Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

White House: Putin-Zelenskyy Meeting Plans Underway; Russia Hits Ukraine With Biggest Air Attack Since July; Home Depot Warns Tariffs Force It To Raise Prices; Trump Admin Confirms It Is Considering State In Intel; Apex Technology Pitches Mass-Produced Satellites. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 19, 2025 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:17]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": The closing bell is ringing on Wall Street. It is Action Against Hunger doing the

business. Let's have a -- we need a gavel, sir. A gavel. Oh one, two and a third and I am showing you the triple stack today because the Dow is just

off slightly, but it is the NASDAQ that's really bearing the brunt of it as NVIDIA, Tesla, Amazon, a lot of the tech, the magnificent seven they are

all down quite sharply, a variety of reasons, profit taking being the most obvious and nondescript and anonymous of them all.

But those are the markets, and there is an enormous amount for us, to you and me to chew over tonight: The White House claims the Russian President,

Vladimir Putin, has agreed to meet with Ukraine's President Zelenskyy.

The Trump administration confirms it is seeking a 10 percent stake in Intel and tariff to the breaking point.

I will speak to the chief executive of a Swedish clothing company who has decided no more trading in the United States.

Put it all together and we are live in New York. It is Tuesday, it is August the 19th. I am Richard Quest and I mean business.

Good evening.

We begin tonight with The White House telling us that plans are underway for that meeting between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine.

According to the White House Press Secretary, she was asked if Vladimir Putin had promised to hold direct talks with Ukraine and said yes, though

the Kremlin itself has not made any public comment.

CNN's Kristen Holmes asked Miss Leavitt to clarify.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You said earlier about Putin agreeing to the meeting. The Kremlin seemed to indicate that Putin did not

firmly agree to a bilateral. Did he agree to have a sit down with just Zelenskyy on the phone?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can assure you that the United States government and the Trump administration is working with both

Russia and Ukraine to make that bilateral happen as we speak.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Now, Switzerland, the land of neutrality says it is open to hosting any peace talks. The Foreign Minister says the country would make special

arrangements for President Putin. After all, he has been accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court. So, you know, under normal

circumstances would have been arrested, but arguably the same could be said about what happened when he arrived in the United States.

Jeff Zeleny is in Washington.

Let's not let the facts get in the way. How close are we as best we can tell to a date, a place, anything at all that advances us from yesterday's

meeting in principle?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Richard, if you listen to the White House's version of events, this meeting would be

close to happening. However, they are not in charge of Vladimir Putin's travel schedule, the Kremlin is.

So, look, I think we have to await and see how this evolves, but the Kremlin is not acknowledging that they are on the verge of setting up a

meeting or agreeing to a location, time of a meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In fact, in Russian media, the idea of a meeting is

barely being mentioned, so we shall see. But The White House clearly has a lot on the line here.

President Trump is trying to will them into having a meeting, but it is far, far, far from a sure thing.

QUEST: But this is classic, is it not?

ZELENY: Sure.

QUEST: This is, if we push it, it will happen. If we say it, it becomes true. And therefore, you know, it is the exact opposite of any normal peace

talks where you dot every I, cross every T specifically because you don't want it to blow up in your face. But President Trump loves taking these

risks.

ZELENY: Loves taking the risks, and getting ahead of it is part of the actual strategy, kind of to pull them along. But we will see if there are

limitations to that because President Trump, just yesterday, when he was meeting at The White House with the European leaders, I think said

something very interesting to French President Emmanuel Macron during the hot mic moment, saying that "President Putin wants to do this for me."

Well, we shall see about that.

We do not know if there is going to be meeting, and even if there is a meeting, never mind just talking about the logistics of a meeting, even if

there is a meeting, then what? What exactly comes of a discussion with Putin and Zelenskyy?

So even though there has been diplomatic movement, I mean, the idea there that you see all the European leaders on screen, they rushed to Washington.

Now, they've all gone home, back to some summer vacations and other matters.

[16:05:09]

What has really changed here?

Well, they've opened the door to the possibility of conversation, but it is far from a sure thing that a bilateral meeting, never mind a trilateral

meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin is in the offing.

QUEST: And that, of course, we still don't have this unknown or we still have this unknown quantity of at what point might President Trump, when he

doesn't get what he wants from one side or the other, turn nasty on one or the other?

ZELENY: Certainly possible. I mean, we've seen him obviously turn nastier on Zelenskyy than Putin. He is back to, definitely aligning with Putin in a

pretty wide ranging interview this morning with Fox News. He even is back to saying that Zelenskyy shouldn't have started a war that he couldn't

finish. Well, of course, that's a rewriting of history. It was Vladimir Putin that invaded Ukraine, not the other way around.

