Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Trump Vows To Sue WSJ, Murdoch Over Fake Epstein Letter; "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" To End In May 2026; Brazil's Former President Ordered To Wear Ankle Monitor; Donald Trump Signs Stablecoin Legislation Into Law; Inside One Of The Most Secure Places In The U.K.; MoneyGram Facing Fallout From Decisions In Washington; Edinburgh Fringe CEO On Struggle To Attract Sponsors. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 18, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:13]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": There you have it. The closing bell now ringing on Wall Street as trading comes to an
end for -- United Wholesale ringing -- Mortgage ringing the bell. Down all day, didn't really move much as you can see, it was all concerns about
everything is happening in the wider economy, but we are going to have a one and a two and a one, two, three, four -- three strong gavels. Trading
is over. Those are the markets and the main events that you and I are going to talk about over the next hour.
President Trump is vowing to sue Rupert Murdoch over a report in "The Wall Street Journal." I will give you the report and the details.
The crypto law, the industry is cheering it for regulating stablecoins.
And on this Summer Friday, a festival or two to look forward to. The chief executive of the Edinburgh Fringe, which starts next month. He joins me
live on this program because we are live in New York. Yes, I am back in New York. It is Friday, July the 18th. I am Richard Quest and I mean business.
Good evening.
President Trump is threatening to sue "The Wall Street Journal" and its owner, Rupert Murdoch over an article on a letter that said to be said to
the disgraced financier, Jeffrey Epstein. Now, according to the WSJ, "The Wall Street Journal," the letter bore Trump's name and included a
suggestive drawing of a woman. It concluded with the line "Happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret."
Donald Trump says the letter is fake and insists he didn't write or draw the picture. He posted that he looks forward to calling Mr. Murdoch to
testify, and that he is going to quote in his words, "Sue his ass off."
Brian Stelter is with me. So neither you nor I, nor anybody really is qualified to know whether the letter is genuine or not. The President says
not. "Wall Street Journal says" it is. Is it likely the President will sue?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Well, we are in a situation where we know the President lacks credibility. We've been covering Donald Trump
as a political actor now for 10 years. We know that he often misleads and sometimes lies to the American people and to the world.
So when he says something is fake, we cannot take that at face value. He lost that benefit of the doubt a long time ago. In fact, Trump has taken it
as a rhetorical strategy to call real news fake and to call serious topics hoaxes. He did that about climate change and COVID. So Trump's denials
about Epstein, his attempt to call the Epstein issue as a hoax, his attempts to claim this letter is fake, if anything, Richard, it just draws
more attention to the story, and so do his claims about threatening to sue "The Wall Street Journal."
Listen, he may well go ahead with a defamation lawsuit, but it would be incredibly unusual, almost unprecedented, for an American president to sue
a newspaper like this. And right now, I don't see how he has any case.
QUEST: Oh, you say it is unprecedented, Brian, but if we look at the CBS case, we look at the ABC case, all of which were dubious to a level, but
were settled on the basis of other reasons, if you will.
Now, can you not see a scenario where he decides to sue, figuring that Murdoch et al will settle for other reasons?
STELTER: There definitely is a scenario, but all of those lawsuits you named were filed before Trump returned to the Oval Office. They were filed
when he was still a private citizen. It would be an extraordinary escalation for a sitting president to file a lawsuit like this. And it
speaks to his strategy more broadly. He believes he has a legal superpower because he was able to get ABC and Meta and Paramount to settle. There has
been reports recently that Google might be the next to settle with President Trump.
So I think Trump, you know, thinking about the new movie "Superman," it is like he thinks he is Superman. He thinks he has this incredible superpower
to be able to compel people to do what he wants with legal threats, and that makes it all the more extraordinary that Rupert Murdoch has stood up
to him -- Richard.
QUEST: Okay, he stood up to him, but is Lachlan Murdoch likely to have the same backbone to see this through? Because this is, in a sense, we move on,
don't we? And it is really how far a news organization would want to go.
STELTER: Lachlan Murdoch was seen just last weekend hanging out with the President at the FIFA World Cup match in New Jersey. So there is a close
relationship there. Look, there is a symbiotic relationship in general between the Murdochs and Trump, but Rupert Murdoch, deep down in his heart
and in his veins, he -- you know, he bleeds ink. He is a newsman.
