Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

South Korean President: Trump Only One Who Can Help With North; Orsted Shares Tumble On Cancelled Wind Farm Project; Von Der Leyen Defends Trade Deal With The U.S.; Donald Trump Signs Executive Order Creating Specialized National Guard Units To "Deal With Public Order Issues"; Judge To Require Kilmar Abrego Garcia To Remain In U.S. For Now; Benjamin Netanyahu" Israel "Deeply Regrets Tragic Mishap". As Double IDF Strikes On Gaza Hospital Kill 20, Including Five Journalists. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 25, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:09]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Closing bell there on Wall Street. Not a great day for the markets. The Dow closing lower. NASDAQ pretty much flat. Those are

the markets and these are the main events.

South Korea's President asks President Trump to meet with Kim Jong-un.

Shares in the energy company Orsted crater 16 percent. The Trump administration halted work on a giant and nearly finished windfarm.

And Elon Musk's A.I. company sues Apple and OpenAI.

Live here from Washington, D.C., it is Monday, August 25th. I am Jim Sciutto in today for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

Good evening.

Tonight President Trump says he wants to meet again with Kim Jong-un as South Korea's leader tells him he is the only one who can improve relations

with North Korea.

President Trump hosted Lee Jae Myung at The White House earlier. The South Korean President says he believes that Kim Jong-un is waiting to meet with

President Trump and that the situation cannot be improved without U.S. support.

President Trump says he has spent free time speaking with his North Korean counterpart.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We want to have a meeting. I like to have a meeting. I get along great with him. I

look forward to meeting with Kim Jong-un in the appropriate future.

I have a very good relationship -- I understand him. I spent a lot of free time with him talking about things that we probably aren't supposed to talk

about. And, you know, I just -- I get along with him really well.

I think he has a country of great potential, tremendous potential. I'd like to meet him this year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: We should remind folks that Trump met with Kim three times in his first administration, made no progress towards a nuclear deal.

President Lee apparently came to the meeting armed with one of Donald Trump's favorite things, a deal. White House Economic Adviser Kevin Hassett

says the administration is expecting a big agreement on shipbuilding. It is part of a trade deal outlined in July. Reports suggest it will total some

$150 billion and will be titled Make American Shipbuilding Great Again -- it might sound familiar.

Stephen Collinson joins me now.

So first question is, is this a substantial deal? I mean, the shipbuilding is a reasonable and recognizable focus for the U.S. given the U.S. has

basically ceded shipbuilding, doesn't do nearly as much as it did in the past. Does this have teeth to it?

Because a lot of these deals that Trump announces, it is not quite clear when they're going to be acted upon.

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: That's right. That's the big substance question. It is the same with all of these trade deals that

Trump has done. You look at the trade deal. It looks like a big, big thing. The one with Europe, for example, and then you read the small print and its

the U.S. and the E.U. will agree to talk to improve trade.

This one potentially it could be big. A lot of people in the administration are worried about China's advantage in naval shipbuilding. They're looking

for ways to catch up. But it is fascinating how every foreign leader comes to President Trump with a gift, something he can tout. It is interesting

how each country is looking at the particular leverage they have that they can improve that big test on television in the Oval Office.

SCIUTTO: Yes. They also always come armed, it seems, with flattery for President Trump.

COLLINSON: Yes.

SCIUTTO: I mean, you have that line there that Trump is the only one who could improve the relationship with North Korea. Now, as I noted, Trump met

with him three times in the first administration and actually, Intelligence assessments show that North Korea expanded its nuclear program during his

first term. I mean, are there reasons to be optimistic that meetings this time around will change the calculus?

COLLINSON: Let's just go back a week. President Trump met Vladimir Putin in Alaska. It was a big photo op summit. It has done almost nothing to bring

forward the cause of peace in Ukraine. That summit, he said, was going to take place between Zelenskyy and Putin, still hasn't taken place. It looks

like it would be the same thing with North Korea.

As you say, Kim had more nuclear missiles at the end of Trump's first term than he did at the beginning. There is not really any reason to think that

the strategic questions on the Korean Peninsula have changed in the last eight years, and that Trump could do better this time. Kim is going to

obviously see his nuclear weapons as the key to his regime survival. Trump hasn't got an answer to that.