So, look, President Trump is eager to make a deal. He is less interested in the fine print of any such deal. So we shall see if a meeting ever happens.

Peace talks often take a long bit of time. They are not resolved in one neat episode daily on television, so we will have to have a little patience

here, but important to note, The White House is talking much more about this meeting than the Kremlin is.

QUEST: Jeff, I am grateful, as always, sir. Jeff Zeleny in Washington. Thank you.

ZELENY: Pleasure.

QUEST: Now, the President, President Trump, that is, says a peace deal in Ukraine will not be enforced by U.S. troops on the ground. In that

interview that Jeff was referring to, he told Fox News, Europe should take the lead in any security guarantees, but saying the U.S. could help support

Europe's efforts with, for example, air support.

Mr. Trump has ruled out full NATO presence in Ukraine.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There will be some form of security. It can't be NATO because that was a -- that's just

not something that would ever, ever happen. He couldn't -- they couldn't do that. So who would want that? I mean, if you were Russia, who would want to

have your enemy, your opponent sitting on your line?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

QUEST: Meanwhile, no signs of peace where it counts on the ground. Ukrainian officials are telling us, at least eight people were killed in a

Russian airstrike overnight, including five dying in the Donetsk region. The country's Chief Rabbi says one of the missiles struck an ancient Jewish

cemetery in Southern Ukraine.

And Ukraine says it has struck two Russian ammunition depots in Luhansk, using long range drones.

Andriy Zagorodnyuk was Ukraine's Defense Minister, now an adviser to its government and Chairman of the Center for Defense Strategies.

You know better than anybody else the significance of the security guarantees. So if you've got the Europeans doing the bulk of it with the

Americans with air support, now, the point -- the whole point, sir, of a security guarantee is it should be so robust and so impregnable that no one

ever tests it, is that the case?

ANDRIY ZAGORODNYUK, CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTER FOR DEFENSE STRATEGIES: Yes, that's the case. They have to -- thank you, and yes, you are spot on. So

they have to be having the deterrence effect, so the effect from the guarantees has to basically keep the enemy away or in the case, if the

enemy is . Not kept away for whatever reason, they have to have a denial effect, which means that with the force, the enemy should be denied any

chance for success.

Unfortunately, Europe cannot provide such guarantees, because it doesn't have the capabilities enough to protect itself and the other country even

if they consider which we always discuss with them, that with the European leaders that Ukraine is part of Europe and as such, protecting Ukraine is

protecting Europe, which is on strategic level they absolutely agree with still protecting just Ukraine would be a problem.

So unfortunately, that doesn't --

QUEST: Does a security guarantee de facto become NATO-lite in a sense -- well, let me rephrase that, let me put that -- it should have been, does it

become de facto Article V Lite? In other words, everybody knows that if they're pushed, they may have to fight themselves or are we just talking

about supplying of the armaments, the weaponry that you would then use in the fighting.

ZAGORODNYUK: And that's the question which hasn't been answered yet and that's where actually the problem is, because potentially they can be

Article V, but actually they can be something like actually enforced with troops present. For example, I can remind you United States guaranteed

security of South Korea in 1953, and they kept two divisions there, some presence still there as we speak, though South Korea already bumped up its

own security potentials tremendously since that time.

[16:10:22]

And it was working; however, this time when we are hearing is that mostly this is like additional assistance or some enhanced assistance, which may

not play the deterrent effect. And in this case, it would be just, you know, just helping out Ukraine, but it absolutely does not mean that -- it

will absolutely not mean that Putin will not attack again, and that's the whole question.

QUEST: So should your president -- should President Zelenskyy go one on one with Vladimir Putin, even if it is not fully negotiated to the nth degree?

Because if you heard my discussion with Jeff Zeleny, there seems to be more -- President Trump is much more about if we build it, it will come. If we

say that they're going to get together, they will get together and peace will flow.

ZAGORODNYUK: Zelenskyy will never say no to a meeting because he is feeling -- he is feeling on the right side. You know, he can give facts during that

meeting whether this is bilateral or trilateral or multilateral. If Putin is there, we can put the facts on the table.

For Putin, it would be much more difficult, so what we think is that Putin will be trying to avoid that by all means, because that meeting will

highlight the very uncomfortable truths for Putin particularly about the war crimes, particularly about destroying cities, villages, et cetera. So

all his claims about, whatever he is saying to other sides, you know, and including, President Trump and his representatives would be easily

deconstructed by Zelenskyy during the meeting. So probably he would be avoiding it by all means, Putin.