[16:05:12]
He believes he is a news hound. He wants "The Wall Street Journal" to break these stories, even though he doesn't want Fox News necessarily to promote
them, because he wants Fox News to keep making record profits. So there is always that tension inside the Murdoch media empire.
But it is notable here that "The Journal" is the one breaking this news that so many other outlets would have wanted to break, and at least for
now, it is "The Journal" and the Murdochs that are standing strong up against the President's threats. We will see if it lasts, right? But at
least for now, it is a notable development in the relationship between these two men.
You know, as one person who knows Rupert said to me, he just loves to poke the President in the eye sometimes. And I think that's what he has done in
the last 24 hours.
QUEST: Brian, I am grateful. Thank you, sir. Have a good weekend.
Now, we will continue to take this wider because President Trump says he loves that CBS, for example, is taking "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert"
off the air. Colbert told his audience about the fact that he had been ditched during Thursday's taping.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT" HOST: The network will be ending the late show in May and --
(BOOING)
COLBERT: Yes, I share your feelings. It is not just the end of our show, but it is the end of "The Late Show" on CBS. I am not being replaced. This
is all just going away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Now, Donald trump, who is fodder for all late night hosts posted that Colbert was fired, saying "... his talent was even less than his
rating, and I absolutely love that Colbert got fired."
He took over the show in 2015, and CBS says the decision to cancel it was purely financial.
William Cohan is with me, founding partner of Puck.
A really simple question. Do you believe it? It was as purely financial? All right, the show is losing money, but lots of television programs lose
money and are kept for other reasons. Do you believe that's the real reason?
WILLIAM D. COHAN, FOUNDING PARTNER, PUCK NEWS: It is certainly part of the reason, Richard. But I don't think it is the whole story here.
What is it? Two days ago or three days ago, he referred to CBS' payment of $16 million to the Presidential Library, Trump's Presidential Library, as
a, "bribe" which is, of course, absolutely correct. But, you know, is it a coincidence that three days later, the network announces that his show is
canceled while they are also trying very hard and desperately to get Trump's FCC to approve the recapitalization of the company with the
Ellison's who happen to be Trump's dear friends, I don't think it is a coincidence -- Richard.
QUEST: Just how much of institutional overturn are we seeing? We are going to talk about it a bit later on as well in terms of other aspects, but in
terms of law firms, universities, CBS, Paramount, you've got ABC, media, Meta, every -- it seems as if no one is willing to say, even though we
might be right, we are not going to stand up here -- except Harvard. Except Harvard.
COHAN: Right. Well, I mean, Harvard at first didn't, but lately they've decided to stand up. Some law firms have been willing to stand up to Trump
and have been successful in the courts. But Trump is clearly on a retribution campaign. He is going after various entities. Seriatim, I note
that he has not gone after any Wall Street firms, although I watch that very carefully. He has gone after Wall Street law firms. He has gone after
higher education. He has gone after media companies.
But interestingly, he hasn't gone -- he has gone after the Fed Chairman -- but interestingly, he hasn't gone after Wall Street firms, so I find that
fascinating.
You know, clearly the right thing to do is to stand up to him here. It will be interesting to see what happens with "Wall Street Journal" and the
Murdochs, whether he in fact doesn't sue them, I don't think he will. I think that's puffery. And if he does, I think the Murdochs will stand up to
him, because they know they are in the right here.
QUEST: Do you think people like Jamie Dimon to some extent are not quite -- I use the word "untouchable." But I mean, during the week when Jamie Dimon
actually comes out and says, don't eff the fed, don't mess around with the Fed, don't do anything with the Fed. You will live to regret it. And he
doesn't attack back in that sense.
Do you think that there are some in Wall Street people like Dimon that have that latitude?
[16:10:07]
COHAN: Well, I think that Trump realizes that Wall Street is essential to what he is trying to accomplish with the American economy. It is essential
to every president and every economy around the world.
So, you know, unlike law firms where there are hundreds of law firms, there really aren't that many leading banks and investment banks that are in
control and powerful in the financial markets. And so he has to be very, very careful about doing anything that might upset that calculus, so he has
laid off that.
