Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
How Substantial the Trump's Trade Agreements; White House Unveils A.I. Plan Ahead of Trump Address; Krispy Kreme and GoPro Ride a Wave of Investor Interest. WSJ: Justice Department Informed Trump He was in the Epstein Files; Zelenskyy Promises New Anti-Corruption Bill After Backlash; Budapest Working to Prevent Ukraine from Joining E.U. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 23, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street, records all around. The Dow Jones at a record. I
think the S&P. Oh, there we go. Hit the gavel. Strong gavels. The market -- we are going to focus a great deal on the way that market has traded over
the course of the day, particularly that bump just after lunch. They're so happy about it. We are at records.
Those are the markets. Where is my bell? Those are the markets, and these are the events that you and I are going to chew over.
Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia -- a flurry of trade deals announced by President Trump. And tonight, we dig in to see, is it a pie crust promise?
Do these deals actually hold up to scrutiny?
The French President, Emmanuel Macron is suing a right-wing podcaster for defamation. His lawyer, that's Macrons lawyer, joins me tonight on this
program.
And the meme stock is back. Take cover, except this time it could be, I am told, rather tasty. Krispy Kremes, doesn't get much better than that.
Live from New York tonight, a very good evening to you. It is Wednesday. It is July the 23rd. I am Richard Quest, and yes, I mean business.
We begin with breaking news and "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that the Justice Department told President Trump in May that he was in the
Epstein files -- the files supposedly that don't exist.
"The Journal" says the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, informed the President that many other high profile figures were named as well, although they
viewed it as unverified hearsay. "The Journal" goes on to say that the Justice Department told Mr. Trump it did not intend to release any more
documents relating to the investigation.
The White House is calling "The Journal" report fake news. And earlier, a judge, a federal judge, by the way, in Florida, denied the request to
release grand jury testimony from the probe into the Epstein files.
Kevin Liptak is at the White House. Let's take this point by point by point, because it is complex. This report tonight that Donald Trump is
named amongst the Epstein files. We can -- you know, in the President's defense, I will rush to it and say this could mean anything. I mean it
could be had lunch with, we've seen pictures tonight, we've seen video from the wedding with Marla Maples. It could be anything.
The fact his name is mentioned means what in the view?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. I think without further detail and without further information, you're absolutely right. It is hard
to discern what exactly this information will lead us to discover, and "The Wall Street Journal" says that Trump's name was one of hundreds that were
included in these so-called Epstein files, and as you point out, we know that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were associates as he was associates with a
number of high powered people, sort of in that era of New York. He worked to cultivate them, to build up his aura.
And so the fact that Trump's name is contained in these files, I don't think its necessarily a surprise, but it certainly is an inconvenient
political fact and it does lend some more sort of texture and understanding to why the Justice Department decided not to release any more information
about Jeffrey Epstein, which has led to this furor among the President's supporters.
I do at this point want to read what the White House communications director has said about this report, it is important to get their point of
view out there. He says: The fact that the President is that the President kicked him -- referring to Jeffrey Epstein -- out of his club for being a
creep, this is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama
Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about.
And so you hear the White House pushing back very vehemently on this. I would also harken back to a moment here at the White House about a week-
and-a-half ago, out on the South Lawn, as President Trump was departing, when a reporter asked him very specifically, did Pam Bondi tell you that
your name appeared in the Epstein files and the President brushed the question off? He said, no, no. And he said that Bondi was doing a great job
as his Attorney General.
[16:05:07]
But now, we know, according to "The Wall Street Journal," that the President at that point had been briefed and was aware that his name was
contained in these documents, but also that the Justice Department had decided not to release them publicly.
So I think, taken together, what this does is give us a better understanding of kind of the backstory of how the Justice Department and
some of the components that led the Justice Department to decide not to release those files.
QUEST: Kevin, one more for you, if I may, in the arc of these sort of stories and you are familiar with it more so than I am, you know, you start
off with the accusation and more and more facts come out and more and more facts, then it gets very confusing and people are really aren't sure what
it is all about, and then it either goes away or, you know, if you will, the smoking gun is found.