But in a way, it is true that Trump is the only person that can talk to Kim. So perhaps there is some leverage there. You know everything every

American administration has tried since Bill Clinton's administration, basically, apart from the agreed framework in 1994, that deal fell apart.

They've all failed to get rid of Kim's nuclear weapons.

[16:05:03]

SCIUTTO: Yes.

COLLINSON: So, you know, Trump wouldn't be any different than the last five years.

SCIUTTO: I mean, they all called it a red line. And of course, events broke through. The reality broke through that red line.

Stephen Collinson, thanks so much.

Well, shares in the Dutch energy giant, Orsted fell heavily today after the U.S. government ordered it to halt work on a wind farm off the coast of

Rhode Island. That project was nearly 80 percent complete. The company says it will evaluate all options, including legal proceedings.

President Trump earlier said that wind energy doesn't work. That's actually not true. It was just the latest comment in a long history of criticizing

wind farms, which have come for some reason, quite a personal issue for the President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You can talk about windmills. They litter our country. They're littered all over our country.

If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value, and they say the noise causes

cancer.

I know more about wind than you do. It is extremely expensive. It kills all the birds.

You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go take a look -- a bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Anna Cooban joins me now.

This is a case, we should just state it out loud of the U.S. President interfering in an existing economic project --business project. What

happens now? I mean, to the best of our understanding, does the President have the ability, the power, to kill this project? Eighty percent

completed.

ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REPORTER: Well, he certainly has gone a long way to potentially killing it. Now, Orsted, a huge Danish wind

developer, has said that it wants to find ways to continue constructing this project. It wants to potentially look at legal proceedings.

But just to give you a sense of the scale of this, Jim. This was a project based off the coast of Connecticut and Rhode Island that was due to be

supplying renewable power to around 350,000 homes in over a 20-year period. So this is no small project. Its shares today, Orsted's shares are now down

to a record low, but this is just as you've shown with those clips from Trump, the latest example of Trump's ire against the wind industry. He

thinks that wind turbines are ugly, they're expensive, and he has also mentioned that they kill whales. There is no evidence to suggest that

that's true.

And on his first day in office, this second time around, he suspended all new leases, federal leases for onshore and offshore wind projects and

reviewed all existing leases. So that gives you a sense of the priority that the President and this administration is placing on scuppering this

industry.

SCIUTTO: We should note this goes back, it seems, to the golf course that he owns in Scotland. He didn't like that the wind farms obscured the view.

And it is not the first challenge we should note, the wind industry has been grappling with. What other challenges are they facing right now?

COOBAN: Well, you're right to bring this up. You know Trump is one issue for the wind industry, but this has been an ongoing litany of challenges

over the past few years. You've got high interest rates, which has made borrowing the huge amounts of money needed to fund these expensive projects

very expensive. You've got a lot of people, local opposition to wind farms, people not wanting them in their backyard, so to speak. You've got supply

chain issues, delays in getting turbine blades to wind developers, for example.

So it has been a real number of challenges, and to have a U.S. administration that is so acrimonious, has so much animosity towards them

is the last thing that they need.

SCIUTTO: Anna Cooban, thanks so much for joining.

Well, multiple European Postal Services are now suspending postal shipments to the U.S. They are citing confusion around the end of what is known as

the de minimis exception. Under that exception, packages worth less than $800.00 could enter the U.S. duty free. This Friday, however, that

exemption is set to go away.

DHL Group said in a statement that key questions remain unresolved as to exactly how these types of shipments at these values will now be handled.

Amid the uncertainty, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, is defending the E.U.'s trade agreement with the U.S.

In an op-ed in "El Mundo," van der Leyen wrote that Russia and China would have cheered the prospect of a trade war between the U.S. and the E.U. and

that securing a single tariff rate of 15 percent on most goods is a victory.

Victor Negrescu is Vice President of the European Parliament, and he joins me now.

Thanks so much for joining. We appreciate you taking the time.

VICTOR NEGRESCU, VICE PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Thank you for the invitation.