So Jamie Dimon, in a sense he will listen to Jamie Dimon. You know, there is an argument to be made that all this stuff with the Fed Chairman and Jay
Powell is just a head fake, so we don't pay attention to the shiny object over there called Epstein or whatever it happens to be, and that he is just
trying to be distracting because he knows he can't fire the Fed Chairman, even if he would like to.
QUEST: Except for fraud, which, of course, is an entirely different, you know, a lot of marble has gone into the fray, anyway, that's a subject for
you and I to talk about on another day.
Have a lovely weekend. Good to see you. Thank you, sir.
COHAN: Thank you, Richard.
QUEST: Now we will talk about all this question of breaking norms that the President has been doing. And that includes the threatening of tariffs on
Brazil if it moves forward with prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro. But they are not backing down in Brazil, including putting an ankle bracelet on the
former president after police raided him. We will talk about it all. It is after the break. It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Good to be back with you in
New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: To Brazil, now, where the country's former president has been ordered to wear an electronic ankle monitor.
The police raided Jair Bolsonaro's home and political headquarters, it all happened on Friday amid concerns that he is a potential flight risk. The
former president is on trial over a plot, alleged plot to overturn the results of the country's 2022 presidential election. This was his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAIR BOLSONARO, FORMER BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): The suspicions are an exaggeration. Damnit! I am a former president. I am 70
years old. This is a supreme humiliation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:15:00]
QUEST: Stefano is with me. Stefano Pozzebon live from Bogota in Colombia.
So the issue here, of course, from first of all is, you know, the U.S. is very annoyed about this, or at least the President is and is using this
against the country in terms of tariffs and continuing. What are they saying in Brazil about it?
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, Richard.
Well, Donald Trump's shadow cast wide and long all over this case because he is threatening these tariffs, in direct retaliation against what he
considers an unfair prosecution of his close friend, Jair Bolsonaro.
The Brazilian President told our colleague, Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview yesterday that he cannot mingle with the Judiciary of
Brazil and that he does not intend. He told basically Donald Trump to mind his own business as much as he is going to mind to the business of
Brazilians.
But we could see that this could escalate even further, because -- and this is interesting, it is one thing that one analyst was telling me a couple of
hours ago, Donald Trump would probably consider this as a personal attack on him. Take a listen to what he told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN WINTER, AMERICANS QUARTERLY: I think this is very personal for President Trump. I think that he believes that what is happening in Brazil
right now is political persecution of former President Bolsonaro in a way that reminds Trump of what happened to him, and the parallels between the
2020 election in the United States and the 2022 election in Brazil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
POZZEBON: And the interesting thing is that neither of the two leaders, Trump and Lula, have any incentive to come to the table. Brazil does not
depend on trade with the United States as much as other countries in this region, and Donald Trump, we know he is not going to intend to cave or to
back down from a fight. So you can clearly imagine that this will escalate in the coming days.
QUEST: Look, given the facts of the case, and obviously it is an allegation, but are there -- is the case against the former president
considered to be strong, or is this whiff idea of it being politically motivated in a sense, a sham case to take down an opponent?
What are people saying in Brazil about that? Or do they believe no, there is smoke, there was a fire and this might well be true.
POZZEBON: That there was -- there is a smoke and there was a fire, nobody disputes that. The supporters of Bolsonaro raided the Brazilian capital on
January 8th, 2023. There was an intended coup d'etat, a failed coup d'etat, to try to prevent the current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to
assume office, to enter office. Those are the facts.
What the prosecutors think that they have a very strong hand showing is that Bolsonaro was behind this group. In the last few weeks and months and
even years, Bolsonaro has tried to distance himself from those actions, saying that he was not aware that this was in the cards, saying, for
example, today that he had discussed with generals the possibility of a state of emergency, but he had never imagined doing a coup d'etat, but that
there was a fire, it is true.
Like we know that there was an attempt to overthrow the results of those elections.
QUEST: It is worth pointing out, isn't it, that, you know, Brazil is a fully functioning democracy which has changed political parties in
government on numerous occasions, and this idea that somehow it is all one big rigged affair is somewhat -- well, it is untrue.
