the visit to the White House,
not much has changed substantively on trade. So what do you think it's going to take? Because Canada seems to be one of the allies that's been
left behind here. And I'll note that punishing tariffs, not only are they still in place and they threaten key industries, but in fact Canada could
actually see more tariffs before any deal gets done.
HILLMAN: Well, I actually think that we're in a decent place. We just had an election. So we have not been really in a position to be engaging with
the White House substantively. But we are down that path now and we're going to continue to be down that path. One of the important things for
Canada is that our relationship with the United States is unlike anyone else's. We're your biggest customer, we are your biggest foreign energy
supplier.
We keep the prices at the pump in the United States low. We have a very integrated security apparatus. We protect a very long but very safe border
together. We're working in the Arctic together. Like there's all sorts of ways in which we work together.
NEWTON: But, Ambassador, it hasn't made an impression yet on the people negotiating either from the White House or from the Treasury Department or
the Commerce secretary. It just hasn't led to results yet. What is it going to take, and how much longer do you think?
HILLMAN: Well, we're really just like -- we're really just starting. We're really just in this negotiation post-meeting at the White House last week.
So these things take a bit of time. We have clear instructions. What it's going to take. I mean, that remains to be seen. But from my perspective,
what it's going to take is a clear understanding that we are harming mutually both of our sectors, these deeply intertwined sectors.
We need to get back to a place of stability, and we're going to do it. It may be a little bit bumpy on the way, but I'm convinced we're going to do
it because it's in the best interest of our populations on both sides. But these things, they don't happen, you know, they don't happen overnight.
They take some serious discussions.
NEWTON: And how far will Canada go in those negotiations? I mean, a lot has been said in the last few months about whether or not energy would be put
on the table, whether or not any kind of other punitive tariffs, even more punitive, let's say, non-tariff barriers will be put in place to really get
the U.S. attention and get them to the table to get a deal done.
HILLMAN: Well, we have the attention and we are getting to the table. So I think that's important.
[16:40:01]
So now, now that we're there, it's a question of taking, as I say, we have tariffs going in both directions between our two countries. And we have to
talk about getting back to where we were at months ago under the new NAFTA, the USMCA, which is 99 percent tariff free and stability going forward. We
have everyone's attention. We are having those discussions. It's going to take a little bit of time because you have to get it right, you know.
A fast deal is not the answer. A good deal is the answer. A deal that is going to lead to a competitive marketplace in North America, resilience,
and frankly, strength on both sides.
NEWTON: Ambassador, can you just pull the curtain back a little bit? The meeting in the White House went very well. You were there for both,
obviously, the public meetings, but also behind the scenes. President Trump seemed to be impressed with Prime Minister Carney in a fashion. I mean,
what did he ask him about? What did he say? And how can Mr. Carney kind of take that goodwill forward?
HILLMAN: Yes, I think the leaders actually really did have a good discussion. And I think they absolutely -- they share some common goals. So
they're both, you know, seeking to transform their domestic economies. Our prime minister is really working hard at strengthening the Canadian
economy, unifying the Canadian economy, dealing with some internal barriers we have, but supercharging the assets that we have in Canada.
And the president is also very focused on the Canadian and U.S. economy and jobs. So they were able to compare notes on that as two G7 leaders. And we
have the G7 presidency this year. They talked a lot about some geopolitical dynamics in the world. We talked a lot about security. We talked about the
Arctic. We talked about, you know, investments that Canada is making there. There was a lot of interest in ensuring that, you know, you have to come --
if you're going to come through the Arctic, you're going to hit Canada, but eventually you're going to hit the United States. So we talked a little bit
about that.
The dynamic was very good. I felt that the president, you know, recognizes our prime minister as someone who is a serious and capable and experienced
economic manager. And so I think that that was a very positive thing.
NEWTON: OK, Ambassador Hillman, we'll leave it there for now. Glad to speak with you.
HILLMAN: All right. Thanks so much.
NEWTON: Take care. Bye-bye.
HILLMAN: Bye-bye.
