Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Markets Surge On Tariff Optimism, Consumer Confidence Bump; Thousands Overrun Aid Site Amid New Distribution Effort; Suspect Arrested for Attempted Murder In Liverpool; King Charles Opens New Session Of Canada's Parliament; Tesla Sales In Europe Decline For Fourth Straight Month; U.S. State Department Orders Pause On Student Visa Screening; NPR Sues Trump Administration Over plan To Cut Funding; Skiplagging Travelers Risk Punishment From Airlines. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired May 27, 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. Here we go. Dong-dong-dong-dong, and it is a strong
bullish session on the market. The Dow is up, and has been -- it has been that way, you can see. You don't need me to go into details. We will tell
you why, what, and how -- the reasons for this.
And hit the gavel, bring trading to a close. Oh there we go. I want to show you also the triple stack if we can, which will show you the three major
indices. There we go -- the best 2.5 percent on the NASDAQ.
So those are the markets and the main events of the day.
President Trump sees positive momentum on E.U.-U.S. trade negotiations.
Chaotic, desperate scenes on the first day of the highly controversial new aid program for Gaza.
And the Chinese E.V. company BYD overtakes Tesla in European sales.
We are live in New York, Tuesday, May the 27th. I am Richard Quest, and I mean business.
Good evening.
We begin tonight with that rally in stocks and all because investors and consumers are growing more confident about the economic outlook, perhaps
not so much that it is getting better or that it is not going to get much worse. All three U.S. indices closed higher, with the NASDAQ seeing the
best of the day. The Consumer Confidence number jumped from the confidence board, it jumped in May quite considerably, more than 12 percent and that
broke the five-month streak of declines.
So there is a strong correlation I think, between this consumer confidence and the fact that President Trump then said the E.U. is moving quickly on
trade negotiations. You'll recall yesterday he delayed 50 percent tariffs on the bloc to allow time for more discussions.
Anna Stewart is with me.
So this is one of those wonderful moments where nothing has actually changed in a sense. You know, the 20 percent is still on E.U. tariffs and
everybody else is still there, but all that's happened is the threat has been taken away of things getting worse, and I guess what you could say,
China, we lost the 145 to 30.
ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: Yes, but it is still 30 percent. Europe still has 10 percent and the deadline has remained exactly the same. They still
have until July the 9th to reach some sort of trade deal and what is so interesting. Richard is, you know, we have this Truth Social post from
Donald Trump. The President saying the E.U. was slow walking, to put it mildly, on the trade deal.
Well, two weeks ago, in an update from E.U. officials on the U.S. trade deal negotiations, they said the U.S. weren't moving fast enough and that
was what was really holding them back. So it is hard to know what has really changed over the last few days, but clearly lots of enthusiasm on
both sides to get a deal done.
QUEST: The issue, of course, is whether it is a real deal or not. If we -- you and I have talked about the U.K. deal, and if you look at the China
deal, it is a lot about promise -- we will do this, we will do that. We will think about this, we will try to come to an agreement on that --
nothing really much has changed, and I guess the E.U. is heading in the same direction.
STEWART: It could be and the U.K. trade deal, we were promised it was going to be wide, it was going to be broad, it was going to be substantial and it
really wasn't any of that. And let's face it, that is the only trade deal that has been done. There is more than a hundred to go.
For the E.U., the U.S. is negotiating with 27 member states. There are all sorts of thorny issues. The U.S. focuses on the trade of goods, the deficit
it has. The E.U. would like to focus more on services because there is actually a surplus from the U.S., and then you've got the whole point of
digital services, taxes, things like that; non-tariff barriers as well.
So there is a lot to be discussed. It is very unclear what will actually be agreed. Maybe the E.U. will buy more LNG from the U.S., maybe the E.U. will
reduce tariffs on U.S. cars -- perhaps that's the sort of thing we will see. But is that enough given the sort of trade spat we've seen?
QUEST: It is enough to get you over the line, I guess, and certainly to have the, if you will, the totemic victory of saying, look what we've done.
The core issue is whether it changes the terms of trade over the longer period.
STEWART: And you have to question, is anything really changing? If we are looking at real substantive sort of trade issues, has anything really
changed over the last few months? Are we just seeing a rollback of some tariffs and a lot of whiplash on markets? Is anything significant changing
to open up markets between the U.S. and the rest of the world.
QUEST: I will tell you -- I will tell you what I'd like you to do, not for tonight.
STEWART: Some homework, Richard?
QUEST: Yes, a bit of homework. Delve deep into the non-tariff barriers with the E.U.-U.S. and then when this deal is finally done, we can actually pull
apart and see how many of those really knotty issues have been resolved or have we got that famous -- we agree to negotiating bona fide.