QUEST: On the ground, I mean, we get, as you know, our correspondents Nic Robertson, Nick Paton Walsh, Clarissa Ward have been so many times in

Ukraine covering the actual fighting in the East, and there is a feeling that Russia has a sort of upper hand.

Now, as we come out of a summer and towards an autumn and a winter, the strength of the Ukrainian ability to keep fighting must be questionable. I

mean, obviously you can keep going, but Russia does eventually overwhelm, does it not?

ZAGORODNYUK: No, we won't necessarily overwhelm because they -- first of all, they planned much more results during this summer than they are

receiving. They have contributed a tremendous amount of resources. They have already one million losses and counting. And so that cannot be called

success by any, you know, reasonable analysis.

So, more importantly, though, Ukraine is, like, still existing as a political, stable political country. We have economy, we have social

structure, you know, and administrative structure and so on. So by all means, I mean, that is what the war is about. it is not about Donbas. It is

not about several villages, it is about existence of Ukraine.

And at the moment, Ukraine exists in its mass and its -- and it has a strong government. But let me tell you, this is -- the question is it is

not like if Ukraine even is struggling with the war, which is the case, of course, it is a very demanding war. There is no alternative, like, okay,

let's stop it and then we will have a peace, even if it is a settlement for us.

If Ukraine is weak, Putin is not going to settle because he will feel that Ukraine is weak, he will move on. That's the whole thing.

QUEST: Andriy, good to see you, sir. It is always good to talk to you. I am grateful. Thank you very much.

Let's go straight to Moscow. Fred Pleitgen is in Moscow.

Fred, the Kremlin are downplaying the possibility of a meeting. Sergey Lavrov says it must be prepared, and in his words, "With utmost care." He

hasn't ruled it out, but utmost care. Now, that's the exact opposite of what Donald Trump seems to want. Get him in a room and the deal will be

done.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think the Russians are still pretty far away from that. And first of all, you're

absolutely right. I am not sure that they are necessarily downplaying it, but they are sort of remaining coy about whether or not a meeting like that

is actually going to happen. And, you know, one of the things that we've been doing today is not just listening to Sergey Lavrov, which obviously

you did. You're absolutely right. He said that the Russians are not refusing any sort of format, whether it is bilateral or trilateral with the

Russian President.

But he did say that something like that needs to be well-prepared, obviously, leaving up in the air whether or not Vladimir Putin has really

agreed to conduct such a meeting.

One of the big issues, of course, that the Russians have is that they've, for a long time now been painting Volodymyr Zelenskyy as allegedly an

illegitimate president because of course, there haven't been elections in Ukraine because of the Martial Law.

[16:15:15]

But it is unclear whether or not Vladimir Putin could backtrack from that. He has said he is not categorically against a meeting, but that certain

conditions would have to be met, and the last time that he spoke about this was about a week-and-a-half ago, said they hadn't been met yet.

The Russians did say, however, Richard, this is one of the important things we picked up on today that they had seen a real sea change in U.S.-Russia

relations at the summit in Alaska. They believe that President Trump now has a much better understanding about their side, so that certainly could

open the doors for diplomacy and such a meeting could certainly take place. It is not out of the question, the Russians are saying -- Richard.

QUEST: Okay, this is fascinating, isn't it? Because the view in -- you know, you just heard Andriy and you just -- you know, is that Putin is

going to play for time. Putin is not going to really want to do a deal. He doesn't want a ceasefire. He is going to keep going to force the whole

agenda. And yet the one person who doesn't seem to follow this is President Trump.

So how are they -- how are the -- how does the Kremlin put over the fact that Europe just doesn't want anything to do with it.

PLEITGEN: Well, first of all, I think that one of the things we have to keep in mind is that there have been those direct negotiations, those

direct talks between President Trump and President Putin, where each of them will have impressed upon each other what exactly they wanted, and I

think there are certain things that the Russians got out of those talks that they think are extremely important for them to move over.

One of the ones is, of course, the trajectory of how these talks are going. Now, the Trump administration has moved from demanding a direct ceasefire,

an immediate ceasefire, to now going towards a broader peace deal, and has now effectively brought all of the Europeans on board as well.

We heard yesterday at that meeting, Friedrich Merz of Germany, saying he still thinks a ceasefire is necessary, but that was sort of brushed over.

So right now, the Russians certainly are seeing the negotiations process going in their direction. And while the Russians, of course, have been

saying they don't want a direct ceasefire because they are making gains on the battlefield, they've also said that if they get what they want in a

diplomatic process, that that is something that that would obviously be willing to latch on to as well, and that certainly seems to be what the

Trump administration is gunning for. Of course, unclear how heavy the price would be for Ukraine and whether Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelenskyy would be

willing to pay it -- Richard.