NEWTON: Coming up, how a well-known fish popularized in the aquarium trade is posing a threat to native species in Brazilian waters.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:32]
NEWTON: Today on "CALL TO EARTH," we meet Brazilian scientist Luiz Rocha, who's part of the Rolex Perpetual Planet Initiative. He explores little
known depths in the ocean in search of new species. But it's a non-native and well-known fish that has brought him back home to Brazil to help tackle
the urgent threat posed by the new underwater invader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUIZ ROCHA, CURATOR OF ICHTHYOLOGY, CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: We are here because the invasion of the lionfish, it started in the Caribbean, but
recently they arrived here in Brazil, in the island of Fernando de Noronha. It's quite damaging to the ecosystem because it's a very effective
predator. So today we're going to a site that's not very deep, between 30 and 35 meters depth. It's in a northwest corner of the island, so it's in a
site that not a lot of people go to and we expect to find a lot of lionfish there.
The main objective is to collect the lionfish and look at their stomach contents and then see what they're eating here. So in other words, what
kind of impacts they're having into the local community of fish.
The lionfish is an invasive species. It's originally from the Indo-Pacific so it's in the Philippines and Indonesia, from East Africa all the way to
the Western Pacific. It was introduced through the aquarium trade in the Atlantic. So lionfish probably got into the Atlantic through the aquarium
trade.
That's the most accepted hypothesis right now is that somebody probably bought it to put in their aquarium. The aquarium was too small. It became
too small because they grew very fast. And the person likely thought, well, it's not going to do any harm if I release it to the ocean. But if you
release it to the wrong ocean, then you have a big problem. And that's what we're in right now.
Lionfish are what we call an ambush predator. They kind of sit and wait. They rely on their camouflage. They almost look like a rock or a piece of
coral, and they don't move very fast. They just wait and ambush their prey. So when the fish comes by that they want to eat, they just grab it very
quickly. They eat anything that fits in their mouth.
They're very generalized predator and they are a very effective predator, especially here in the Atlantic, because the prey from here are not used to
their presence so they don't know they're predators so they're very naive prey.
Here in Brazil, it might be a bigger problem because there's a lot of species that are endemic to small islands so they have small populations
that are intrinsically more susceptible to predation from an invasive predator like this.
So here in Noronha, there are three or four species that are only found here. And those species are the ones we're keeping an eye on to see if
there's any decline with this first invasion of lionfish.
The overall effects that lionfish have on the reef are still kind of unknown. They definitely change the food chain, but there is a small chance
that there is a damaging decline right now. And so that's why we need to manage them in the beginning of the invasion.
One of the things we're doing with the specimens we're collecting here, we're taking pieces of muscle from the lionfish, and we do isotope analysis
to see which position in the food chain they occupy. So what kind of food they eat, basically. And then we use that to kind of determine how they're
changing the food chain. So what they're eating that the native predators are not and how they're affecting the community of fishes here.
I'm always optimistic despite every challenge because I think nature will prevail. Nature is very resilient. It doesn't matter what we do. Nature is
going to win at the end. I just think we still have to protect as much as we can and conserve as much as we can, because there's going to be a blip
in the geological record and I don't want to be the generation responsible for that.
So I think we have a responsibility to care for the planet and leave it, as well as it can be left for the next generations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: OK. Let us know what you're doing to answer the call with the hashtag CalltoEarth.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:09]
NEWTON: Now to a stunning discovery at Harvard Law School. Back in 1946, the university bought what it thought to be a copy of the Magna Carta. Now,
that's the royal charter limiting the king of England's power written more than 800 years ago. It's often considered the earliest declaration of human
rights and a foundational document.
Now, Harvard paid just $27.50 for it. Let's fast forward to today. Professor David Carpenter of King's College London was looking for
unofficial copies of the document. He stumbled upon the one Harvard bought and verified it was an original, not a copy. An original from 1300. And
David Carpenter joins us now.
Good to see you, with a story that has just had us riveted all day. I have to ask, what was your first clue? It really has. It's really captured our
imagination here. And I have to ask you, what was your first clue that this was not a copy? Because, I mean, apparently you just looked at the images
online?