STEWART: Okay.
[16:05:10]
We will play non-trade barrier bingo coming up soon on QMB.
QUEST: Good talk. Excellent. Good game. Good board game. Talking of board games. Thank you, Anna. Beautifully done -- led me nicely on the board game company, Stonemaier has joined a group that is suing
President Trump over his tariff policy.
The company wrote in a statement that livelihoods are being treated like pawns in a political game, and indeed, I don't think that that game could
be as fraught as "Snakes and Ladders."
You know the game, you go up, you go fall down a snake, you go up a up a ladder. So as we just discussed, the current situation, the E.U. has fallen
down a snake when Donald Trump threatened 50 percent, and then Ursula von der Leyen rolled the dice and she called the President and he delayed the
tariffs. So that's equivalent of going up the ladder.
The U.K. also got up the ladder when it announced a trade agreement light on details, and there is no comprehensive deal, but China has fallen
heavily as tariffs reached 145 percent. Not quite back to the starting point because there goes the ladder for China, Scott Bessent met the
Chinese delegation, tariffs then reduced to 30 percent. That is, "Snakes and Ladders." We've got this game in front of me now, which is a splendid
game.
It is "Wingspan," which is where we all have to pretend to be reservists trying to attract birds to our garden, if you will. Jamey Stegmaier is the
co-founder and president of Stonemaier Games, who, of course distribute this.
Look, why sue the President? What I am trying to work out -- you know, I understand, as you heard from our "Snakes and Ladders" analogy, and we've
got your game here, that it is difficult. But what is your locus of cause to sue the administration?
JAMEY STEGMAIER, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, STONEMAIER GAMES: Well, I really like your "Snakes and Ladders" analogy, but the one thing I would change
about it is that China isn't the one paying the tariffs, it is companies like mine. I have a small U.S. company based in St. Louis. I have eight
total employees based in the U.S. We are the ones paying the tariffs if we want to bring our games into the U.S.
So the tariffs are really punishing. Any company, particularly U.S. companies that are bringing games into the U.S. and that was the impetus
for us to try to take positive action to protect companies like mine, small businesses like mine, by pursuing this lawsuit against the Executive
Branch.
QUEST: But what is the claim? I mean, I can see the defense from the administration, the President has constitutional authority over trade
policy. There are public issue reasons which you may or may not agree with, and there will be winners and losers and you're a loser. Goodbye.
STEGMAIER: Well, the reason that we have is that the Constitution says that Congress is the body in the U.S. that has the authority over taxes and
tariffs are a tax on small businesses like mine. The President does have some impact over trade policies, but they are typically used for things
like sanctions, for the types of agreements that you were talking about a minute ago, but not on taxes on U.S. companies and U.S. individuals.
If the President had that sort of power, it could be incredibly unchecked, and currently that power is unchecked.
QUEST: I need to understand from you because I am fascinated, sir, fascinated by the logistics for people like yourself. So you order your
games and you get them to be made and printed out in China and have done so for years with highly reputable companies that you've worked with for a
long time.
You're looking at Christmas, you're making the orders now. At what point does the tariff go on? Is it when the ship sails?
STEGMAIER: Yes, all great points there. We've worked with our partner in China for 13 years now. It is not something that we are quick to change.
For right now, right now, you're exactly right. We are looking at making our winter holiday print run. That will take around four to five months to
print, and we will pay the tariffs on those games, around 65 percent of those games we will bring into the U.S. We will pay those tariffs when they
enter the U.S. and so that is after the 90-day period right now where we have 30 percent tariffs.
Who knows what it could be after that 90-day period? And that uncertainty is terrible for U.S. businesses and any business who wants to bring
anything into the U.S. for the winter holidays.
QUEST: You pay it upon arrival, but the tariff is set upon departure.
STEGMAIER: The tariff is set upon departure, correct, and then we pay it -- if we -- once those ships arrive in the U.S., if we want to get our goods,
we have to pay the government what amounts to a ransom to get our games back or to get our games into the U.S.
QUEST: So do you -- I've got "Wingspan" in front of me, give me an idea of what the cost is going to be at the moment. Assuming -- I know they haven't
shipped because you're still printing, but assuming it ships today, well, give me a figure that you'd like to work with.
STEGMAIER: Sure. Well, and part of the point of this is that we started a major print run of "Wingspan" and many of our other products back in
January before the tariffs even existed.
[16:10:10]
No consideration or grace period went into those games where the tariff was applied afterwards. So we are just bringing those into the U.S. right now.
We are paying a 30 percent tariff on them, so it amounts to -- it amounts to a price increase of around three to four dollars, which may not sound
like much, but we made 250,000 units of games that we started in in January. So were essentially paying $300,000.00 extra in taxes to the U.S.
government for those games.