SCIUTTO: So first I want to begin on this suspension of mail services for goods valued below $800.00. I have to imagine that's a good percentage of

things shipped through the mail. How disruptive is this for European exporters, particularly small businesses?

[16:10:01]

NEGRESCU: This is really disruptive for small businesses, especially and artisans that were shipping small goods to the U.S.

What is difficult right now for Postal Offices in Europe is to really understand how to comply with the new regulation that is going to enter

into force. Basically, they need to collect the taxes, and we don't know how to do that. In the same time, the Postal Services need to transfer

those taxes to U.S. authorities and this has not been defined yet either.

So right now, several Postal Services in different countries in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, France decided to stop shipping. We refer here to

merchandise that comes from European businesses, so they are not stopping the private shipments. But nevertheless, this will have an impact.

When we speak about the dimension of this impact, we speak about basically millions of parcels or postal items that are traditionally being sent from

Europe to the U.S. This will have an economic impact, but will also have an impact on people, sharing items or exchanging items, which is quite common

for U.S. citizens doing that with European counterparts in order also, for instance, to exchange on common hobbies or habits. So this will certainly

have an impact.

So we need to wait for clear explanation from the U.S. side.

SCIUTTO: The White House says that it is aiming to combat illegal practices, including the importation of illegal drugs in the U.S. I mean,

we should note that's an explanation it is used in previous trade disputes, for instance, the trade dispute with Canada, even when that is a small

percentage of actual trade.

Does the E.U. see this as a legitimate concern? Is that from the E.U.'s experience, a large percentage of trade that goes back and forth under this

$800.00 limit?

NEGRESCU: So, first of all, it is a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, there are no data confirming those claims. This is why we believe that we cannot

simply apply a regulation without making sure this will not have an impact on the positive exchanges that are happening right now.

Of course, we understand that we need to apply the new tariffs, the 15 percent tariffs. We have to learn how to do it. Nevertheless, of course,

many people that were not paying any tax till now are supposed to pay those kind of taxes. And again, the small businesses, artisans are not used to do

so. They don't have the means, but also the know-how in order to apply these respective taxes.

Nevertheless, we are ready to work with our U.S. counterparts to find better ways again, to fight against illegal shipment of drugs or other

illegal goods. But again, the dimension is not so significant, or at least we don't have the data confirming those different claims made by U.S.

authorities.

SCIUTTO: The last time you and I spoke, you said that 15 percent tariffs would be too high, and that that was not about trade, but about protecting

Europe against its competitors.

Where do you stand now and do you disagree with Ursula von der Leyen, who says that that deal between the U.S. and the E.U. at least provided clarity

going forward?

NEGRESCU: So certainly we needed clarity and certainly this agreement is part also of a geopolitical choice, as I said also when we discussed last

time, nevertheless, of course, you probably noticed several European leaders discussing about Europe needing to identify new markets.

Recently, the German Chancellor spoke about going towards South America. You have different leaders that speak about potentially identifying new

markets. We have the automotive sector that expects the 15 percent to enter into force faster than it is actually being planned to happen.

So indeed, in Europe, there is a lot of frustration, a lot of discussions. We are ready to accept the 15 percent, but we have to be certain that the

details are certain.

You also know that the negotiators released, a few days ago more details about the agreement that was reached. We have to see all of that entering

into force. There are some difficulties, but the implementation will prove whether this will be successful or not. But for European businesses and of

course, also for U.S. consumers, this will represent a burden and this will increase the cost of many goods and products coming from Europe to the U.S.

market.

[16:15:03]

SCIUTTO: The thing is though, that a lot of countries, when they were threatened with tariffs by President Trump, initially said, we will resist

these tariffs. They are not fair. But we are seeing countries line up in effect and make deals, E.U. included, where they are agreeing to higher

tariffs on their own goods, then will be placed on U.S. goods.

It just seems that in effect, countries are repeatedly giving President Trump wins, and so he continues to apply the trade war policy. I mean, do

you disagree with that?

NEGRESCU: So first of all, we know businesses need predictability. So I am going to refer, for instance, to the automotive sector. We have a 27.5

percent tariff rate right now, and we are going to 15 percent.

On some pharmaceutical goods, there will be no tariffs. On aeronautical products, there will be no tariffs. So there are some wins for Europe also

in these negotiations.