QUEST: A thought just occurred to me, Fred, forgive me not giving you notice on this one, but in Russia, is anybody making much of the Lavrov

sweater? The Communist Party, the USSR sweater that he wore to the Alaska Summit, which even now, here we go, even now, everybody is still talking

about it saying it was either trolling, it was deliberate.

I mean, I suppose an argument could be made, it was the first thing out of his -- out of his cupboard. But I am guessing that's just me being naive.

PLEITGEN: Yes, I doubt it was the first thing out of his cupboard and I can tell you everybody is making everything of that sweater. It is a huge point

of discussion here in Russia.

He was asked about it today when he did an interview with Russian state media, he claimed that it wasn't trolling at all. He actually also claimed

that Marco Rubio didn't think the sweater was that bad, and found it quite funny.

By the way, the company, since you know, it is a business program that we are on, the company that makes the sweaters, that sells the sweaters also

said that their business is going through the roof. They actually released a video, I think it was yesterday or the day before yesterday telling

people that they will try to get all the orders done.

They are absolutely thrilled about all the attention that they are getting, and that's certainly right now, sales are definitely going up since Sergey

Lavrov gave them some free advertising there on international T.V. -- Richard.

QUEST: $18.95, and I promise you, now, you know what I am buying you for Christmas. There you go. You have to wear it, Fred Pleitgen. Thank you for

joining us.

PLEITGEN: On your show.

QUEST: Yeah, good on you. You get double. You get two for that.

All right, as we continue tonight, it is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. We are going from, well, communist sweaters to other forms of tariffs.

Home Depot says it will raise prices for consumers going forward. Later in the program, a clothing company that is pulling out of the United States

because it can't make money on tariffs, Communist Party or otherwise.

QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:04]

QUEST: We knew it was coming and it has arrived, at least another example. Home Depot says that the Trump trade war is now forcing the company to

raise prices. The CFO says it is facing much higher tariffs compared to last year, and that the prices will go up as a result.

Home Depot says those price hikes will be modest and only apply to some goods.

Anna Cooban is with me. Another case, another example, Anna.

ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REPORTER: Yes, I mean, it is really no surprise. You've got Home Depot, the U.S.' largest home improvement

retailer. They are very sensitive to import taxes, which are essentially tariffs, just under half of their inventory are imports and so its little

surprise there, but what I find really interesting about this particular -- these particular results is that Home Depot said today that they've been

having conversations with their customers, and many are deciding to defer home improvement projects, which are often very expensive and this is over

economic uncertainty.

And, you know, we can only guess why every individual homeowner might be deferring their project, but certainly the threat of tariffs on lumber, for

example, which is a key home improvement product, but also high interest rates, might be causing people to put off those home -- really costly home

improvements.

QUEST: Right. Are we expecting more companies to do it? I mean, we've had Nike and we've had a few others and a lot of companies have danced round

it. They said they were waiting for some certainty, but they can only eat the margin for so long.

COOBAN: Exactly. And Walmart, a huge U.S. retailer, has said that it has been hiking prices because of tariffs. We've seen inflation tick up

recently in the U.S. The U.S. economy has held up better than most people expected after the onslaught of tariffs, the toing and froing, the

uncertainty.

However we do -- we are starting to see signs of inflation ticking up, which might mean higher prices on shelves for consumers.

QUEST: So on the other side, the money that's being brought in, the tariffs are helping the U.S. Treasury' balance sheet. S&P has maintained its AA+ on

long term U.S. debt. One of the reasons is the meaningful tariff revenue, which helps offset the budget impact.

So I guess, I suppose there is an argument, one of -- one of -- Jake, one of our producers was saying that, you know, actually all its really doing

is negating, instead of actually helping the overall deficit, the tariff revenue is just offsetting The Big Beautiful Bill.

How much money is being brought in? Do we know yet?

COOBAN: Well, Treasury -- the Treasury has come out to say that since April, around $100 billion worth of revenue has been collected. That's an

enormous number. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says that he expects to see about $300 billion worth, and it is really interesting that S&P has

said today that it sees the U.S. as being -- its creditworthiness as being stable. It hasn't changed, it hasn't downgraded it, which many people might

find surprising given all of the concerns raised about Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill, the Tax Bill, the Tax Cut and Spending Bill. But actually,

S&P said today that the tariff revenue might help offset any, any debt that's loaded on because of this bill.

[16:25:04]

QUEST: Anna, good to see you. Thank you.

Now to the Swedish clothing brand that is pulling out of the U.S. because of tariffs. Polarn O. Pyret, PO.P, is closing its U.S. business and will

stop all sales by the end of the year.