QUEST: What do you believe is the price elasticity of a board game that allows you to pass that on? Let's I don't know what the board game retails
for, but let's say you paid a tariff of three -- whatever it is, 350 or whatever. How much -- you know what I am asking here. At what point am I --
does your research tell you that I am put off buying the game?
STEGMAIER: That's a great question.
"Wingspan" retails for $65.00 and we are trying our best not to change that price, because as we increase that price, like you say, the price
elasticity, fewer customers will actually buy the game. So we are trying to keep that price right around the price that we currently charge, but we are
at least trying to be transparent to consumers about the impact of this tariff tax on companies like mine that we need to pay.
QUEST: Jamey, before I let you go, because we are going to -- we've agreed we are going to have an office -- we are going to play "Wingspan" in the
office with all my colleagues just reassure me, can I cheat at it like I am the banker in "Monopoly," can I? Am I able to cheat at it?
STEGMAIER: You could probably cheat at "Wingspan" if you wanted to, if that makes it more fun for you.
QUEST: Yes. There we go. We will have a game with that and we will send you the results. Thank you very much. It is good to see you, sir.
STEGMAIER: Thank you, Richard.
QUEST: We will follow your company and we will follow the game and the wings of flight as it comes to the shore. Thank you, sir. I am very
grateful.
It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight. It is a Tuesday, and in a moment, so the Palestinian non-governmental organization network in Gaza is calling it
the big failure that we warned against. This is what happened today with the new form of aid distribution. It was described as dangerous and
unprecedented.
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: The United Nations is calling for a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza after what the U.N. is calling heartbreaking scenes at a new
distribution site.
[16:15:03]
Thousands of people overran this site in Rafah on the first day of operations for the U.S.-Israeli backed aid mechanism. Just watch these
pictures for a second to bring home the miserableness and awfulness of what took place.
Now, what was going on here, after months of total Israeli blockade had pushed people closer to famine, and now the desperation to get food. Only
two of the four new aid sites are up and running, and there are two million people that they are supposed to serve.
Jasmine El-Gamal is a Middle East analyst who served as a Middle East adviser to The Pentagon.
How is this different? This -- you know, I've tried to sort of follow through with it. The U.N. versus this, and how is this different?
JASMINE EL-GAMAL, FORMER MIDDLE EAST ADVISER TO THE PENTAGON: Thank you so much for having me on, Richard, to talk about this.
This is different in one very clear and disturbing way. What we are seeing right now is the blatant weaponization of aid against a population that has
been starving, that has been besieged, bombarded, and displaced many times over for the better part of two years now.
So this isn't an accident. This is something that the U.N. and humanitarian organizations have been warning about ever since it was announced. They
said that this was going to be a way of weaponizing aid and a way of putting people in danger, rather than getting aid to the people who need it
the most.
QUEST: Why? Hang on a second. Hang on. Sorry, I hear what you're saying, but that's just restating the problem, because surely if this aid mechanism
as it is being described, had been done properly and obviously it was a failure in the way it was done, if it had been done properly, it would have
worked and the aid would have gone in. So what's gone wrong here? Is it the mechanism? Is it -- why doesn't this work?
EL-GAMAL: Well, it doesn't work, Richard, because the very premise upon which it was based was not to bring people to bring assistance to the
people who needed it, but rather to make people leave where they were and travel to go get the assistance. And in doing so, it separates families. It
puts people in danger, and it is basically a survival of the fittest in some sort of twisted way.
It is not the people who need it who are just going to get it delivered to them. The mechanism that you're talking about, the one that works, is the
mechanism that already was in place. The U.N. had a mechanism and has had a mechanism with which to provide people aid. They receive aid through the
border. They take it to their warehouses, and then they distribute it to where people are.
So when you're asking me how this plan could have worked better, it was never going to work because it was never going to be bringing assistance to
people who needed it, and what is even more disturbing is that the way that it is being used now is that it is cramming people into these distribution
areas, basically like cattle surrounded by wire, and we have been seeing videos, hearing gunshots in the background because whenever people stray
even the slightest from what the Israelis have said, this is where you have to be, they get fired upon.
QUEST: So why do you think the U.S. is going along with it?
EL-GAMAL: I mean, that's a really good question. I wish I had the answer to that question, Richard, but I don't. I think the U.S., if I have to guess,
probably thinks that any amount of aid is better than none, which is a completely false premise, because that is just a way to abdicate
responsibility.