Nevertheless, we understand that this is very important for the U.S. administration personally for President Trump, and we know that of course,

he also correlates these decisions with other decisions that are crucial for Europe, like for instance, support for Ukraine. The involvement of the

U.S. and NATO level. So it is clearly a geopolitical choice to accept the 15 percent. Economically, this will become a burden. This will affect our

businesses, this will affect probably trade between U.S. and Europe.

The U.S. represents 20 percent of our global market. So this really has an impact on our companies. But nevertheless, hopefully the private sector

will identify new ways forward.

Nevertheless, for Europe, this could actually represent a competitive advantage knowing that other parts of the world will likely have bigger

tariffs than the 15 percent, so probably Asian companies or South American companies will need to apply bigger tariffs, which will allow European

companies to actually be quite competitive on the U.S. market despite the 15 percent.

SCIUTTO: Victor Negrescu, thanks so much for joining us.

NEGRESCU: Thank you so much for the invitation.

SCIUTTO: Well, President Trump is blasting the "stupidity" of those now criticizing his deal for the U.S. government to purchase 10 percent of

Intel. I am going to discuss with the former president of the Richmond Federal Reserve right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:10]

SCIUTTO: The White House says the U.S. government will keep increasing its involvement with and ownership of private companies. The Trump

administration recently took a 10 percent stake in Intel, arguing the deal was great for both the company and the country. The state paid for by

grants awarded to Intel under the Chips Act.

Trump said on Truth Social that the deal is already creating jobs and wealth. His economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, told CNBC that Intel is just

the beginning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: I think this is a very, very special circumstance because of the massive amount of Chips

Act spending that was coming Intel's way. But the President has made it clear all the way back to the campaign that he thinks that in the end, it

would be great if the U.S. could start to build up a Sovereign Wealth Fund.

And so I am sure that at some point there will be more transactions, if not in this industry then in other industries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Jeffrey Lacker is the former President of the Richmond Federal Reserve. Thanks so much for joining.

JEFFREY LACKER, FORMER PRESIDENT, RICHMOND FEDERAL RESERVE: My pleasure.

SCIUTTO: So first big picture, is this a case of the U.S. government picking winners and losers? I mean, there was a time when particularly the

Republican Party would say the government should not be picking out private companies, particularly with its own money. But is that what is happening

here?

LACKER: To some extent, I mean, it is propping up intel, adding equity to the balance sheet. More broadly, I think the more corrosive effect is just

the lack of separation between ownership and control. It is fine for the U.S. to take an equity stake in a company, but to exercise the leverage

over corporate decision making is the kind of thing that, in the long run, is not good for an economy.

I think we've seen that internationally. Countries that go down this road of extensive state ownership of private corporations don't usually have

good results. This is the kind of nationalization that the Republican Party. You're correct, it is used to rail against kind of socialism that

was derided by them, and I think rightly so.

So, yes, this is not a welcome development in economic policy in my view.

SCIUTTO: Intel's security filing, it warns that the U.S. government's 10 percent stake could actually hurt its international sales, especially

considering 76 percent of its revenue comes from outside the U.S., nearly a third from China. Is that a reasonable cause for concern?

LACKER: I don't have any reason to doubt their claim and you know, more broadly, I think, you know, the world has experience with countries using

particularly institutions as national champions, sort of championing their interests overseas. For example, the banking industry is more familiar with

is you know, in the great financial crisis experienced this, the position of different nationalities and regulatory bodies with regard to their own

institutions made for a system that was brittle and didn't work very well, and I think we've come to regret it.

SCIUTTO: Yes. If you look back to the 2008 financial crisis, the argument the government made at the time with the investments, for instance, in the

financial corporations, but also the auto industry, right, because the government in effect took a stake, which it eventually, as I understand it,

made money on and then sold was that that was a crisis, right, a moment where those companies and those banks might very well have failed.

Is this a different situation? Does it meet that crisis threshold, as it were?

LACKER: No. And, you know, it doesn't seem like it. I mean, Intel is a thriving growing concern, maybe not as, you know, robust economic results

recently as some other tech companies, but it doesn't seem likely to go bankrupt any time soon. So I don't think we are facing what the U.S. faced

with the auto industry back in 2008 and 2009.