It makes the majority of its outwear in China. That means it is subject to the President's tariff on Chinese goods.

So we pumped it into the Flexport tariff calculator. If PO.P were to import $10,000.00 worth of waterproof jackets, very popular with children, by the

way, they'd be hit with a duty of 55 percent, but then the even more popular puffer vests that would be 53.5 percent.

Sara Sjoberg is the chief executive of PO.P. I hope our numbers are roughly right, but I am guessing they're close enough and no business can survive

that sort of tariff.

And I am guessing you just saw the business dwindle away.

SARA SJOBERG, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF POLARN O. PYRET: Well, yes, of course, as any business we like certainty. We like to be able to forecast how our

future will look like and we don't like complexity. So, we, of course, closing down our franchise business end of this year was not an easy

decision. Of course, several factors, as in any of those type of big decisions lay behind.

But we are focusing our business to where we see the biggest growth potential, where we see the least complexity. And for us at the moment,

this is Europe. So we are putting our eggs in the basket of Northern and Central Europe.

QUEST: So what were you seeing? Because a lot of the tariff effect wont have been hit yet because you will have moved stuff over in advance. I know

you've already got quite a bit of stuff, so it wouldn't have been hit.

So really, there is not a huge amount that would have already been hit by the tariff that's just come in. So is this a case of trying to get ahead of

something because really, how do you know that your loyal customers won't pay the higher prices?

SJOBERG: Well, it is, as I said, a matter of focusing our limited resources on where we see the biggest potential really. So we think that by focusing

that on Europe, at this point, we get a bigger bang for the buck and we see a greater growth potential as we see that the European customers are really

enjoying our premium quality products and that our e-commerce is growing in Europe. So we chose to take this decision based on several factors, and

tariffs are one of them.

QUEST: Bearing in mind the popularity of your products and your clothing, particularly with children, of course, after the pandemic, you must be,

pardon my French, but you must be really pissed off because you had built up and you were building up a brand in the United States, a successful one,

a premium one, and now that's basically you've had to sort of pull the plug. It must be very annoying for you.

SJOBERG: It is annoying, and it is really sad that we are disappointing our customers because we have a huge, loyal customer base in the U.S. We've

been there since 2009 and as you say, they love our products. They appreciate the premium quality. They appreciate that this type of clothing

has been tested in Sweden and Swedish weather for over 50 years now, so we know that it works. We know that it works in terms of durability.

We have this motto in our company that we want our garments to be worn by at least three children, and it actually works. So 65 percent -- more than

65 percent of our outerwear is worn by three kids or more, actually.

QUEST: So with the U.S. gone and the U.K. of course, is a -- it is still there and it is still a market. It is just a more challenging market in the

post-Brexit environment. But I think most companies are sort of learning to live with that environment.

Besides Europe, are you going to look to grow in other markets?

SJOBERG: Yes. We are actually doing a big push this autumn in Germany, where we are partnering up with the premium outdoor retailer called

Globetrotter that shares the same values about circularity, premium quality, and second hand. So we are doing a push in Germany. We see that

our e-commerce is growing already there, and we have a growing customer base.

So we are putting our eggs in that basket and also looking into more of the countries in Central Europe.

QUEST: I am grateful for your time tonight. Thank you for joining us, putting it in perspective. Thank you.

As you and I continue, how groundbreaking mass production technology -- now, that was the Model T -- remember the old phrase, you can have it in

any color as long as it is black. But does this work when it comes to satellites -- the next generation of low orbit satellites?

The chief executive of Apex joins me shortly.

[16:30:17]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:21]

QUEST: Intel shares surged after Softbank said it would invest $2 billion in the company. Intel's up 7 percent following the show of support from

Softbank, which said it believed Intel's ability to make chips in the U.S. The Trump administration also confirmed it is seeking a stake for national

security reasons. The idea is to convert federal chips grants into an equity position.

Clare is with me.

This is a rum deal. Don't like the smell of it. Now, we've had this before. Something similar. Do you remember? Pandemic loans, which were then

converted into equities in car companies and things like that. But this is slightly different. How is this going to work?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH CORRESPONDENT: Well, Richard, I think that's, you know, a question that we all still have. How exactly is this going to work?

What kind of stake will the U.S. government be taking? It sounds like they will, as you said, be converting these Chips Act grants. And rather than

just giving it to Intel as a grant, they want some equity in the company in return.

But my big question about this is what exactly is the White House going to do with that stake and with that influence if they do make this unusual

deal? You, of course, know that Intel has already had a CEO come and gone who was an industry veteran, a company veteran who everybody thought might

be the saving grace for the company. But even he couldn't turn things around, in large part because Intel just doesn't have technology as

advanced as its competitors like TSMC.