POZZEBON: Yes, and it is also worth pointing out that the Judiciary in Brazil is very strong. The current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has
himself served time in prison on the accusation of corruption. Those accusations were later overturned in appeal. But we have seen plenty of
Brazilian politicians coming to terms with a very powerful judiciary from the local courts to the federal courts, up to the Supreme Court, which are
the people who are trying Bolsonaro now.
So this is not new for Brazil. What is new is the fact that the current President of the United States is taking this on himself as almost as a
personal attack -- Richard.
QUEST: Stefano, have a good weekend. I am grateful to you, sir. Thank you.
POZZEBON: Thank you.
QUEST: Left and right tonight, we've been talking about how Donald Trump is breaking away from presidential norms. So here is another example, which I
have in front of me.
These are the letters from the Attorney General of the United States to Apple and a variety of other companies -- Amazon, Google and the like, in
which Pam Bondi told tech companies they would not be held liable for breaking the so-called TikTok Law.
It prohibits them from working with TikTok, and what, of course, the letters say is it has raised concerns amongst legal experts.
[16:20:10]
It says that, according to the President, there has been no violation of the statute and there is no liability from conducting a behavior with them.
Zachary Price is with me, Law Professor at University of California, UC San Francisco. He joins me now.
This is basically saying well, the President has said the law is not being broken. Therefore -- sorry, the president has said you can do what you like
because he doesn't think the law is valid anyway and that's the end of that. This is a highly, highly unusual step.
ZACHARY PRICE, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: Yes, I agree. Thanks for having me.
I think the fundamental problem is that the President is claiming a power to cancel the effect of a statute and the Constitution, to the contrary,
says the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. So it is a direct contradiction of what the Constitution requires from him.
QUEST: But the -- you know, the world is replete with prosecutorial discretion where you -- you know, the prosecutors may decide it is not
worth prosecuting or the prosecutors may decide on public policy grounds that they are not going to. Why is that different here?
PRICE: Yes, so that's a great question. Executive officials do generally have prosecutorial discretion, but what that means is that they can choose
to pursue one case rather than another, or even set general priorities for enforcement. But nonetheless, what they can't do is change the law itself.
We have seen a number of controversies in recent years about where to draw that line, but I think however you draw it, this policy goes beyond what is
allowed.
QUEST: This idea that basically because the President says -- you know, they've dressed it up quite nicely by talking about responsibility under
Article II of National Security and conduct of foreign policy, so in essence, what they're doing is -- what the A.G. is doing is bringing it in,
you know, this is part of his official responsibilities as President under the Constitution. Therefore, anything -- it is back to the Supreme Court's
decision, isn't it, that a version of the king can do no wrong? The President can do no wrong when it is vis-a-vis his official duties?
PRICE: Yes, so it is true that foreign affairs, National Security are generally thought to be areas of special presidential responsibility. The
trouble with that argument here is that Congress also has powers in those areas. It has explicit power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It
passes laws all the time in matters affecting National Security, and so there is not a good argument that this law is unconstitutional.
So really, the President is claiming a power, again, to just suspend a duly enacted law.
QUEST: Right. How far is that decision of the Supreme Court as few years ago that basically the President is immune, absolutely immune for areas
within his purview and presumptively immune on official grounds. You've got to go pretty far down the ladder before you get to sort of personal acts.
PRICE: Yes, so that decision did recognize this presidential immunity. It is in some ways a quite confusing decision, and not clear how far it
extends. I think it can be read narrowly, but I think an important thing here with the TikTok issue is that companies are relying on these
presidential assurances, but as we are discussing, the assurances are unlawful and I think if in the future, say, a future president were to seek
penalties against them, I don't think the presidential statements would give them any sort of defense.
QUEST: Professor, I am grateful. Thank you, sir. Good to see you. Thank you.
QUEST: It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight.
The crypto industry gets a major win as the President signs a stablecoin regulation. I will talk to the CEO of one of the biggest stablecoin
companies next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:25:38]
QUEST: Hello, I am Richard Quest. Together, we will have a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. We are going to talk about President Trump signing the law,
an act that regulates stablecoins. We are going to talk to the CEO of Circle about what the Genius Act means for the future of digital
currencies, and the Fringe returns to Edinburgh in a few weeks. Its chief executive on live as to how they're going to pay for it all.
It is only on CNN. This is the network and the news here always comes first.