And, you know you know, back then you had to ask the question you know, if you do this, you're going to set a precedent that's going to come back to

haunt you. It is going to affect bondholders, equity investors, corporate decision makers for years to come.

You know, in part what happened in 2008 and 2009 with the auto industry was a byproduct of what happened in the early 1980s with the rescue of Chrysler

Corporation and Lockheed by the U.S. government. So I think those types of bailouts and rescues inevitably corrode incentives and they induced the

sort of fragility that that bring on crises in the future.

So it is kind of guaranteed to increase the probability of future crises from that point of view.

[16:25:17]

SCIUTTO: Do you -- so what do you take, then, from Kevin Hassett's comments there saying that, you know, this is just the start. There are going to be

others in other industries. It sounds like a far broader policy.

LACKER: It does. I mean, it is consistent with what this administration has displayed by way of willingness to exercise maximum leverage over any of

the entities it deals with in the private sector, be it education, corporations and the like to get what it wants whether it is cultural

results, economic results or what have you, and that's not a good prospect, the idea that anything you want from the U.S. government might be

accompanied by -- might meet a request for some equity stake.

I don't think that's going to put us in a better place as a country over time.

SCIUTTO: Are there any legal barriers to this? Is there -- can the companies, I mean, you hear from -- you hear companies, for instance, if

you're talking about this wind project, which is slightly different, but off the coast of Rhode Island, you've got a company saying, well, you know,

we thought we had a deal here and we are going to -- we may be able to pursue some legal avenues, but are there any legal avenues when a U.S.

President says, hey I am either killing this deal or I am buying part of the company.

LACKER: I am not an expert on, you know, the legal arrangements around this. What rights the President has on this or not? You know, I would think

that, you know, with legislation, the capabilities are quite extensive, but I don't know what legislation governs this investment in Intel, so I am

going to have to beg off from that question. Sorry.

SCIUTTO: Well, Jeffrey Lacker, we appreciate you joining. Thanks so much for helping us understand this.

LACKER: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: Elon Musk's A.I. startup is now suing both Apple and OpenAI over alleged antitrust activity. The lawsuit accuses the companies of

suppressing xAI's exercise products in the Apple App Store. They include both X and Grok.

Musk threatened to sue his competitors two weeks ago. He alleged that Apple's partnership with ChatGPT makes it impossible for another A.I.

company to top the App Store's rankings. Apple and OpenAI did not immediately respond to requests for comments.

Clare Duffy is in New York, and Clare, this is part of a broader A.I. war, and of course, Elon Musk used to be involved with OpenAI himself. Now he

has got his own project. Where does this go from here?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Yes, so Elon Musk is frustrated here because, he wants, of course his xAI to win the A.I. arms race as all of

these companies do and he is taking aim at this partnership that Apple and OpenAI have formed to put ChatGPT into iPhones and Macs, Apple's other

products. He is accusing Apple essentially of prioritizing ChatGPT over other A.I. apps, in particular not allowing X and Grok to end up in the top

of its top apps free App Store list on the Apple app store.

But this argument doesn't necessarily take into account the fact that other rival A.I. apps like Perplexity and DeepSeek have indeed risen the ranks of

Apple's top free apps list in the App Store, and I don't think it takes into account necessarily the way that Grok has been negatively received for

some of these controversies that we've seen over the past few weeks.

I mean, just a few weeks ago, the platform went through an update and then was spewing antisemitic remarks, which xAI has now fixed. But I think, you

know, that may be a reason that downloads on Apple App Store are affected.

Musk said in a tweet just today that Grok has one million ratings on the Apple App Store, and questioned why it isn't in any of these lists. But

when I took a look just before this hit, it only has around half as many of those ratings on the App Store. So I think a lot of questions about how

exactly this plays out, you see there on the screen, Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, basically calling out Musk for being a hypocrite. He says, "This is a

remarkable claim, given what I've heard alleged Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and the

people he doesn't like."