Now, Scott Bessent did touch on this, the Treasury secretary, in an interview with CNBC this morning. He suggested that the White House doesn't

want to pressure big tech companies into buying Intel's subpar chips.

Let's take a listen to what he said there.

[16:35:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: The last thing we're going to do is put pressure -- is take a stake and then try to drum up business. That the

stake would be a conversion of the grants and maybe increase the investment into Intel to help stabilize the -- stabilize the company for chip

production here in the U.S. There's no talk of trying to force companies to buy from Intel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: So if you're not going to drum up business, I suppose, then the strategy or the hope is that by investing in Intel, it can get this Ohio

factory, this new chip making facility that's been repeatedly delayed up and running. But even if it's got a factory up and running doesn't

necessarily mean anybody is going to want to buy its chips, Richard.

QUEST: Right. OK, but here's the -- I mean, this is good old fashioned industrial policy circa 1960s, picking and choosing winners and losers,

except in this case, the government is already on the hook through the chip -- through the chip grants. So it's a way in a sense, of gaining back. But

I guess it only really works, Clare, if the government is hands off, which Bessent seems to suggest they will be having taken the stake.

DUFFY: Yes, it is really interesting. It's on one hand, you know, is being hands off going to be worthwhile because you've already had one CEO who

isn't able to turn this company around. We have a new CEO who's now trying. You know, Lutnick did suggest that the White House wants something in

return for this investment in the company. But will it -- will it be any return if the company can't get things turned around? I think that's the

big question.

QUEST: Right.

DUFFY: But I also think this gives us a sense of what a significant national security priority this is for the White House to make sure that

these chips are made in the U.S., even if they're not the best.

QUEST: Clare, I'm grateful to you. Thank you.

Now, joining us as you're watching me tonight, so think about it. It comes from this studio. It goes down a fiber line to our CNN colleagues in

Atlanta. From there, it goes to master control. From master control, it goes to a satellite, and it goes up to the bird, bing, bing, bing, bing,

bing, bing, around the world, down to the bird, and then back. And then eventually ends up on your television screen.

That's how you're seeing me tonight. I'm very grateful that you are, too. And there are thousands of satellites orbiting the earth at the moment.

This is the satellite tracker 3-D. Each dot represents a satellite and it could be a lot more crowded.

Apex technology wants to bring mass produced satellites to market, and it's going to use a tried and tested method. Standard manufacturing, otherwise

known as the assembly line. Any color as long as it's black. The principle developed by Henry Ford in the early 20th century.

Ian Cinnamon is the CEO of Apex.

Why has this not been done before with satellites? Why has it been this mystery that's difficult and blah, blah, blah?

IAN CINNAMON, CEO, APEX: Richard, it's a fantastic question and thank you for having me here. I have to say your explanation of how a satellite works

is spot on. The reality of the situation, though, is most satellites for the last 70 years have been these very large, bespoke, custom made systems

that are launched into space. And the reason for that is to get a satellite up into space is very, very difficult.

And quite frankly, over the last 70 years, you only had an opportunity maybe once every several years to get your satellite into orbit. So you had

plenty of time to build your satellite with whatever specifications or in the car example, any color you wanted. It's the first time in history,

thanks to SpaceX, Rocket Lab and others launching more and more frequently, that we can now launch a lot of satellites in a proliferated manner.

And in order to build them fast enough, you need to build them on that assembly line. And that's what we do here at Apex.

QUEST: Right. Essentially, you have three what you call busses. I would say chassis. You've got three core things that look like satellites. And then

the client can shove whatever they want into them and send them up. Is that sort of -- the sort of idea? But I can't change the chassis. I can't change

the bus. I can put what I like in it, but I can't fundamentally alter the bit that goes up.

CINNAMON: Precisely correct. Right. You could think of the car analogy, we have a small, a medium and a large platform. We call them platforms. I

think this is a confusing term. Only the U.S. uses bus. The rest of the world calls it a platform. So we build small, medium and large and you

could take it. And if you want us to change it, we say no, but you could go take the platform and go do what you do with, whatever you want with it

after the fact.

QUEST: Are you agnostic about who puts it into the sky?

CINNAMON: Of course. So we have designed our system to be able to work with any of the standard launch platforms. Right?

[16:40:05]

That's everybody from SpaceX to internationally we look at folks like Ariane out of France. We look at PSLV out of India. We look at other

players like Rocket Lab out of New Zealand. We are designed to be compatible with all of them.

QUEST: And I know you're quite coy for obvious reasons about who your clients are. We know some of them, but of course, Golden Dome promises to

be a big gravy train for everybody along with several other major defense, particularly if the Europeans start spending more serious money on

satellites.