Where are we in this one?
LIPTAK: I think we are still in the search for the smoking gun, and I think for President Trump, he is someone who has weathered so many of these
stories, the drip, drip, drips. And ultimately, he has always come out somewhat unscathed.
And I think that's why this story is so different. One, it involves a total rupture with some of his most ardent supporters, and that's why I think it
has caused so much consternation inside the White House and among the President's advisers.
And so as we sort of navigate this scandal going forward, it is too early to say, I think, whether the President is going to come out of this kind of
in one piece, and I think that's a question that a lot of people in the White House have as well.
The other thing that is complicating all of this, and that is making it more confusing and more complicated, is that the Jeffrey Epstein story is
one that has been colored by a lot of outlandish conspiracies well before all of this started, many of them peddled by the President's top, now top
advisers, people like the FBI director and the deputy FBI director.
So, it is a very complicated story, I think, for even some of the President's allies to try and work through and as more and more comes out,
I think each piece of information leads to more complication for them as they try to explain and find a way out of this controversy.
QUEST: I am glad you're there. I am glad you came to talk to us about it so quickly. Thank you, Kevin Liptak.
The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promising a new anti- corruption bill after angry crowds took to the streets this week. The protests were in Kyiv and elsewhere over the law that gives the Prosecutor
General oversight over two anti-corruption agencies.
Critics say it weakens the agency's independence. These are the first major anti-government protests since the full scale Russian invasion. CNN's Fred
Pleitgen is following the story for us from Berlin.
There is always more to this than meets the eye. So what's really behind it all?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, Richard, we can see that Volodymyr Zelenskyy does appear to be feeling
the heat. You just mentioned there that he was willing to change that law, put forward a new law that could, in fact, secure the independence of those
anti-corruption offices, and that's because those protests actually appear to be growing a lot bigger than many people had thought.
They, of course, were going on last night and as I am speaking to you right now, we actually have our producer, Dasha Tarasova, who is at one of those
protests saying it is even bigger tonight, that the protesters are getting as close as they can to the Presidential Palace to make sure that they are
heard by Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Obviously, fighting corruption and the issue of corruption is a huge deal for many Ukrainians. It has been a huge problem for Ukraine since it gained
independence in the 90s, and especially for a lot of the younger people, and that's actually what we are hearing from the crowd as well. There is a
lot of younger people out there who are demanding that these offices remain independent and that therefore the fight against corruption can continue.
Now, Volodymyr Zelenskyy appears to be changing course. I want you to listen in to what he said just a little earlier tonight. Here is what he
said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I will propose to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, a bill that will be a response
that will provide strength to the law enforcement system, and there will be no Russian influence or interference in the activities of law enforcement
agencies.
And very importantly, all standards for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will be in place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: Now, Richard, you said that in all of these things, there is always more to this than meets the eye, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy actually
came out earlier when he signed that initial law and said that he believed that all of this would, in fact, enhance the battle against corruption and
free it of what he calls Russian influence. What exactly that means, he had not explained.
However, the big elephant in the room is, of course, the fact that Ukraine wants to get into the European Union and there have been European officials
who have come out and said that the law in its current form, as it was originally signed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, appears to be a complete 180 by
Ukraine in its fight against corruption, and certainly will make it more difficult for Ukraine to get into the European Union, unless all of that is
changed -- Richard.
[16:10:08]
QUEST: Fred, I am grateful. Thank you, Fred Pleitgen.
Now, tackling corruption is the significant obstacle, as Fred was saying, to Ukraine joining; another will be overcoming Hungary's opposition.
Hungary, our next guest is Peter Szijjarto. He is the Hungarian Foreign Minister. You see him there.
Minister, you've said -- you've tweeted: No matter how much Zelenskyy threatens, blackmails or tries to pressure us through Brussels, Hungary
will not support Ukraine's E.U. accession.
You've got about the will of two million Hungarians, referring to the vote, but surely there is an argument that says a Hungary in the E.U. is more
likely to follow the human rights and restrictions and regulations that you are seeking. Sorry, I beg your pardon. A Ukraine in the E.U. is more likely
to be a partner than outside the E.U.
