Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Qatari Officials Speak After Israel Targets Hamas Leaders; Merz Pledges To Support German Auto Sector; Annual U.S. Job Growth Through March Slashed 911,000 Jobs; Israel Targets Hamas Leadership In Qatar Strike; U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Over Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs; French President Macron Appoints Sebastien Lecornu as New Prime Minister; Apple Introduces iPhone Air and iPhone 17. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired September 09, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

REPORTER: In regards to the Qatari policies after this attack, while you are doing the mediation effort, would this affect Qatar in their policies?

MOHAMMED BN ABDULRAHMAN AL THANI, QATARI PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): First of all, I would like to explain and

clarify that the Qatari diplomacy was not felt according to the Israeli actions or according to one side.

Qatar's diplomacy was felt on the basis of stability in the region and stability in the region wouldn't be achieved except through diplomatic

solutions and problematic work.

The mediation efforts with a diplomat, the Qatari diplomacy is ongoing and it will continue and nothing will stop us from carrying out this role in

regard to the issues in the region, the stability of the region is the most important thing.

This is the end of the presser.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": So there we have the Qatari Prime Minister addressing there, calling it a moral

question the way in which Israel attacked Doha just earlier today.

The outrage that he said had taken place. There was some discussion then about the timing of when the United States called Doha after they knew the

attack, but he made clear repeatedly that Doha, the Qatari government, had not been given, any warning or early advice that this attack was going to

take place.

Paula Hancocks is with me. Paula is in Doha and joins me.

As I listened to the Prime Minister, what was interesting is very clear, this idea that they didn't get any warning but also this outrage that

Israel had attacked the country in a reality of the negotiators, the mediators, which he said raised serious moral questions about what they had

done, as well as everything else. Tell me more.

I think Paula is not hearing me. Paula? No Paula is not hearing me. I do beg your pardon?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I have now. Yes, I can hear you.

That was an interesting press conference. Yes. I mean, I think you've summed it up very well there, but you can really hear the frustration, the

anger at what has happened over recent hours. It has been a shocking strike. And it just really was encapsulated by the Prime Minister there. He

said that it was state terrorism, also pointing out that this should really show how clear it is who is the bully in the region saying it is a message

to the entire region. There is a rogue player here.

And it really plays to what we have heard from the whole region, what we've heard also from many other countries the shock at what Israel has carried

out and the fact that they have carried out this strike on a sovereign nation, the fact that they have departed from international norms,

international law, these are all the phrases that we are hearing from a number of different countries.

Also, we heard from the Prime Minister there something we have heard elsewhere. He has accused Israel of sabotaging the talks, these ceasefire

hostage talks, which were ongoing. We know that that just on Monday, the Hamas mediator, the chief negotiator, who was the target, we understand of

these attacks, or at least one of the targets, he was meeting with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister was trying to urge him to accept the

deal that was on the table, accept the U.S. proposal of all of the hostages to be released at the start of the ceasefire and then discuss how they were

going to turn that temporary ceasefire into a permanent peace.

So the timing is very interesting. That has been noted from everybody and certainly, the fact that the target of this strike was just yesterday

meeting with the man that we have just heard from there, the Prime Minister, also the Foreign Minister, is very significant. The fact that

they say that they were trying to stop the talks and as you mentioned there, Richard, it pains to point out that they didn't have prior warning

for this, that he said they actually heard that this was going to happen ten minutes after the attack, that is when they had the heads up.

[16:05:06]

QUEST: So what do we know just before we get more analysis. Give me some facts about what we know about the target, who was killed or anything that

you can tell me about the resultant, if you will, of the attack.

HANCOCKS: So what we heard from the Israeli side is that they were targeting the negotiating team. Now, we know the main negotiator, Khalil

al-Hayya, he is not on the list of those that were killed in this strike according to Hamas. They say there were five people, five members of Hamas

that were killed. He is not among them. His son and his Bureau Director were among those killed. We don't have the details of who else.

But as far as Hamas is concerned, they say that Israel's intention did not -- was not successful because the negotiating team has survived. Now it is

worth pointing out it is not the first time that Israel has targeted the negotiating team when it comes to Hamas, and that, of course, is the main

question that many countries here in this region are asking why target the person that you have just given a proposal to?

But this is what Israel said that they would do. The Israeli Prime Minister said they would target Hamas wherever they were, that nowhere was safe. It

is just very surprising to many and most notably, it is surprising to the officials in Doha that they decided that this could be a target as well, a

key ally of the United States, the key mediator when it comes to a ceasefire-hostage talks.

So there is a huge amount of surprise, and as you heard from that press conference, there is anger and frustration here in Doha -- Richard.

QUEST: Paula, I am grateful. Paula is in Doha. We will talk more with her.

The Trump administration says the strikes do not advance Israel or America's goals. The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt said

President Trump views Qatar as an ally and feels, in her words, very badly about the location of the attack.

Qatar's Foreign Ministry has called it a cowardly. It says it will not tolerate reckless and irresponsible Israeli behavior.

So to Edward Djerejian, previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Syria.