And it is not just the U.S. by the way, its every other country that has influence and relations with Israel that rather than get Israel to allow
these trucks with thousands and thousands of pallets of humanitarian assistance waiting at the border, rather than opening the border and
allowing that to go in and allowing the U.N. and humanitarian organizations to distribute it, they're now choosing to do this with private contractors
and military officials and security officials, rather than doing it the right way.
QUEST: I am grateful that you joined us this evening and put this in perspective. Thank you for taking time tonight. Thank you.
Now to more details and new details about the Liverpool car ramming that left more than 60 people injured on Monday. Police, as we've told you,
arrested the suspect who they believe followed an ambulance into a closed off street in a car before hitting dozens of football fans celebrating
Liverpool's Premier League title.
Now, there are many questions to be answered, but police have said last night that they don't think it was terrorism, which of course begs the
question, it may have been a criminal act, but was it a deliberate act or was this an accident or something that just went horribly wrong?
CNN's Nic Robertson is in Liverpool.
[16:20:08]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice over): A day later, Liverpool Police searching for clues, forensic teams scouring
streets still littered from the soccer cup celebrations abruptly ended as a vehicle plowed into the crowds. The police, calling it attempted murder.
KAREN JAUNDRILL, DETECTIVE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, MERSEYSIDE POLICE: We have arrested a 53 year old man from West Derby on suspicion of attempted
murder, dangerous driving offenses and driving whilst unfit through drugs. He remains in custody where he is being interviewed.
ROBERTSON (voice over): Hundreds of thousands of fans proudly crowded the streets as their team aboard an open top bus took a ten-mile tour, showing
off their latest trophy. How the driver got among them answered by the police.
JENNY SIMS, MERSEYSIDE POLICE ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE: It is believed the driver of the Ford Galaxy car involved in this incident was able to follow
an ambulance onto Water Street after the roadblock was temporarily lifted so that the ambulance crew could attend to a member of the public who was
having a suspected heart attack.
ROBERTSON (voice over): The city, still in shock.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it was a terrible thing what happened yesterday. It could happen anywhere, in any event or celebrations. And I was just
getting text messages from people back home to see if they were safe.
If felt disgusted after it when I heard because you didn't know if it was women and kids, and if anybody was dead.
ROBERTSON (voice over): Firefighters pulled four victims, including a child, from under a vehicle, 65 people injured, police say 50 of them taken
to hospital, 11 of them remain there they say, for treatment. They describe their condition as recovering.
The British Prime Minister among many to pay their tribute to the victims.
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: My thoughts and the thoughts of the whole country are with all of those that are affected.
Liverpool stands together and the whole country stands with Liverpool.
ROBERTSON (on camera): The police now do seem to have a good sense of how this happened and who was responsible. Less so why? But what is clear, it
is going to be long after this police tape comes down, the crime scene is cleared, the street is open before the people of Liverpool can really come
to terms with the terrible tragedy that unfolded here.
Nic Robertson, CNN, Liverpool.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: So now to Ukraine and Russia and the Kremlin has slammed what it has called dangerous decisions by Kyiv's European allies to lift the ban on
Ukraine's use of long range weapons.
The German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, yesterday said removing the restrictions would allow Ukraine to defend itself with the potential to hit
military targets inside Russia.
CNN's Clare Sebastian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are hearing that expressed from the European leaders, they are resurfacing calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine,
reiterating their support for Ukraine. We haven't heard from the German Chancellor on Monday who said that Ukraine no longer had any restrictions
on using long range missiles in Russia. That we understand is not a new policy, but certainly, hearing him voice that not only shows that this new
German Chancellor is willing to risk Russian red lines to show just how much he supports Ukraine, but also raises speculation that German long
range missiles with a range much longer than the U.S. and British missiles that Ukraine has already been supplied with, might be in play. Certainly,
Chancellor Merz has made it clear that he is in favor of that. So that's what we are hearing from the Europeans.
The Kremlin, though, in the face of those comments from Trump, absolutely crazy, maintaining a very calm exterior, perhaps in part to disprove the
absolutely crazy allegation. The kremlin, as you noted on Monday, saying that this was, you know, emotional overload of everyone, so not
specifically even naming Trump.
And again this morning, we've heard from Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson, saying that the U.S. and Russia cannot agree on everything he
said, but there is a political will to continue working together.
So I think, look, despite those comments, despite the fact that we've seen Trump's frustration bubble over a number of times towards Putin in recent
weeks, the Kremlin is still relatively confident here, relatively emboldened, because while there has been a lot of talk out of Washington,
there hasn't actually been any action yet, no new sanctions have been put in place, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio talked about this publicly in
those congressional hearings last week, saying that the calculation is still that not putting more sanctions on Russia is the best way to keep
Russia at the table.