PETER SZIJJARTO, HUNGARIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Well, first of all, thank you for the invitation again, Richard. Great seeing you after two long years.
Thank you for giving me the chance to explain Hungary's position.
So the thing is that when you think about the enlargement of the European Union, then the major issue is that you want new member states inside the
European Union, which make you stronger and Ukraine would definitely not make European Union stronger, to the contrary, a country at war would
import the war itself to the European Union, which we don't want.
The current state of Ukraine would weaken the European Union pretty much, plus, you see that the proposal of the European Commission for the next
seven years would include more than 300 billion euros of support to Ukraine, which is not fair, which is unacceptable for us. We don't want the
money of the Hungarian taxpayers to be brought to Ukraine.
So under the current circumstances, we definitely do not support Ukraine joining the European Union. The enlargement should serve the goal of
strengthening the European Union, making it safer. But the accession of Ukraine would weaken the European Union and would import war into the
European Union that we don't want.
QUEST: I guess, the critics -- look, European people would say just for once, Minister, can't Hungary take a position that is, "pro-Ukraine" a
country that is battling unprovoked aggression from Russia? Every aspect -- it doesn't matter which way you and I just debate this tonight, every
aspect of it will be you basically saying you're not in favor of Ukraine.
SZIJJARTO: Well, Hungary has been carrying out the largest humanitarian operation of the history of the country currently. We are the number one
electricity provider of Ukraine currently. So what does it mean being in favor of Ukraine or pro-Ukraine? If we had not delivered electricity to
Ukraine, they would not operate. If we had not helped their refugees, it would be with a good reason, you say that we are not in favor of Ukraine.
But we are helping Ukraine in many ways, but we are not ready to ruin Hungary. Hungarian people have been paying the price of this war for too
long time now, although we don't have any kind of responsibility. This is not our war at all.
Plus, there is other thing, Richard, which I have to speak about is the destiny of the Hungarian community in Ukraine. You cannot believe the way
how the rights of the Hungarians in Ukraine are being violated for the last ten years, their access to mother tongue in education, in schools, in
culture, in public administration has been violated very, very badly.
Such a country cannot simply join the European Union.
QUEST: I don't want to go down -- I mean, I hear what you say and Ukraine rejects those accusations, so we can leave that one just for the side for
the moment.
I want to talk about trade, if I may, because that's live, it is active and it looks as though the E.U. might do -- which has competency, 15 percent
tariff. It is not as good as you had before, it is better than 20 or 30 percent. Can Hungary and Hungarian business live with a 15 percent tariff
with the United States?
SZIJJARTO: Well, we are a kind of nation which has experienced so many difficulties throughout its history that I am pretty sure we will be able
to adjust ourselves to this situation as well, but it is not going to be easy, Richard, I have to tell you.
The U.S. is the number two trading partner of ours outside of the European Union, having the third largest group of investors in Hungary. So for us,
the interest would be to have as low tariffs as it is just possible.
[16:15:04]
And Richard, what I can tell you is that it would have been much better if the European Commission had not committed a very serious mistake, because
what happened when President Trump entered into office, we have asked the European Commission to immediately decrease the tariffs applied by European
Union against the United States' automotive exports. Why? Because European Union applied four times higher tariffs on the U.S. automotive industry
than vice versa.
If the European Commission had decreased the tariffs on the U.S. automotive industry, I think now, we would be in a much better position. So it is a
shame that the European Commission was not able to get to a better situation.
QUEST: Do you have confidence in the negotiators on behalf of the E.U. to do a deal that will be a good one for Europe, for you, for Hungary?
Do you basically -- have you got confidence in the lot that are doing it?
SZIJJARTO: Look, the leadership of the European Union is extremely weak. They are inappropriate. They were not able to make a good deal in favor of
Europe in the last -- I don't know how many long years. Under this European leadership, the competitiveness of the European union is decreasing very
badly. European Union used to be a strong player in global politics and global economy, but this is unfortunately the past. Why? Because the
European leaders have screwed it up.