President Trump is threatening to sue "The Wall Street Journal" after it published a report on what it describes as a bawdy letter bearing Trump's
name that was sent to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Reportedly, it was signed "Happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret."
The President said the report is fake.
The European Union is hitting Russia with a strong set of fresh sanctions on measures focusing on oil and gas. Some of Russia's main sources of
income used to finance its war effort against Ukraine. The E.U. has banned operations of the Nord Stream Pipeline, a pair of natural gas lines running
under the Baltic Sea.
Three members of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have been killed in an explosion at a training facility. The department says the facility is
used by its Special Enforcement Units and bomb squad. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X that Federal agents are at the scene and working to
learn more about what happened.
The crypto industry has reached a milestone with President Trump signing what is called the Genius Act into law. It is the first to address the
stablecoin industry, part of the President's plan to make the U.S. the undisputed leader in digital assets, and that's something he emphasized
after the signing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This is really a big day. This afternoon, we take a giant step to cement American
dominance of global finance and crypto technology as we sign the landmark Genius Act into law.
So congratulations to everybody. This is a big deal. we've come a long way since the Biden administration, when they had no idea what you were all
talking about, and half of you were under arrest for no reason whatsoever.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:30:06]
QUEST: Which is somewhat ironic, since the president himself, on several occasions, has feigned ignorance, or at least expressed doubts about
crypto.
Jeremy Allaire, there he is, CEO of Circle, a company that specialize in Stablecoin payments was at the signing ceremony. He joins me now from the
White House North Lawn. It's good to see you, Jeremy, thank you for taking the time.
Just give me an idea of what this does. Stablecoins are -- I mean, they are there. They are growing. They are trillions of dollars' worth. So, how does
this act solidify regulate and make safer?
JEREMY ALLAIRE, CEO, CIRCLE: Yes. I mean, look, Stablecoin as a technology have been around for some time, and really the promise here is that we can
take dollars, express them in a digital currency form, and make them work on the public internet in many of the same ways that we are able to use
communications, media, information exchange, allowing for global, interoperable and easy to use dollars.
And I look at the GENIUS Act specifically as enshrining in law many of the things that, you know, we have held dear at Circle as we built USDC, which
is the largest regulated Stablecoin network in the world.
And that's, you know, strong reserve requirements, supervision by banking regulators, strong, you know, audit and reporting requirements, anti-money
laundering requirements. A lot of the things that are important to give businesses, to give households, to give financial institutions around the
world the confidence to build on this dollar digital currency technology.
QUEST: Would it not be easier if the Fed just created a digital currency? Now, look, I know there's been a huge amount of work done on this, and some
central banks are highly in favor, other central banks don't believe they should. But at the end of the day, if there was a good, robust, official,
if you will, digital dollar from the Fed, that solves the problem.
ALLAIRE: Well, what we've learned is that governments are not actually very good at innovating in technology. And in fact, every major payment system
innovation you know, in the West, at least over the past really, 75 years, has been the result of private sector innovation. Everything that we can
think of, from check clearing to ATMs to credit cards, debit cards, to innovations like Apple Pay to Stablecoins.
And what we need is we need strong regulation. We need banking regulators that supervise the firms that do issue this electronic money. Just like
today, 95 percent or more of electronic money in circulation is issued by the private sector. The payment systems are innovative by the private
sector. I don't think there's any scenario where that happens and is built as a technology by the government.
But good regulation over the private sector and allowing American technology exceptionalism to innovate is really what this bill represents.
It's unleashing the free market to compete and to build and innovate.
QUEST: But I'm pleased that you talk about the regulatory aspect of it, because, you know, obviously, in the original days of the blockchain, and
it was all about, let's get as far away as possible from regulation because we don't want anybody looking but Stablecoins are different. Stablecoins by
name and definition have to be stable. They have to be backed. They have to have, if you will, a rationale and raison d'etre, which means they've got
to have a link.
Now, if the underlying currency becomes dodgy, or becomes devalued, if the dollar is weakened, which the president talked about today as being not
likely, and not wanting to see that. Does that weaken the Stablecoins relying on it?
ALLAIRE: No. In fact, you know, Stablecoins as a form of electronic money are actually safer than many forms of electronic money that we use today.