CINNAMON: We see Golden Dome, frankly, as an initiative that is coming together that we hope unites not just defense firms in the U.S., but

defense firms across the U.S. and our greatest allies. That's Europe. That's countries like Japan. All over the world coming together to build

effectively this missile shield to keep out our near-peer adversaries or enemies.

QUEST: And we've just been showing the 3-D simulation of the number of satellites in the sky. We'll show it again. How many more do you

realistically believe we can put up there before it becomes so crowded as to become either unusable or dangerous?

CINNAMON: So, look, we definitely want to be responsible stewards of space. We don't want to launch things up there. If they collide, it creates more

debris. It's very bad. That being said, there's actually a lot more space up there than we actually realize. So if you think about it, there are less

satellites up today. There's on the order of several thousand satellites up today than the number of satellites that go on a highway or a freeway

between two cities.

And if you think how spread out they are up there, we actually have a lot more room up there than most people realize.

QUEST: I'm grateful to you, Ian. Thank you for joining us tonight. Thank you.

And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight being brought to you by something up there. Is there anyone there? You get the idea. Whatever

you're up to in the hours ahead, I'm Richard Quest in New York, and I hope and trust that it is profitable.

Next, we're going to India, where indeed it is a "World of Wonder."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:45:43]

QUEST: It's time to embrace new adventures.

This is magnificent.

Seize the moment. In this WORLD OF WONDER.

Delhi is loud, chaotic, and yes, a bit aggressive. But early in the morning, I stumble on a very different sound. It's laughter. Strange, loud

purposeful. Naturally, I was skeptical, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity. You have to discover for yourself.

HANISH RAWAT, LAUGHTER YOGA GURU: No time for home.

Just observe your breath. By the harmony. With the laughter.

QUEST: This is laughter. Yoga. And before you ask, no, it's not a joke. It's the real thing.

An odd mix of breathwork.

RAWAT: Take a long, deep breath in.

QUEST: Stretching and artificial laughter.

Dr. Harish Rawat is a pharmacist turned guru. He's taught this style of yoga to school kids, politicians, even soldiers. So, yes, at first the

laughter is and feels forced. Ridiculous, even.

RAWAT: Long breath.

QUEST: But then something happens. It begins to feel real. The endorphins get a boost. Stress is reduced and the heart, it beats faster. Laughter

really is the best medicine.

The spirit of community something I find across this city. Most certainly here.

Oh, wow. This wind has gone up all of a sudden.

HARPAL SINGH, INFORMATION MANAGER, GURUDWARA BANGLA SAHIB: I think the God is happy that you are here.

QUEST: Not surprisingly, there's plenty of spirit at Bangla Sahib Gurudwara. It's a place to pray, reflect, gather, and most certainly eat.

No questions asked. Absolutely no payments taken.

SINGH: This place is open 24 hours. So if anyone needs to eat any time this kitchen is open for them all the time. Even if you come 1:00 in the night,

2:00 in the night, you are always welcome to have the food here.

QUEST: This kitchen feeds tens of thousands of people every day. And I didn't believe it until I saw it for myself. Whether a local, a pilgrim or

a tourist wanting to learn, everyone is welcome here.

SINGH: You see people from all caste, creed, religions together and a multi-millionaire coming along with his driver, they will sit together at

this place, eat. Outside they can be owner and the chauffeur. But at this place they are same.

QUEST: To make all that food and serve it takes roughly 250 volunteers. Stirring, rolling, washing, serving.

What if there aren't enough volunteers to make the chapatis?

SINGH: Sometimes they have to wait to get their turn.

QUEST: Really?

SINGH: Yes.

QUEST (voice-over): Seva. Selfless service. A key pillar of the Sikh faith.

SINGH: Just turn your wrist like this. Just turn the wrist. Perfect.

QUEST: I'm doing too much drama. I'm trying to do too much flair.

SINGH: Good. You're doing good now. He's quick learner. If you ask for the number of chapatis, it's almost more than 100,000 chapatis we prepare every

day. More than 100,000 of them a day.

[16:50:04]

AWESOME AL, CAMERAMAN: Richard, how many have you done?

QUEST: About a dozen.

AWESOME AL: Only about another 80,000 to go then I think.

QUEST: So they've got machines for making the chapatis. The machine could literally make 4,000 or 5,000 an hour. So the machine could do all the

chapatis, and they wouldn't need all of that. But if you didn't have that, you wouldn't have enough for the people to do for the community kitchen.

(Voice-over): It's a different concept, a different philosophy. If it's made by hand, there is passion. A little more love.