And of course, this is just the -- you know, the latest in a sort of legal tussle in between Musk and his xAI and OpenAI. Musk is also suing OpenAI

trying to stop its conversion into a for profit company. OpenAI fired back with a countersuit, calling Musk's actions harassment. So I think it is

interesting to watch the way that this A.I. arms race is now moving into the courtroom as these companies grapple for position -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: No question. Clare Duffy, thanks so much.

Outrage is growing over Israel's attack once again on a hospital in Gaza. What Prime Minister Netanyahu said about the IDF killing at least 20

people, including five journalists, in back-to-back repeated strikes, just ahead on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

[16:30:29]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:37]

SCIUTTO: Hello. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. There's more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in just a moment when Donald Trump says he may soon deploy the

National Guard. Now to Chicago, the governor of Illinois says the president is abusing his power, and we'll discuss an $18 billion beverage deal now

falling flat with investors.

Before that, however, the headlines this hour, President Donald Trump says he looks forward to once again meeting with the North Korean leader Kim

Jong Un. President Trump made those remarks alongside South Korean President Lee Jae Myung at the White House.

President Lee says the American president is, "The only person who can bring peace to the Korean Peninsula."

Former Mexican cartel leader Ismael El Mayo Zambada has pleaded guilty to U.S. drug trafficking charges. He is expected to be sentenced to life in

prison. Prosecutors say Zambada's organization did more than just move heroin, cocaine and fentanyl. They say the organization's hitman carried

out assassinations, kidnapping and torture.

New details now on the man at the center of President Trump's immigration crackdown, a federal judge plans to order officials to keep Kilmar Abrego

Garcia in the US while the judge weighs a new legal challenge. This at. The Trump administration announced its plans to possibly deport him to Uganda.

[16:35:19]

In the Middle East, facing a wave of condemnation and outrage. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his country, "Deeply regrets" what

he called, "A tragic mishap when Israeli strikes killed at least 20 people at a Gaza hospital on Monday."

Israeli forces carried out back to back strikes on Nasser hospital, those strikes killed health workers and five journalists who were working there

covering the news for several western outlets.

Paula Hancocks has more as so often with these stories. I need to warn you, some of the video you're about to see is simply disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A rush towards Gaza's Nasser hospital after an Israeli strike. Monday morning, emergency response

crews, health workers and journalists can be seen on live television on a damaged staircase. A television camera is held up. Reuters says, a photo

journalist working for them is killed. A white body bag is carried away, and then a second Israeli strike.

Smoke hides the staircase from view when the dust settles, five journalists and four health workers are among more than 20 killed. Palestinian

journalists who form the backbone of international coverage of this war, working with AP Reuters and Al Jazeera, among others. Israel does not allow

international media to enter Gaza beyond restrictive embedding with its military, a double strike just minutes apart, the second impact, killing

workers rushing to help casualties from the first.

JODIE GINSBERG, CEO, COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS: Just to be clear, if it is a double tap that is considered to be a war crime. This attack, which

we believe was deliberately intended to take out the camera, the camera being used by Reuters' cameraman. He was killed in the first attack.

HANCOCKS (voice over): Israel's military says it, "Carried out a strike in the area of Nasser hospital, but does not target journalists or civilians.

The chief of staff has ordered an inquiry into the attacks the IDF, adding it, "Acts to mitigate harm to uninvolved individuals while maintaining the

safety of IDF troops."

An Israeli security official with knowledge of an initial inquiry says forces identified a camera on the roof of the hospital they claim Hamas was

using to monitor Israeli forces authorized to strike the camera with a drone, the IDF instead fired two tank shells, the source says, the first at

the camera, the second at rescue forces.

Maria, Mariam Abu Dagga, 33 years old, worked for AP and other outlets throughout the war, most recently highlighting the impact of famine in

Gaza.

In this recent video, she says, I can't describe how tired people are, how sad or how hungry they are. It's been two years of this war on Gaza they

can't handle anymore.

She spoke to CNN last year about her concerns for her safety, saying when a journalist is targeted, all other media question when it will be their

turn.

At her funeral Monday, her family mourns a death they had feared for the 22 months of this war. Mariam has a son. Her cousin says he went abroad with

his father at the start of the war. She was waiting for the war to end so she could see him again.