Ambassador, you're with me, joining me, you're the senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center. Ambassador, what do you make of this attack? It is

extraordinary. Israel says they'll attack Hamas whenever and wherever.

But this seems to be crossing a line, a different league.

EDWARD DJEREJIAN, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL AND SYRIA: I do believe it crosses a line, Richard.

First of all, the attack takes place at a very sensitive moment in the ceasefire negotiations where the Trump administration, the President and

his Envoy Witkoff, have made clear that the President is looking for a comprehensive ceasefire, the release of all the hostages, prisoner

exchanges and moving forward and ending the war in Gaza.

Qatar has played as, your commentators have noted, a critical role in mediating these negotiations over the last many, many months. The second

point is that Qatar is the home base of our most important base -- military base in the Gulf. It is the headquarters of CENTCOM, and obviously, the

United States relationship with Qatar is a very important one.

For the Israelis to attack and given the information we have, we are not sure if the United States got a heads up, if the United States was well-

informed beforehand or not, but this disrupts the President's own initiative.

So you have to ask the question, you know, Israel is not obviously paying much attention to U.S. National Security interests.

QUEST: Why do you think they did it? Yes, we can make a sort of a bold statement like Netanyahu, the Prime Minister has done, which is, you know,

there is no immunity anywhere. Wherever we find Hamas killers, we will kill them. But that is too simplistic, bearing in mind the geopolitical

ramifications for what they've just done.

So why do you think he did it?

DJEREJIAN: I think Netanyahu is really intent on achieving what he has called from the very beginning, after the horrific events of October 7th

and the incredible devastation that the Israeli military has inflicted upon Gaza ever since. He is intent on prolonging the war until he achieves what

he calls total victory.

[16:10:04]

That total victory has been very elusive, and we are now on our 703rd day of the campaign, the Gaza War, just as far away from a settlement as we

were months ago.

The same issues are on the table. They are being discussed just recently, and there is no political horizon. Netanyahu has an interest in prolonging

the war. One to stay in power, because, as you know, he has several three major litigations against him. Once his government is no longer in power,

he is subject to serious court procedures and he is trying to hold together the most right wing ethno-nationalist coalition in Israel's history who are

bent on not achieving a political settlement with the Palestinians, but annexing Palestinian territory.

QUEST: But can as I say, Netanyahu, but let's put it wider, can Israel afford to offend the Abraham Accord countries, even just simply on economic

grounds, which they're running a wartime economy -- when you see the reaction of Jordan, where there is a peace treaty, obviously, but you're

talking about the UAE, where there is the Accords, and you look at the other Accord nations who will now be reluctant -- more reluctant, I should

say. So, can they afford to do this?

DJEREJIAN: Well, you're absolutely right. This goes against Israel's own interests in not only, continuing with the Abraham Accords, but their

desire to expand the Abraham Accords, to bring in key countries like Saudi Arabia.

But the point is, the UAE, which has been the major proponent of the Abraham Accords of the Gulf countries, just recently, as you know, came out

and said, if Israel continues annexationist policies in the West Bank or in Gaza, that the Abraham Accords will be in absolute jeopardy.

So Israel -- what we are witnessing here is the weaponization of Israeli diplomacy. It is all about military action and not diplomacy. We see that

in Southern Lebanon. We see that obviously in Gaza in very tragic forms, we see it in Iran, bombing Iran, where, by the way, when the Trump

administration was negotiating with the Iranians on the nuclear issue, Israel proceeded to undercut that by its attacks on Iran and then bringing

America in on that 12-day war.

So this is a pattern. This is a pattern. Israel and this government of Netanyahu has not demonstrated a true political will to end the war in Gaza

and to stop what it calls its decapitation policies in the region.

QUEST: Ambassador, thank you, sir. You've put it beautifully into context for us and helped us understand what is a very difficult situation tonight.

Thank you for joining us.

Now, when we return, we will turn to our business agenda, our nightly conversation, because there was a record downward revision on the annual

job growth, and apparently it would seem the U.S. economy is much shakier than we all thought.

I will have the numbers for you in a moment. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:16:10]

QUEST: Some weeks after the European Union signed that sweeping trade deal with the United States. Now European industries, some of them say it is

done little to resolve the tariff disruption. The President of Germany's mechanical engineering industry association told the E.U. Commission

President Ursula von der Leyen that his sector was facing an existential crisis, blaming the U.S.' decision to expand its steel tariffs to include

hundreds of additional items crucial to his members and industry.

And then at the Munich Auto Show, the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stressed the importance of protecting Germany's auto industry. Carmakers

are facing a U.S. import tariff of 27.5 percent on their cars and that's because the deal to reduce the rate, if you remember, the E.U. has to

remove various tariffs on the U.S. and do various things, open up the market to 15 percent. Well, that's not yet been implemented, so European

cars are facing the higher level.

Bernd Langer leads the European Parliament's Trade Committee. He believes the E.U. lawmakers could push for changes. He is with me from Strasbourg.

Good to see you. Good to be with you, sir.

Quickly, do you think there is any risk that the Parliament actually votes down and does not give the mandate?

BERND LANGER, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT'S TRADE COMMITTEE: No. We are looking quite carefully to the proposal by the commission, but also quite carefully

to the development in the United states and you are quite right.