They're fully reserved, and they're backed by things like short term treasury bills, and that creates a very, very safe foundation that people
can depend on and use. It creates demand around the world for people who want to hold a safe store of value and an incredibly efficient medium of
exchange.
We're giving the superpowers of the internet $2.00 through this technology and so, I think part of the goal of I think this legislation is actually
expanding the competitiveness of the dollar in the age of the internet, and I think that's a major component of how the dollar continues to compete and
thrive as we move into a more deeply digital environment.
QUEST: Jeremy, we'll talk more but it's fascinating. We need to understand more. Thank you sir for joining us (INAUDIBLE).
ALLAIRE: Thank you, Richard.
QUEST: Thank you, sir. Now, as companies are investing more in crypto and A.I., the infrastructure that underpins the whole lot is, of course,
critical. So, companies like Equinix in the U.K. provide data services for them.
Anna Stewart got a tour of one of their facilities.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
[16:35:02]
ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): I'm entering one of the most secure places in the country. Behind each cage we pass lies the data of a
major company. They could be banks, streamers or supermarkets. Not only will Equinix not tell me who they are, but Bruce doesn't even know himself.
Their data location is on a need to know basis.
BRUCE OWEN, EQUINIX PRESIDENT, EMEA: Essentially, we are now in the heart of the internet.
STEWART (voice over): Each of these cables represents hundreds of thousands of interactions online.
STEWART: So, everything we do, every kind of connection, transaction, everything we make, happens somewhere, like here?
OWEN: Yes.
STEWART: Which is a load of cables.
OWEN: Yes.
STEWART: Are we allowed to walk around?
OWEN: We can walk around, yes, we just can't touch.
STEWART: We can't touch. What happens if I were to pull out a cable? What'll the ramifications be?
OWEN: Well, I would lose my job. There's probably six layers of security to get to this point. So, the likelihood of it happening is nil.
We are about to enter the data center.
STEWART (voice over): We use places like this every day, beginning to see what goes on inside is rare.
STEWART: Fingerprint pass.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fingerprint pass.
STEWART: Access granted.
Well, this feels like Mission Impossible style security. This is the so- called Man Trap. This store has to close before the next one will open.
Now, if somehow you made it in here without the right security credentials, which includes a fingerprint, well you're not going to be able to get
through the next door. You could be here for some time.
STEWART (voice over): The security is necessary. Around the world, data centers like this are responsible for keeping financial centers running
like here in London.
OWEN: Even governments most -- the most treasured assets are housed within data centers. And so, we take great pride in being the fortress, kind of
ensuring that there's this physical security and resilience built into the network so that you can't get access to the equipment that is underpinning
all of these workloads that are essentially keeping the economy going.
STEWART (voice over): If something gets cut, the connection is rerouted elsewhere, and if power goes out, well, backup generators kick in. Energy
consumption is critical.
Sam Altman says our addiction to software is melting ChatGPT servers.
OWEN: They don't really melt. It's just this idea that they do consume a lot of electricity, and so we should be very conscious about how we consume
that technology.
STEWART (voice over): The latest A.I. innovations mean there's a now worldwide challenge to provide more energy.
OWEN: But the chips themselves, the ability to process and the amount of data that available, is evolving. And so, you see the industry moving to
have these new cooling technologies like liquid cooling. You will see them within our facilities.
STEWART (voice over): That energy can be used to heat homes, even the pool at the Paris Olympics, but there's still a lot of waste.
As more of our world moves online, remember that each connection also has a physical impact.
STEWART: There was a cable hanging out, but I didn't touch it.
STEWART (voice over): Anna Stewart, CNN Slough, U.K.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: So she says. In just a moment, as President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration having an effect beyond, I speak to the chief executive
of MoneyGram, there he is, and how cross border payments are being affected. We have much to talk about, sir, and we shall do so after the
break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:41:29]
QUEST: The decisions in Washington and the immigration issues are reverberating through the remittances industry. The new GENIUS Act could
change the way companies like MoneyGram process cross border payments and the president's crackdown on immigration threatens to disrupt remittances,
since migrants often send money back to their home countries.
Anthony Soohoo is the Chief Executive of MoneyGram, he joins me now. Good to see you, sir. I'm grateful.