And secondly, that same Truth Social post on Monday that described Putin as absolutely crazy, also criticized President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, saying
that everything that comes out of his mouth causes problems. So I think the Kremlin is probably holding out some hope that that relationship, the
breakdown of which, of course, led to the suspension of U.S. military aid temporarily in March, is also still on unsteady ground and are continuing,
I think, to do just enough to try to keep the U.S. engaged and keep that promised reset in relations on the table without, of course, compromising
in its pursuit of its goals in Ukraine where we see a significant escalation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[16:25:20]
QUEST: Clare Sebastian reporting.
In a moment, Britain's King Charles says Canada is facing a critical moment. A speech he gave to the Canadian Parliament amidst the annexation
threats from Donald Trump, in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Hello, I am Richard Quest, together, we will do a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
King Charles opens a new session of Canada's Parliament. It is the first time that the monarch has done so in nearly 50 years.
National Public Radio, NPR, is suing the Trump administration for First Amendment grounds.
All of that comes only after the news headlines, because this is CNN and here, the news always comes first.
The U.N. is urging a surge in aid for Gaza after people desperate for food overran a new distribution site. Thousands of people rushed to get aid in
Rafah on the first day of operations for a U.S.-Israeli backed mechanism that bypasses traditional distribution methods.
Germany is lifting its restrictions on long range missiles to allow strikes inside Russia. The announcement follows record breaking drone and missile
attacks on Ukraine this weekend. The Kremlin has called the change dangerous. The German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, says it means Kyiv will
be better able to defend itself.
President Trump is escalating his fight with Harvard University. Administration officials say the White House wants to cancel $100 million
in federal contracts with the university. The President is also threatening to withdraw $3 billion in grant aid money from the school over its handling
of antisemitism on the campus.
[16:30:23]
King Charles of Canada has opened the country's parliament as the nation's head of state. The king is the first monarch to do so in nearly 50 years.
Canadians gave Prime Minister Mark Carney a mandate to protect their independence, self-freedom and determination after threats following
President Trump who calls it the 51st state. It was a point emphasized by the king in a speech written, of course, by Mark Carney's government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES III, KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear
and ones which the government is determined to protect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Interesting, Paula, that speech, of course, the royal speech, is written by the government. The king reads it. And let's not worry too much
about the nitty gritty of it, because it was a full throated defense of the government and Canada's position. What's the mood there on how he's given
it?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it could not be better. I'm not sure that weeks ago, either Buckingham Palace or the prime minister's
office here could have envisioned a day that went so well. Firstly, the sun was shining, not a cloud in the sky. Everything went according to plan.
But, Richard, it was the spontaneity of the crowds, the size of the crowds, literally acting as if the king were their friend in these walkabouts, and
saying, thank you for coming. And it is that authenticity, that genuine gratitude that Canadians showed to their king that I think will make all
the difference. As I said in not just in Buckingham Palace and the prime minister's office, but noted, I'm sure, if not at this hour in the Oval
Office, certainly by those at the U.S. embassy, that is just a few blocks away from where this took place.
QUEST: I mean, the availability of the monarch to come and do this has always been there. It's just been caught up in the politics of -- the
domestic politics of Canada. There is no reason why a member, a senior member, Charles or William, couldn't pop over every year, parliament has to
be opened every year, and give the speech. It's not that far to go from one side to other.
NEWTON: I guess, but just remembering exactly the realms themselves and the way they equivocate at times about their support for the monarchy. And here
lies the other issue. It has been astounding to me, and we talked about this the other day, even in Quebec, where they are not thrilled about the
monarchy, French-speaking Canada, or anywhere really, people who would probably tend to be a little bit more Republican in nature, they wanted
King Charles here, and they appreciated the gesture.
That wouldn't have happened perhaps 20 years ago, 25 years ago.
QUEST: Right.
NEWTON: In the grand scheme of things, Canada is a very young country, wanted to stand on its own two feet and show its independence. Perhaps it
is leaning more into that royal, that relationship with the crown as a form of its identity, but also showing confidence in doing it.
QUEST: And is -- look, the country, Carney won and he won handily in a sense. And is that support still there? Obviously, it's still very soon
after the election, but now he's got his -- here we're seeing pictures of the prime minister. Now we've got a cabinet and the policies and we know
what he's doing. And the speech by the king was very clear. Canada will be plowing a new direction in economic relationships.
Is that -- does he still enjoy a lot of support, the prime minister?
NEWTON: He does for now. But you and I have seen this movie before in so many different governments. This is the honeymoon. This is the honeymoon
period, right? I will say the invitation to Charles was bold.
QUEST: Right.
NEWTON: The speech equaled that boldness, and so do his ambitions. Stay tuned, Richard, you and I both know the challenges ahead for the Canadian
economy. It will be the number one challenge for Mark Carney to stay in the good graces of the Canadian people.