DAVID CARPENTER, PROFESSOR OF MEDIEVAL HISTORY, KING'S COLLEGE LONDON: I absolutely did. I just looked at the images online. I clicked on Harvard
Law School manuscript 172. It came up. I could hardly believe my eyes because I'm very familiar at looking at originals of Magna Carta. And I
hardly believe my eyes. It seemed to me an absolutely stone cold sober original of the 1300 Magna Carta. And then, even more astonishing, I then
thought, well, I wonder what Harvard Law School think it is.
And I looked and they seemed to think, as you just said, that it was just a later copy. And digging around by my friend and colleague, Professor
Vincent, of University of East Anglia, I mean, he was surprised to discover they paid $27.50 for it. So it's extraordinary, I think. And as you rightly
say, I mean, its value -- if you ever went for auction, which it never would do, but its value must be millions of dollars, I think. So what an
extraordinary thing.
NEWTON: That is not hyperbole in this situation. But how did you authenticate it? Right? Because this can't just be a hunch.
CARPENTER: Right.
NEWTON: There was a process here.
CARPENTER: Yes. Sure, sure. That's a very good question. Because of course appearances can be very deceptive. So what we did was to, we divided
responsibilities. Nicholas Vincent looked at where it came from, it's Provenance, and I looked at the document itself. And I think there are
three things which persuaded me it was absolutely genuine. The first was its handwriting, and the handwriting is absolutely comparable to that found
in the six previously known originals of 1300. Secondly, the size, it's absolutely comparable, too.
[16:55:03]
But the third most important test of all was the actual content, the text, because for the other six originals, they've all got exactly the same text
and it's actually a different text from earlier editions of Magna Carta.
Now, if Harvard Law School's text didn't correspond to that of the other six originals, that was it. It wouldn't work. So what I did was and I was
helped here because it's not in all that good condition, and Harvard very, very wisely sent me special images, infrared images, spectral images. And
so I work through the Harvard text word for word, back-breaking, eye- breaking work, comparing it to the authorized version.
Jolly nerve racking actually because I kept thinking, oh, God, it's going to fail me now. But actually, no, it didn't. It was flying colors, its text
is virtually identical to that found in these six other originals. And that persuaded me more than anything else that this was absolutely genuine and
authentic.
NEWTON: Wow. The tale is just as unbelievable. The process is just as unbelievable as the actual result here. The fact that it is an original.
What did Harvard say when you told them?
CARPENTER: Well, I think Harvard, first of all, were baffled about this. I think they were also, quite reasonably, a bit skeptical at first, but when
Nick and -- Nick Vincent and I assembled the evidence, they then became very enthusiastic. They are very enthusiastic about it.
NEWTON: I'll bet.
CARPENTER: And Professor Vincent and I are going out in June to celebrate it. It's going to be put on public display. I think I might say that I
think it's absolutely right that Harvard Law School should have its own original of Magna Carta. It's only the other -- only one other original
Magna Carta is actually in the U.S., and Harvard Law School is, after all, the great center of legal studies. So absolutely right that it should have
one of the foundational documents asserting the rule of law.
NEWTON: Yes, a lot could be said about how that relates to today's environment. I won't get you involved in politics here, though, as we're
talking about history. I only have a few seconds left but I want to ask you. We alluded to the price. It would likely be worth tens of millions,
apparently, according to people who look at these kinds of documents. Not that it's ever going for sale.
CARPENTER: No.
NEWTON: But can you confirm that it is likely priceless?
CARPENTER: Yes, I think that is probably about right. Certainly many millions, I think, if you were putting an estimate on it, if it ever went
for auction.
NEWTON: Got you. Professor David Carpenter --
CARPENTER: Which is --
(CROSSTALK)
NEWTON: Go ahead.
CARPENTER: It makes it all the more wonderful that Harvard got it for $27, as you've said.
NEWTON: Absolutely. An astounding story.
Professor David Carpenter, thank you for bringing it to us. Really appreciate it.
CARPENTER: Thank you very much.
NEWTON: Thank you.
That is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I'm Paula Newton. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