QUEST: You would not be surprised that I am going to raise LGBT issues in Hungary, particularly the Pride -- the ban on the Pride March. Now, I
understand that because of the law that says divergence from self-identity, sex at birth, sex change and homosexuality, I understand that by the
definition of that law, yes, probably the Pride March has to be banned because it is an expression of homosexual love.
I also hear your point of view, and you've said it a million times, you've said it on this program. You can love whoever you like in Hungary. The
problem is that me and my husband can't hold hands in Budapest, can we? Because that might just be a public display of affection of homosexuality,
and we could end up getting fined, couldn't we?
SZIJJARTO: Now, look the Pride and what happened around that has have proved very, very clearly that love is absolutely free in Hungary.
QUEST: No, no. Come on.
SZIJJARTO: Seriously, you love whoever you want to.
QUEST: Come on, Peter.
SZIJJARTO: You live together with whomever you love, but we ask for one thing, Richard. We ask for one thing: Do you not behave in a provocative,
embarrassing, impolite way on open streets. This is the only thing what we expect from the people, and I think if you have some images from some Pride
Marches in some European cities, you totally understand what I mean.
There are kids on the streets, there are kids watching T.V., so behaving in an impolite, embarrassing way on open areas is unacceptable, but in the
meantime --
QUEST: But hang on.
SZIJJARTO: In the meantime, Richard, you love whomever you want to. You live together with whomever you want to. The state has no role in that.
QUEST: But the only reason that we are seeing the pictures now that you can see on the screen in front of you, is because they didn't follow the ban.
They did have the march. And I ask you again, Minister, me and my husband holding hands in Budapest, do we risk being arrested?
SZIJJARTO: No. Come on. Why do you say that? No. Absolutely not. You are welcome. Come with your husband to Budapest. You will enjoy.
QUEST: And we will thank you, sir. In fact, we will have you to dinner in a street, in a cafe in Budapest. Because that's --
SZIJJARTO: Right.
QUEST: It is a wonderful city and I'd certainly look forward to it. Thank you very much, Minister, for joining us.
SZIJJARTO: Thanks a lot.
QUEST: Good discussion. Thank you.
As you and I continue tonight on the program, we are going to talk about, of course, the French President and the First Lady, they are suing a right
wing podcaster for alleged defamation. The lawyer representing them will be with me after the break.
It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, delighted you're with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:53]
QUEST: Here is a bit of light reading for you. It runs to some 200 pages. Oh, am I wrong? It runs to actually 219 pages. It is -- if you read the
front of it, it is in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. Emmanuel macron, Brigitte Macron against Candace Owens.
The French President and his wife are suing right-wing podcaster in the U.S. for reviving claims that Brigitte Macron could be a man.
Now, the lawsuit accuses Candace Owens of carrying out what the Macron's lawyer calls a relentless, year-long campaign of defamation.
Owens teased on social media that she will address the story on a podcast in the coming hours. We've reached out to her for further comment.
Tom Clare is the attorney representing the Macrons and joins me now.
Mr. Clare, I am grateful. You will forgive me, I've not read much of the 219 pages at this point, but it is still early days.
And look, look, Tom, politicians, the Macrons, they're used to having everything thrown at them. Why did they decide on this occasion, this had
to be litigated and therefore into the full glare of publicity?
TOM CLARE, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE MACRONS: Of course. Thanks for having me, Richard.
The Macrons, just like any other person have a reputation, and they have a right to their reputation. And this was not in any way their first choice
was to have to bring this claim. For the better part of seven months, they have tried to get Candace Owens to acknowledge the facts and evidence
proving that her claims are wrong, and to engage constructively with the truth, and each time, she has mocked them and she has repeated and doubled
down on her false claims.
And I would say also, these types of false statements become a cancer, right? They metastasize into other media outlets and pretty soon, it
becomes an accepted part of the narrative. And the President and Mrs. Macron had had enough. This is somebody who has put herself -- Candace
Owens has put herself at the epicenter of this lie here in the United States, and they feel it is important to hold her accountable.