They're hot. Take it.

AWESOME AL: Well, did you think they were going to be cold?

SINGH: That's a handmade. That's the machine made.

QUEST: And I like the handmade.

(Voice-over): Besides COVID, Harpal tells me this kitchen hasn't stopped serving for nearly three centuries. Not for weather, not politics, not

once.

SINGH: We have seen the kitchen.

QUEST: Yes. Now I know where I'm going to end up. The washing up.

SINGH: No -- yes, we can do that.

QUEST: The washing up. It's where I belong.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AWESOME AL: I think we're going to be late, Richard.

QUEST: Yes, that's it.

AWESOME AL: Let's go.

QUEST (voice-over): We started our final day in India running. Delhi station, as it turns out, isn't the easiest place to navigate. In the

morning rush hour it's a nightmare.

Where are we off to, Al?

AWESOME AL: So we are going to Agra.

QUEST: Yes. Why are we going to Agra?

AWESOME AL: Because we're going to see the Taj Mahal.

QUEST: Does everybody thinks the Taj Mahal is sort of Delhi? It's not.

AWESOME AL It's Agra, it's far.

QUEST: It's Agra. But this --

AWESOME AL I've never been. I've never been.

QUEST: Really?

AWESOME AL First time.

QUEST (voice-over): Indian railways carries 23 million passengers a year.

AWESOME AL This is us.

QUEST: Seats are reserved and just like that, we are off.

I think this is my first trip on Indian railways. Yes, it is.

(Voice-over): It's around an hour and 40 minutes, and soon we are in Agra. And waiting to show us around Rizwan Mohammad. He's guided CEOs and royals,

and now he's stuck with Awesome and me.

RIZWAN MOHAMMAD, DIRECTOR, TRAVELOSEI: That's the main gate of Taj Mahal. It's called the Taj gate or the royal gate.

QUEST: Oh, look at that. My goodness.

(Voice-over): The first time you see the Taj Mahal, it takes your breath away. Commissioned in 1631 by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, the Taj Mahal took

nearly 20 years to finish. It was built in memory of his wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who died giving birth to their 14th child.

MOHAMMAD: The best thing about the Taj Mahal is when you travel and you see some amazing things which you remember in your life. The reasons behind

those buildings, those monuments. Most of the time it's about ego. Sometimes it's about defense, sometimes it's about like how powerful I am.

The reason behind Taj Mahal is love. It was built by a human for another human. That's the best part of it.

QUEST: The details are obsessive. The stonework flawless. It's the scale, the symmetry, the sheer impossible beauty.

MOHAMMAD: It is so symmetrical that if you're going to cut this building right from the center, starting from the gate up to the main building, the

whole complex will divide exactly into two equal parts. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, which is asymmetrical here except one. And that is the

tomb of the emperor, which is inside the building.

QUEST: And then there is that most famous of spots, the bench.

[16:55:02]

The late Princess of Wales Diana sat here in 1992 at a time when her marriage to Prince Charles was falling apart. She was alone at the temple

of love, and in one frame melancholy became iconic.

The locals say one should visit the Taj Mahal three times in your life, once with your parents, then with your partner, and finally with your

children. Funny, no one mentions colleagues.

Yet here we are. This is another example of us being somewhere in a beautiful place.

AWESOME AL: Spectacular. But.

QUEST: But what?

AWESOME AL: No offense.

QUEST: Go on. Go on.

AWESOME AL: It'd be nice if my wife was here instead of you.

QUEST: In other words, what is temple of love with the wrong people? Photo, photo. We'll be nearly finished.

(Voice-over): The more I saw of the Taj Mahal, the more it brought me to a riveting debate.

Spectacular. But I've got something controversial, Al.

AWESOME AL: Go on.

QUEST: Love is fine, and love is great, and all of that. But the woman died. You've got to get over it. You've got to move on. And is it right

that you grieve for 20, 30 years and build a monument of this scale and expense?

AWESOME AL: Maybe it was greater than a love that we know.

QUEST: Think about it. For 20, 20 years.

AWESOME AL: What you're saying is off the record. If Chris pegs it, you'll move on in a couple of months, find someone new and get on with your life.

There'll be no grand monuments for Chris.

QUEST: That is so twisting my words.

AWESOME AL: Well, I don't think it is at all.

QUEST (voice-over): The experience of visiting the Taj has improved immeasurably in the 20 years I've been coming here. It isn't loud or

chaotic. It doesn't jostle for attention. The Taj Mahal just stands calm, steady, quietly spectacular.

The true monument to love. And you're going to want to come here, experience all of this and love it for yourself. Delhi and incredible

India, definitely part of our WORLD OF WONDER.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END