QUEST: Remind me, when is the G7? It's coming up.
NEWTON: It is June 15th to 17th in Kananaskis, Alberta. I invite everyone to Canada except not during the G7. Stunning landscape. Everybody will love
it.
QUEST: I've never been to Alberta. It's a good opportunity. All right. Thank you.
NEWTON: You definitely need to go there.
QUEST: Thank you very much.
Tesla's sales in Europe fell for the fourth straight month. In April they were down nearly 50 percent, you did hear that correctly, as the company
faced a brand backlash over the chief executive Elon Musk. Competition in China or from China is also ramping up. According to one research firm, BYD
outsold Tesla for the first time in last month.
Anna Cooban is with me in London.
[16:35:00]
OK, so how much of this, this is what we don't know, you know. Fine. But BYD might be competing on price. It might be competing on, you know, it's
not tesla, not Elon Musk. We won't know for many months whether the staying power to BYD's gains or Tesla's losses.
ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS CORRESPONDENT: You're correct, Richard. We don't quite yet know how this is all going to play out. But
just the fact that BYD has overtaken Tesla in sales in April, this is according to data from JATO Dynamics, this is a research firm. They said
that the difference is quite slight. So BYD sold about 66 more vehicles than Tesla in April.
But the fact that this Chinese EV maker has managed to dethrone the world's largest EV maker, Tesla, for just that month is pretty striking, and this
comes across -- comes in the context of a wider backdrop of issues for Tesla.
QUEST: Right. Do we know the reason here? I mean, well, we do know the reasons. Can we pass which it is? Is it a BYD gain or a Tesla loss or a bit
of both?
COOBAN: It's a bit of both. So it's certainly a Tesla loss from the perspective of the controversies that have really been swirling around
Tesla. So Elon Musk has played a very prominent role in the U.S. government. He has been heading up the Department of Government Efficiency,
or DOGE. He's been instrumental in mass layoffs of federal workers. And then, of course, he's been very outspoken about politics in Europe. He's
publicly backed far-right candidates in Germany and the United Kingdom.
Customers don't like that. They've been protesting on both sides of the Atlantic. And also it's a gain for BYD because as a Chinese EV maker,
they're selling cars more cheaply than Tesla.
QUEST: Right. But --
COOBAN: So --
QUEST: Sorry, I just wanted to get in quickly. But the big worry for Europe is that China's dumping these EVs not being sold elsewhere, not that they
were sold in the U.S., but that Europe has become the dumping ground for electronics and things like BYD and EVs.
COOBAN: That is a concern. That's something that the European Union has raised and has actually launched sort of investigations into, sort of
probes into exactly the impact of this so-called dumping of Chinese autos. But let's also take into account the wider context of tariffs. Trump in the
United States has placed a tariff on imported cars into the U.S. and car parts as well. Tesla is relatively insulated. But of course, Europe is a
relative safe haven compared to the politics of the U.S. right now, with tariffs for Chinese companies.
QUEST: Good to see you. Thank you, Anna, joining us from London.
Harvard is facing a new threat from President Trump. The school could lose its remaining contracts with the federal government.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:40:54]
QUEST: The Trump administration officials say that U.S. federal agencies have been told to cancel all remaining contracts that they have with
Harvard University. It would deny the university around $100 million in total. Harvard has already sued the administration for freezing billions in
federal funding and for revoking its ability to enroll international students, and has had many of those orders reversed.
Kylie Atwood is at the State Department.
Has the letter gone out from the GSA telling them, you know, no more, nothing more to do with Harvard, stay away?
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, the letter has gone out not just with regard to Harvard University specifically. This
letter from the secretary of State to all U.S. embassies and consulates around the world calls on the consular officers to halt any new scheduling
of appointments for visa applicants from students. And this is ongoing as they say in this memo. The department is developing guidance to expand
social media vetting and screening.
Now as we understand it, social media vetting is already part of the visa application review process that consular affairs officers conduct. So what
we don't know is what the bolstering of that vetting is actually going to look like. And we also don't know how long it's going to take for the
department to conduct this review, to then suggest this new guidance. And the timing here is critical because you have students around the world who
are planning to enroll in American universities in the fall, and not all those students would have already had their visas settled by now.
I spoke with some former consular affairs officers who said that around this time, that's typically when the consular affairs officers prioritize
these appointments for students because they know that they're going to be trying to come to the U.S. in the fall. So there's a lot of questions here,
and we're still trying to figure out what this new vetting process would actually look like.
QUEST: I'm grateful to you, Kylie Atwood. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.