QUEST: Don't you feel that you're just going to give it more oxygen? And yes, you know, eventually the Macrons may prevail in the case, but there
will be depositions, there will be witness statements. They are going to have to -- I mean, you know, what do you do if suddenly it goes to trial,
which it probably won't do, but if it goes to trial and Owens calls the Macrons?
CLARE: Well, you know, look, the fact that they are willing to undergo that process, that you just described conveys volumes about how serious they are
about this and how important it is to them to stand up to this. They are incredibly hurt by the falsehoods and the repetition of these falsehoods,
and that they are prepared to undergo that crucible speaks volumes about how important it is to them.
And you're right, it does give more airtime to Candace Owens than she deserves. You're a hundred percent right about that, but it is important
that the public be properly informed and the way we do that in our system is through the court system, where there are rules and evidence and
standards, and they are prepared to do it.
[16:25:07]
QUEST: What -- I mean, it is a bit -- well, it is perfectly legitimate, but it is a bit weird for a President of one country to be suing in the courts
of another.
CLARE: You know, I will acknowledge that it is -- but it is not without precedent. But again, it speaks volumes to how important this is to
President and Mrs. Macron, that they are willing to -- that they are willing to come to the United States and do it. And plus, this is where
Candace Owens can be found.
It is important for her United States audience to see this play out in a public courtroom and in a public filing.
QUEST: What are they seeking other than a cease and desist? Are they seeking large damages? Are they seeking, as we've seen in other cases,
essentially the closure of her company and her podcast and the like?
CLARE: Sure. So this is a claim for monetary damages in the United States, a claim for defamation only can cover defamation damages. So damages to
reputation, economic harm and the like, and we will come forward to prove those things at trial.
But we also hope to see to set the record straight. We are going to have a public trial. The evidence is going to be presented. And this crazy
conspiracy narrative is going to be put to rest once and for all.
QUEST: You do realize if this comes to trial, it will be a circus, the like of which we've never seen before.
CLARE: I certainly understand that. We are no stranger to that. When our firm took on Dominion, our firm represented Dominion Voting Systems in the
case against Fox News a few years ago, same courtroom, same courthouse, same media circus. And so we stand ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with
President and Mrs. Macron as they go through that.
QUEST: Tom, please, as this goes through and as much as you can legally, let's talk more about it in the future. We do a lot of things on law and
important things like that. I am grateful for you, sir, tonight. Thank you.
CLARE: Thank you, Richard.
QUEST: Now, as we continue, after all of that, I mean, between the Hungarian Foreign Minister and Mr. and Mrs. Macron suing, I think I am
going to need one of these. Oh, it is a meme stock story. I thought I was going to enjoy them.
They're Krispy Kremes. If you've never had a Krispy Kreme, well, you're missing out on a major part of life. We will talk about why these delicious
things were really delicious in the market today.
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:30:00]
QUEST: Investors are jubilant as the White House appears on track to follow one major trade deal up with another. The U.S. and the European Union are
said to close in on an agreement any day after President Trump announced a deal with Japan. So Wall Street, you can see how it all rose. It was
strong. It was gains across the board with the Dow doing the best actually. The S&P rose more than half a percent. And it's a fresh record. Close the
Dow and the Nasdaq. Not at all-time highs but very close there, too.
And so now we come to talk about what's actually -- just let me just do this very quickly. And I'll be able to do that. As now we come to talk
about what it all means as August the 1st grows near, so the list of trade deals grows ever longer. President Trump has announced deals with two more
countries in the last day or so, and the list includes Japan, the U.K., the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam. So the main question is, if the trade
deal is -- think of it as a pie.
Well, when you cut into a pie, what actually is it? Is it a case of -- it's one thing to say you've reached a deal, but it's what's beneath the crust
that really counts. Is it a case of a pie crust promise? You know, the sort of thing, you pick it up and it falls apart. Or in this particular case, if
we open it up and we actually look at these deals, are they actually full as this thing really is? My goodness, look at this. Full of wonderful
things, sweet, good things for all countries.
Well, no one really knows until you actually do break into the pie and work out what is underneath it all and whether there is any substance.
Jeff Schott is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute. He joins me now from Florida.