An injured journalist working for Reuters says he went to check on his colleague after the first strike, but saw he had been killed. There were

journalists, patients, nurses, civil defense on the stairs, he says, we were directly targeted.

A 22 month war, which has been the deadliest ever for journalists. Paula Hancocks, CNN, Abu Dhabi.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: The suffering in Gaza continues.

Well, here in the U.S., as National Guard troops patrol U.S. capital, they're now carrying weapons. Donald Trump has signed an executive order

creating specialized guard units specifically to deal with so called public order issues. We're going to have the details ahead on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:16]

SCIUTTO: Donald Trump signed a slew of new executive orders on Monday, including one which creates specialized units of the National Guard to

address, "Public order issues." The move comes as members of the National Guard deployed to the nation's capital as part of the President's widening

anti-crime agenda. Those soldiers now have begun carrying weapons.

Trump also signed orders withholding federal grant funding to areas which have abolished cash bail and enacted stricter penalties on burning the U.S.

flag.

Jeff Zeleny joins me now. And Jeff, it's quite clear that President Trump feels emboldened to deploy National Guard troops it seems in a number of

cities around the country, of course, all of them run by Democrats. Are there any existing legal challenges to these deployments, or are they

happening largely unabated?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, as of now there, the deployment is limited to Washington, D.C., but President

Trump certainly has threatened to take it beyond there. Chicago is a city, of course, that President Trump mentions again and again and again, and as

we saw just a few moments ago, the Illinois Governor, JB Pritzker, a Democrat, pushing back, and he did mention a legal challenge.

So, if the deployments go beyond Washington, which of course, is a federal city, the president has different control and jurisdiction, there

absolutely would be lawsuits.

But the bigger point here, perhaps Jim is that President Trump is indeed relishing in this idea that law and order is now a central point of his

candidacy of his presidency. Of course, he ran as a president to stop wars and for peace in foreign countries. He also ran on a law and order message.

And in these -- you know, as we near an end of the summer here, as the president is faced with a variety of challenges, is returning back to that

law and order message, in some cases, trying to create a crisis where many do not see one that actually exists.

But by signing those executive orders, he clearly is a creating this new specialized unit in the National Guard, as you said, that would be sort of

a rapid response.

But also, I was struck by the flag burning that came at the end of several executive orders that essentially was designed to wrap all of this in a bit

of patriotism, if you will. But Jim, as you all remember, as I do, in 1989 the Supreme Court had a word on flag burning, and they said it's protected

in nearly every case by the First Amendment.

Now, President Trump has encouraged his attorney general to find a case to potentially challenge that which, of course, that would put the flag

burning issue back in the spotlight heading into a midterm election year, which certainly is something the president may enjoy.

[16:45:00]

SCIUTTO: No question, of course, that court in '89 is different from this court. Now we've seen a lot of cases along those lines.

Jeff Zeleny thanks so much, good to have you on.

Federal judge says the U.S. officials will be absolutely forbidden from removing Kilmar Abrego Garcia from the United States as she considers his

ongoing legal challenge to the Trump administration's plans to deport him to Uganda. Abrego Garcia became a poster child for Donald Trump's

immigration crackdown when he was unlawfully deported to that just brutal El Salvador prison, CECOT, as it's known, earlier this year.

He was detained by U.S. immigration officials this morning after he showed up himself for a scheduled check in with ICE officers. He's awaiting trial

in a federal human smuggling case.

Priscilla Alvarez has been following developments. She joins me now. You know, the administration clearly has taken a special interest in his case.

It seems like finding multiple ways to try to get him out of the country. You now have a judge standing in the way. What happens next? Because

certainly, administration will challenge this judge's ruling.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are still multiple steps that are going to unfold here, but what the federal judge said today is

that she will soon order officials to keep Abrego Garcia in the United States while, as you said, his team challenges his deportation, potentially

to Uganda.

And that's really where her concerns lie, which is how the administration plans to approach the deportation of Abrego Garcia. The Trump

administration had previously offered a plea deal to him, which was that he would plead to do federal charges, carry out his criminal sentence in the

United States, and then be deported to Costa Rica, which he said he was OK with going to Costa Rica.