Let's start first of all, you know, I saw -- I use that phrase talk of your death is greatly exaggerated, to paraphrase that famous quote, they've been
saying that people like you'll be out of business for decades as far as I know as each new iteration comes along. I assume you're fairly relaxed
about things like crypto and will adjust accordingly yourselves.
ANTHONY SOOHOO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MONEYGRAM: Yes, thank you. Thanks for having me here. I -- we are very, actually, very excited about what's been
passed with the GENIUS Act. In fact, we see it as a huge benefit for our business, but specifically for our customers. Because I think what the
promise of Stablecoin is that we can actually reduce the cost of transactions, which is something that we can pass right back to the
customers.
QUEST: This idea, though, of remittances, when I first started in business journalism, I'd never really heard of them, and I certainly didn't realize
just how important and significant they are.
Remittances is a vast industry. How is it being influenced or affected by, if you will, the crackdown on immigration in the United States?
SOOHOO: Well, I would say remnants is a global business, as you know. And little fact about MoneyGram is that we operate in over 200 countries, and
we allow and allow the world to connect over 20,000 corridors. And what I would say is that as immigration rules tighten up in one area, it actually
loosens up in others.
In fact, what we see is that over 70 percent of our sends right now transactions are actually not touching the United States, but in areas that
do, what we see is that workers that previously might have worked in one area have just moved elsewhere, like we're seeing huge growth in Latin
America. We're seeing huge growth in the Middle East, especially in Dubai and Saudi Arabia. And I think workers are going to where they're welcome to
work. And I think that that's driving a lot of where the global economy is going. The great about what we do is we get to see all of that, and we try
to enable transactions everywhere.
QUEST: The issue, of course, with remittances, A is the security and safety and obviously yourselves, you know, it is paramount, but the level of fraud
and scams that take place overall. I mean, it's a real issue that the legitimate players, the strong legitimate players like yourself have to
educate those who are using them about.
SOOHOO: That's absolutely right, Richard. I think one of the biggest things that we have is that company has been around for over 80 years, and we
wouldn't be around for this long, and we did not work on following trust. Trust is a huge thing.
We also work very closely with all the local and global regulatory as well as compliance offices around to just make sure that the consumers are
protected and there's a level of safety where they can trust us in terms of sending money to their loved ones.
[16:45:03]
And in addition, in terms of remittance, the other interesting thing is it's not just for families or people sending money back to their families.
There's actually a good portion. About a third of the payments are actually just going to vendors, suppliers, people sending money back to pay their
rent as well.
QUEST: I'm grateful, sir, thank you very much. We'll talk more about the future.
SOOHOO: Thank you.
QUEST: Now, if you take a look at remittances, and as I say, it's only after some years that I realized just the significance. The World Bank
estimates that $54 billion in remittances were sent to Sub Saharan Africa in 2023, it also found the costs more to send money to that region than
anywhere else in the world.
CNN's Victoria Rubadiri looks at the Tanzanian FinTech company called Nala, aims to cut fees for cross border payments.
(CONNECTING AFRICA)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:51:22]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gladys, tell me where you are. What the hell had happened?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tell the truth.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's horrendous.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's horrendous.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's modern.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't lie.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I look like a pencil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: That's a scene from the hit T.V. show "Fleabag," which originated as a one woman show at the Edinburgh Fringe. One of several recent successes
to come out of the Performing Arts Festival. It starts in Scotland next month, this year's Fringes struggled to attract corporate sponsors,
certainly after Johnny Walker pulled out after several years of sponsoring.
With me now is the chief executive of the Festival Fringe Society who's called the effort to minefield. Tony Lankester. Good evening, Tony,
grateful for your time tonight from Edinburgh.
But I'm curious, why do you think it has been difficult to replace the sponsorship?
TONY LANKESTER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, FESTIVAL FRINGE SOCIETY: Good evening, Richard. I think the point you make is a good one, and I think it's
important to note that the Johnny Walker sponsorship came to a natural end. And yes, we were disappointed that they chose not to renew the sponsorship.
But these things happen in the course of business.
I think in the last two decades that I've been working in the art sector, I don't think there's a single moment or single event that I've ever worked
on or with where we haven't felt that the environment is perilous. That's pretty much the nature of the art sector.