And I'm so sorry, sir, that you don't have a gorgeous piece of this pie in front of you, which is tantalizing me as I chuck deep into this apple pie.
But do you know what I mean here? It's all about what's inside the filling. At the moment with the British deal, with the China deal, it was all pie
crust promise. Pick it up. And you weren't sure it wasn't going to fall apart.
What do you make of the rest of these deals?
JEFF SCHOTT, SENIOR FELLOW, PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS: Well, I think your point is very well taken. The pie is on the shelf in the
shop. It's not at the dinner table. And we won't know really what is in it until all of the details are worked out. And I'm pretty sure the details
haven't been worked out yet. Just the overriding, you know, main issues.
And that's significant. That's, to be sure, particularly with Japan, because it's such a large market given its size and the investment involved
in the potential deal. But it's also significant because the deal is likely to be a template for other deals with major U.S. partners like the European
Union and South Korea. And so it could spur a lot of activity in the last days of July that could lead to big trade concessions for the United
States.
QUEST: Now, the issue really is, with these concessions and with these deals, let's take, for example, the $500 billion or trillion or whatever it
is that supposedly is going to be invested of FDI from Japan, I mean, how can the Japanese government, unless it's going to put the money in itself,
it's got to be private industry.
Now, I agree that the Japanese government can sweeten it to make it tax advantageous for people, too, but is it -- government saying that people
are going to invest in your country is not a policy that really holds water.
SCHOTT: Well, there are a number of deals that have been worked on for some time. And so the Nippon Steel investment to purchase U.S. Steel, this is
likely to be part of -- part of that arrangement and blessed. Investment in the Alaska LNG pipeline project, that's likely to move forward with both
government and private funding from Japan. But that's, even together, that's about a 10th of what was talked about. And so there's more details
to be worked out to be sure.
QUEST: You have done trade, you know better than anybody the pain of birth of a trade deal that takes years.
[16:35:01]
When you see these things cobbled together, does the smell test tell you that they're real deals, or are they smoke and mirrors?
SCHOTT: Well, this seems like a real deal to the extent that Japan is seeking a less bad trade arrangement than many other countries. And that's
the 15 percent tariff as opposed to higher tariffs that are being threatened or imposed on other countries. And that provides some
opportunity to buy time for more Japanese investments in the United States, where Japanese investment is already strong in the auto sector.
QUEST: Right.
SCHOTT: And in return, Japan is promising to buy a relatively small amount of U.S. goods. Basically some Boeing aircraft.
QUEST: All right.
SCHOTT: Some rice and other agricultural products.
QUEST: We will watch. We will see, and as it -- as the pie comes to fruition and out of the oven, we'll see if it actually has got anything
inside.
Thank you, sir. I'm grateful. Or if it's not, thank you.
SCHOTT: Thank you.
QUEST: Now the White House has put its A.I. policy into writing, and it involves a lot of deregulation. President Xi to speak at an A.I. summit at
the White House in the next hour. And there's a 28-page action plan. The first pillar is to accelerate innovation mainly by removing red tape and
bureaucracy. The second is to build out the country's A.I. infrastructure, data centers, chip production and energy grid. The third is to make sure
the world adopts U.S. technology and standards when it comes to A.I.
Clare Duffy is in New York.
Every country wants to do the same. The European Union is regulating there. The U.S. is deregulating. But is the U.S. basically using the bully -- the
bully technique, you'll do it our way or we'll ban you?
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH CORRESPONDENT: Well, Richard, you know, I've been looking through this document. This is 28 pages of 90 plus policy
recommendations that I think on the whole, Silicon Valley is going to be really happy about. Of course, many big tech companies provided advice and
recommendations for this policy recommendation, but I think the big takeaway here is that there is this debate in the industry, in Washington,
across the world, as you mentioned, about whether policymakers should be prioritizing A.I. safety or A.I. growth.
And I think what this policy proposal shows is that the White House is coming down on the side of growth because they want to ensure that the U.S.
remains the dominant player globally in the A.I. space. They don't want to overregulate these tech companies. And so instead they're trying to pull
back red tape, make it easier for them to operate, make it easier for them to sell their technology to foreign allies.