Now, the U.S. public broadcaster NPR, stands for National Public Radio, is suing the Trump administration over the president's executive order to
slash its federal funding. NPR says the president's attempt is a clear violation of the Constitution and freedom of speech. The president has
accused the American public broadcasters of being biased. NPR calls the president's actions textbook retaliation.
Brian Stelter is with me.
President versus public radio. Who wins?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: And this is related to Harvard. It's related to all the fights that Trump has been picking, trying to go
after elite institutions. We should see this as all of a piece all together, Richard, because it is part of a broader effort by Trump to
assert his power in ways that past presidents never would have dared.
In this case, Congress allocates money for NPR and other public radio and public TV outfits in the United States. Congress controls the purse
strings, but Trump has tried to come in and say, you should slash that funding. Forget about pesky old Congress. Just get rid of the money. We've
already seen one lawsuit filed related to this earlier in the month. And now NPR going to court, along with several Colorado local stations, to try
to highlight what the local impacts would be.
The same judge is overseeing both this suit as well as the mother parent company kind of suit. And so in the coming weeks, I think we'll have an
initial ruling on whether Trump has this power. But certainly looking at the law that set up NPR, he does not have this power, Richard.
QUEST: This whole thing is, this whole assault on institutions, how much can they take before they are irreparably damaged?
STELTER: You know, that's a very interesting way to frame it, right? This is ultimately all about power. We're seeing this struggle for power with
Trump trying to grab as much as he can. We see some institutions pushing back in various ways, but this does not come without a cost.
[16:45:03]
You know, NPR pays a penalty just for having to go out and get lawyers and just for having to stand up to the president.
QUEST: Right.
STELTER: It makes the network look more like it has a point of view, even though NPR denies all those charges of bias. They say they're not right or
left. They're just trying to cover the news.
QUEST: So --
STELTER: It's interesting to me, Richard, because places like Harvard and outlets like NPR did not go looking to fight with President Trump. You
know, they didn't choose to have these fights, but now that they're in it, they have to try to win.
QUEST: The one question I get asked quite a lot, and I don't really know properly the answer, is how many people are behind the president pushing
this very agenda. This can't be, you know, the argument goes, this can't be one man sitting in his dressing gown coming up with all these executive
orders against so many bedrock institutions.
STELTER: Right.
QUEST: How many people are there in the White House, either in heritage.
STELTER: That's a very good point, you know.
QUEST: That are putting forward, say, this is what you do next. This is what we go after next.
STELTER: Yes, you're absolutely right. And there is a structure in place. In the case of NPR, there's been a battle against public media in the
United States for 40 or 50 years. Conservative groups have always been pushing to defund these networks. They've never succeeded. Every Republican
president says they'll do it and they never do it. So we are seeing this once in a generation attempt by conservatives who lost again and again and
again to actually try to implement it in a way that will work, in a way that they'll win.
That's why Trump has been so much more aggressive, at least this time around, when it comes to my beat media going after these media
institutions. At the end of the day, though, there are lots of Republican lawmakers who actually support their local NPR stations, who actually want
their local PBS TV station to still exist. That's why they fund these stations every year. I mean, look at other advanced democracies in Europe.
You know, they spend a lot more on public media than the United States does.
So there's this push and pull between Republicans who traditionally have not wanted to have these fights for real, versus some of Trump's allies who
are ready to try to win this time.
QUEST: Right. I'm grateful, Brian. Like yourself I sort of grew up with NPR and of course the BBC. Thank you, sir. I'm grateful.
Now, travelers have been known to get creative when it comes to saving money. So now there's this -- in my day it was called the hidden city. Now
they've given it a posh title. It's called skip, skiplagging, which where airlines object to because it goes against the terms and conditions. I'll
explain skipping the lag in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:10]
QUEST: There is a travel hack that many of us have known about, and some people do and take a risk. It is known as the hidden city. It's where a
company called -- so I'll give you an example. A company called skiplagging displays options that are unavailable on other search engines because it's
going for the hidden city. It's where you buy a multi-leg flight with a layover in a desired destination.
So instead of staying and taking the whole flight, you just basically get off halfway along. In other words, you want to go A to B to C, but you
actually only want to go to B, you get off halfway. Some travelers think of it as a hack. Airlines object to it because it violates their terms and
conditions and actually helps destroy their monopoly on certain routes.
Good example. I want to go to Miami this weekend. I could fly for 297. What the airline is actually selling me is a ticket to Raleigh, Durham, North
Carolina, that goes via Frontiers. Direct route is considerably more expensive at 369.
Aktarer Zaman is the founder and co-CEO of Skiplagged. He joins me from New York.
Before we get into any detail, let's just clear up one thing. What -- this hidden city, this skiplagging, is against the conditions of carriage of all
the major U.S. airlines. Can we agree on that?