If not, if he didn't accept that plea deal, which his team says he didn't, then he would be deported to Uganda.

And over the course of the day, the Trump administration has touted this, saying on social media that they were making preparations for exactly that

to happen. The federal judge is putting the brakes on that for now, it seems.

So, she had previously issued an order that keeps his deportation from happening until Wednesday. There's also still scheduling that needs to

happen for further court proceedings, so it's unlikely that he would be deported, and we'll know more about what the schedule is going to be in

this particular case tomorrow. That's what the federal judge asked the two parties to come to her, with the two parties being the Justice Department

and also Abrego Garcia's team.

Now, we also learned over the course of these proceedings that he has since been moved to a facility in Virginia. As you mentioned there at the top, he

had turned himself in Baltimore this morning. Well, now he's been moved to a detention facility in Virginia. His team asking the judge, requesting

that the judge stop the federal government from moving him anywhere else as these proceedings are ongoing.

What she made clear was that, again, he could not be removed from the United States. The question, of course, though, is, as ICE has done before,

moving detainees to other parts of the country, though she did seem to be on board with him remaining in Virginia for now as (AUDIO GAP), Jim.

SCIUTTO: Ongoing legal saga. Priscilla Alvarez, thanks so much.

Well, in Nigeria, a new generation of innovators is taking their technology to the skies. Terra Industries has the capacity to build some 30,000

autonomous drones per year. They are designed to safeguard Africa's most vital industries, from energy and mining to telecoms and agriculture,

CONNECTING AFRICA's Victoria Rubadiri has been meeting the young minds powering the fast growing enterprise.

(CONNECTING AFRICA)

[16:51:33]

SCIUTTO: It's a neat project. Well, Keurig Dr Pepper is buying a Dutch coffee company for nearly $20 billion as you can see on the markets today,

though, investors aren't exactly loving the deal, we're going to discuss after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:55:01]

SCIUTTO: So, what happens when you mix coffee and soda? Well, for investors, it's left a bad taste in their mouths. Shares in Keurig Dr

Pepper closed down more than 11 percent after it was announced the company is acquiring Dutch coffee group JDE Peet's. Keurig Dr Pepper is paying $18

billion about seven -- $37.00 per share, rather, it plans to split into two separate firms once the deal is complete, one will focus on soft drinks and

the other on coffee. Two of my favorite things.

Allison Morrow is with me now. So, why don't -- why don't the markets like this deal?

ALLISON MORROW, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR WRITER: That's a great question, Jim. I think part of the history here is what makes this deal really interesting.

First of all, as you noted, Keurig and Dr Pepper are kind of strange bed fellows, and it seemed that way, even in 2018 when a private equity firm

kind of forced these two companies together, thinking that they could become a beverage behemoth that would compete with the likes of Starbucks

and Dunkin Donuts.

But it turns out that they weren't a natural fit. And ultimately, the second kind of interesting thing about this deal is that it's going to

immediately close, and then they're going to turn around and undo the 2018 merger, putting coffee in its place and soda in its place.

And I think that speaks to just kind of how awkward the deal was from the beginning, and Wall Street's reacting to a bunch of different factors,

including that coffee is just a really tough business, and it's getting more and more tough as climate change impacts the growing of the beans, and

that the demand is not going anywhere.

And soda is also a tricky business, because people are increasingly turning away from sugary sodas. So, it's a complex deal. It was complicated in the

first merger. Second merger, also pretty complicated.

SCIUTTO: And now you have, I imagine, tariffs thrown into the mix too, right? I mean, I know, at least, you know, in the tariffs that Trump has

put on Brazil, Brazil exports a lot of coffee to the U.S. I mean, these costs must be making it difficult for these businesses to figure out how to

move forward.

MORROW: Yes, absolutely. Coffee beans have almost doubled in price over the last five years, and a lot of that was due to drought, but now a lot of the

rainfall is coming back in places like Brazil and Vietnam to the biggest exporters, just as the president has announced tariffs on those and many

other countries.

SCIUTTO: Yes, don't tax my coffee. You know, it's too important. Allison Morrow, thanks so much for joining.

MORROW: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And that is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for today, I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington in for Richard Quest, of course, "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER"

starts now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END