That is the White House's approach, and I think this is the clearest sign that we're getting of how he's thinking about this, this A.I. era --
Richard.
QUEST: Does this inevitably put him on a collision course because let's, you know, accelerate innovation, infrastructure, global standards. Does
this put it on a collision course with regulators elsewhere, as we've seen in the U.K. over Apple and the backdoor, as we've seen with the E.U.? The
rest of the world is going to say, well, not so fast. Just because you do it that way in the U.S., we do it this way in Europe.
DUFFY: I think that is possible. And I think that Trump is probably trying to signal to the big tech players here that he is on their side. He wants
to make it easier for them to do business, and that growing the pie, as it were, when it comes to A.I., is going to be better for the country, better
for the companies.
QUEST: Right.
DUFFY: But then you also have civil society groups, even here in the U.S. who are saying this policy proposal is too deferential to the big tech
companies.
QUEST: OK.
DUFFY: That in fact we could see safety concerns. We already are seeing safety concerns when it comes to children using this technology, when it
comes to misinformation. And I will say one interesting exception in this proposal, when it comes to pulling back guardrails, is the Trump
administration wants for federal agencies to only contract with tech companies whose large language models don't include ideological bias.
Now it's not clear what exactly that means, but it is interesting that that is the one guardrail they're interested in really nailing down here.
QUEST: Right. I have choice time. You can have a piece of apple pie or, we're generous, you can have a Krispy Kreme donut.
DUFFY: I'm coming over there to get a donut. I'll see you in a minute.
QUEST: You'll get the donut. All right, all right, there we go.
Shares of Krispy Kreme and GoPro are the latest to get swept up in the meme stock rally. GoPro is interesting, but Krispy Kreme is more tasty. Look at
the way they grew. Krispy Kreme was up much more earlier in the day, which is why we're focusing on them. GoPro up 13.5 percent. It was up a whopping
73 percent.
Like the sugar rush of eating one of these donuts, it seems the rally has now faded. It remains to be seen whether it's going to return or not.
Allison Morrow is with me. You'll get the same choice. You can have the pie or you can have a Krispy Kreme donut.
[16:40:02]
Why -- what drives these meme stocks? I remember, you know, I remember the cinemas and, you know, all of the other, and GameStop. What -- what's the
genesis of why these stocks suddenly become meme?
ALLISON MORROW, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR WRITER: It's really hard to pin down. But essentially just like in 2021 we're seeing online chatter and a bunch
of people on social media sharing memes and trying to kind of recreate the 2021 GameStop frenzy.
QUEST: Right.
MORROW: But I think as you -- as you alluded to, you know, the half-life of these things keeps getting shorter. The meme doesn't last quite, the sugar
high doesn't last quite as long as it did in '21.
QUEST: Right. Is it significant? And by that I mean Krispy Kreme is still going to make delicious donuts. GoPro is still going to make the go-to
camera for underwater and for adventurers. So to that extent, does it matter -- they're not raising capital on a daily basis. They don't need,
you know, that the share prices meme. Does it matter? And if it does matter, why?
MORROW: I think it matters insofar as what it says about where money and capital are flowing right now. You know, Steve Sosnick of Interactive
Brokers said this is -- this looks like the flee to crap. You know, we're not fleeing to safety the way we do in difficult times when it looks like a
recession is around the corner. We've got too much froth in the system and money is going into things like meme coins and crypto and A.I. speculation.
And it's just a very frothy, speculative time.
QUEST: The -- you just wonder what's next, don't you? I mean, Krispy Kreme's great donuts, but you just wonder what.
Grateful. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. Allison, I'm very -- I'll send you the donuts.
MORROW: Thank you.
QUEST: And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. The noise that you might hear in the next hour or three is probably me keeling over from the
sugar rush of eating all this stuff. I've got my glucose monitor. Which arm is it on? I think it might have expired and it has expired. You know that
old rule? What the glucose monitor doesn't see, the glucose monitor won't care about.
That's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable. Next, "MARKETPLACE EUROPE." Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:29]
(MARKETPLACE EUROPE)
END