AKTARER ZAMAN, FOUNDER AND CO, SKIPLAGGED: It's against the rules for a lot of airlines but not every airline.
QUEST: All three major carriers have rules against it.
ZAMAN: I believe so.
QUEST: Right, so why do you do it? Why do you do it? What are you selling here? You're selling the idea of somebody being able to get a cheaper city,
or get it to a destination by going via somewhere else. Correct?
ZAMAN: Well, my company Skiplagged is all about showing consumers all the possible options to get from A to B. We believe that consumers have the
right to know and like this is -- this rule that you speak of, like you should step back and ask, should this even really be a rule? Like all
you're doing is you're buying more flights than you need and simply not using them. And it's similar to like let's say you buy a big bag of chips
and you don't finish it. Are you doing something wrong?
QUEST: No. Of course, absolutely not. You're not doing anything wrong. But for example, I looked at your Web site and your Web site, you sell or you
give, I beg your pardon. You give a guarantee, don't you, if your ticket is canceled, correct?
ZAMAN: We introduced a new service called Skiplagged Guarantee to kind of ease the fears that consumers might have with this sort of trick and just
using Skiplagged in general. This is meant to just like, like adjust, like the tiny bit of fear that people have. Like the reality is there's very low
risk.
QUEST: There's very low risk. And I've done it. Look, I've done it. I once was flying from Paris to New York, but I needed to end back in London. So I
took a trip that would, on the return trip, end me in London. And I left the aircraft. I left the flight. So I have done it as well. How much can
you save on these sort of hidden city tickets do you think?
ZAMAN: Quite a bit. Over the years I've seen users save as much as 90 percent off their tickets, amounting to thousands of dollars. Actually,
over the millions of people that use us, the average savings is 50 percent or about $180.
QUEST: Now, you know as well as I do that the reason that the point to point ticket to the middle market is more expensive is usually either the
airline has a near-monopoly on it, or it's a particularly important route, London, New York, Chicago, Miami, whatever it is, and therefore there is a
commercial reason that the airline prices that point to point different via the hidden city. That's correct. You agree?
ZAMAN: Yes. It has to do with their market dominance. They're able to price it whatever they want. The A to B segment. And they do that because it
helps them profit.
QUEST: I guess the problem I have with it is that you are basically breaking the contract. I mean, again, with the major carriers, although I
have to say, sir, I don't know of any large carrier that does not have this in its conditions of carriage. But you are asking, you know, at the end of
the day, it has to be done with a one-way ticket essentially.
[16:55:04]
You can't have any luggage and you do risk, if I'm not mistaken, a diversion or being, God forbid, transferred onto a nonstop flight because
they think they're doing you a favor.
ZAMAN: Sure, there's not without any risk, but over the decade that we've been in business the success rate has been almost 100 percent. That's
because the people who take advantage of this trick to save money, they know what they have to do, which is travel lightly. If you were on a round
trip, book two one-ways. There's a solution to all the issues.
QUEST: Right.
ZAMAN: And means for a successful trip.
QUEST: I'm grateful to you, sir. Thank you for joining us, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Thank you very much indeed.
I do need to just point out to you, yes, I've done it. Hidden cities is a well-traveled route for people to save money on tickets, but it is against
the conditions of carriage. And you do risk your ticket being canceled and- or you're being kicked off banned or whatever. But the risk is small.
"Profitable Moment" next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment," never underestimate the capacity for the tourism industry to shoot itself firmly in both feet. So this week, the
ruling council of world tourism, of U.N. Tourism, is meant to select its candidate to recommend as the next secretary-general. The incumbent, Zurab
Pololikashvili, was running for a highly controversial third team. That was until Georgia, the country that nominated him, withdrew its support.
It meant that Zurab has had to withdraw and now there will be a new full or there'll be a full contest. However, days before the vote, which is on the
30th, more chaos. Uruguay is now asking that the whole process is being reopened. Why? Because some may not have wanted to stand against Zurab.
Well, now he's gone. It should all be done again. Let anybody run. I'm sorry. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.
At the moment, there are good choices to be made. The leading candidate is Gloria Guevara, who is probably the most experienced in tourism. But
there's also Harry Theoharis, the former tourism minister from Greece. Both of those were on our program recently. As to the rest, the Sheikha from the
UAE didn't respond to a request to be on the program. And the Ghanaian diplomat or Tunisian minister, none of them really have the global
experience necessary to do this job.
These latest shenanigans just give world tourism a bad name. The industry needs policies, direction and unity and the last thing it needs is this
distraction to sink tourism further into the mire.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable. I'll see
you next week.
END