I was running a large festival in South Africa around about the time of the 2008 financial crash that felt pretty risky at the time. So, I don't think
we're dealing with anything new. The arts has always been a different beast. It's a difficult, complex thing for corporates to get their heads
around and to see value, and it takes a little bit of work and imagination, I think, on corporate side to find the value in the arts.
But I also don't think that arts organizations themselves have done the pitching very well, and I don't think that arts organizations make it easy
and tantalizing enough for corporates to put their heads on the target.
QUEST: This is really interesting because there's a lot of talk about the film. Look, Edinburgh Fringe Festival, it's one of those interesting -- it
needs no advertising. It's world famous. It doesn't -- you know, you can't -- everybody knows about it.
So, now you're also looking for some money from the new Levy that's coming from the Edinburgh Council. The justification for that is what, that you
bring so much in, you should get a little bit back?
LANKESTER: Yes. So, the Edinburgh Films Festival is, by our reckoning, the third biggest ticket to the event in the world, after the Olympics and the
FIFA World Cup. It generates hundreds of millions of pounds of revenue for the city, for the city of Edinburgh and for the country, for Scotland.
That's quite apart from the artistic benefit to the participants and, of course, just the joy that it brings. Just the joy that it brings to
hundreds of thousands of people every year.
It is a great, as you say, iconic event that is on the bucket list of so many people around the world. It is a big driver of the economy here in
Scotland, it's a big driver of the tourism and hospitality economy.
So, when the city of Edinburgh decided to introduce the new tourist visit visitor Levy, which will be introduced from next year. We made it very
clear that as one of the drivers of that economy and one of the -- as one of the entities responsible for bringing all these people to the city,
between ourselves and the venues who take the risk and who bring the productions in, we needed some benefit from that Levy.
And that please for positive years, and we having good conversations at the moment with the council about how we can unlock some of that value for the
broader benefit of the festival.
QUEST: What -- you're new in post or relatively in a sense, how do you want to change the festival? You've taken -- you've been handed an institution,
and like all institutions, it has to develop and grow, otherwise it becomes a fossil. So, how are you going to develop it?
[16:55:17]
LANKESTER: That's a really interesting question. I wish I knew the answer. I'm trying to think back to the job interview, because whatever I said
then, obviously worked.
Look, Richard, I think first of all, I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm stepping into an organization that is 78 years old. It works. It does a
great job. It is iconic.
This first fringe I've been in post for three months. I'm just going to keep my hands off the moving parts, and I'm going to make sure I don't get
in the way of anything.
But at the same time, I've been working with the team to develop some strategies. Foremost among them is exactly where we started this
conversation, which is, how do we as an organization become more resilient? What can we do to better shore up ourselves as an organization from these
ebbs and flows of funding that come from time to time.
So, that's absolutely priority number one. We're doing a lot of drilling down into the visitor experience, because we sell a lot of tickets. But the
far more interesting number to me is not the 2.5 million tickets we sell. It's the one person who's coming to Edinburgh for the first time. What
experience are they having, and how can we nip and tuck and enhance that experience so they have the best possible time?
It's a big investment for audiences and for artists to come to this festival, and we want to make sure that they absolutely have the best
possible.
So, drilling into that experience and making sure that we take out all the friction, all of the things that get in the way of them having a great time
and using technology, using innovation, of doing that.
QUEST: I'm grateful to you, sir. Thank you, and have a good weekend and good luck and a good festival. Thank you.
LANKESTER: Thank you.
QUEST: And we will do a profitable moment after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's sad, profitable moment. I was deeply saddened to hear the death of today of Felix Bucha Partner, the adventurous the balloonist,
jumped from space. And of course, he died paragliding. It was announced earlier today.
And the reason was because it was with Felix that I did my one and only ever jump out of a hot air balloon. He was the jump master. He was
responsible for running it. It was actually with one of his colleagues that I did the jump. He said, I'm trusting you with somebody I trusted my
mother's life with, so you are in good hands.
This was a man who was extraordinary. He wasn't a daredevil. He didn't just take risk for risk sake. But when you were with him, you just felt life was
more exciting.
[17:00:08]
QUEST: And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours this weekend, I hope it's
profitable. Let's get together on Monday, you and me.
END