Two weeks after the Deal of Scotland, the USTR extended really the products containing steel and aluminum in a volume of 407 products, and this is

really bringing companies in Europe in danger, producing, for example, pumps also more or less 100 percent steel, and they are now tariffs much

higher than 15 percent, so we are looking on that, and this is clearly a breach of the agreement.

And secondly, we need also some improvements regarding the possibility to end the legislation and also bring it in line with the WTO. So we will look

quite carefully to the proposal by the Commission.

QUEST: But the power of the Parliament is to force a revision, in a sense, and the general perspective seems to be that the Commission was rolled

over, that the U.S. got one over the E.U. in this deal and that the E.U. gave away too much and didn't get enough back. Is that your view too?

LANGER: Of course, the deal is in balance, no doubt about it. It is more in favor of the United States, but the deal is there and we have to deal with

the deal, but in a democratic way and I guess, the deal between Kings and Queens is 200 years gone. We have a democratic system, and we will look

quite carefully to the concrete development and I think that is really the normal process.

So this deal in Scotland is just, let's say an understanding, it is not legally binding and now we are making the concrete legislation in the

Parliament.

QUEST: Do you think the Commission has got the message that Europe or that certainly, a large number of politicians and certainly a large number of

businesses feel that they didn't do a very good job with this deal?

[16:20:05]

LANGER: I think they got it even today, we had a discussion with our negotiator, our Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic and it is clear also

regarding the legal uncertainty in the United States, so the court decision is clear at the moment that the 15 percent baseline are not in line with

the U.S. Constitution and some other obligations from the court.

So we are looking to that, and I guess this start in Scotland is really the start, and we have to negotiate in a more permanent way.

QUEST: You see now that's the real -- that's the issue that you are negotiating or the E.U. is negotiating in the very traditional way of

consensus and committees and this and that and the other and E.U. negotiating and E.U. structures are simply not fit for purpose when dealing

with the maverick nature of the U.S. under Donald Trump.

LANGER: I guess this is -- it has to be decided on your side of the Atlantic. We are sticking to our democratic procedures, and I hope that

also the Congress will take over. I know quite well the Constitution of the United States, paragraph one point eight, the tariff and trade policy is

the clear competence of the Congress, but this has to be dealt in the United States.

We have our clear procedures, and I am not willing to give up because of pressure from outside.

QUEST: Sir, I am grateful to you. We will talk more, and thank you for joining us tonight from Strasbourg, thank you very much.

Now revised numbers show the U.S. job market was much weaker and on shaky ground than when President Trump launched his trade war. The U.S. economy

added only 911,000 fewer jobs than first thought during the year ending in March. It is 71,000 a month, which is incredibly weak.

Overall, this revision is the largest on record and proof for The White House that the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is broken.

Dan Altman is the author of the "High Yield Economics" newsletter.

Dan is with me from New York.

I want to go through this in two different aspects, Dan, because it is complex. Let's first of all deal with the economics of it, not the BLS side

of it. This is obviously now -- this is grist to the mill for an interest rate cut, and arguably it could be for a 50 basis point cut, not 25 basis.

But does this not justify Donald Trump's point that Powell should have cut sooner? He should have been better aware of this weakness.

DANIEL ALTMAN, AUTHOR, "HIGH YIELD ECONOMICS" NEWSLETTER: I am not sure it does, Richard, because the unemployment rate still hasn't risen very much

and the reason is that labor supply growth has dwindled just as labor demand growth has dwindled.

What we saw starting in mid-2024 was a marked decline in work permits and asylum given to immigrants. We were at a rate of a quarter million a month

in December 2023 and that came down to about 8,000 early this year. So there just wasn't as much labor supply coming online.

And as a result, even though labor demand was cooling, we still have a fairly low unemployment rate. And Powell's job is to maximize employment

for the people who are actually in the United States. His job is not to maximize labor demand and send wages shooting through the roof.

QUEST: But when you look at these numbers, though, and I understand what you're saying, that the weakness comes from, in a sense, the weakness comes

from the very policies that the President is now saying needs to be reinforced. But at the same time, we do know that demand is -- the consumer

demand is falling, the economy is slowing and that the argument for interest rate cuts is now pretty much inarguable.

ALTMAN: Well, I agree that the economy is slowing. I think labor supply is an important part of that picture, and I do think that the Fed will cut by

25 basis points this month, but I think it will do so partly as a trial balloon, because I think it wants to see how the economy will react to that

loosening of credit if there is not much change in inflation in the next couple of months, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of overheating, then

they may continue.

But I think they are operating in a territory here that's not very well known to them.

[16:25:03]

QUEST: So let's do the other side, the BLS side.

Now, every economist knows that the numbers are dodgy to start with, and by that I don't mean they're fiddled. They're just very difficult. They're

very complicated. They're very, very technical and fiddly to get right. So a revision is not unusual, even a large revision.

Does this give -- what you've seen today, does this give cause for concern about the integrity, not the process?

ALTMAN: I don't have any concerns about the integrity under the civil servants who work for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I am sure that they

are doing the best they can. They have a system of statistical estimates which may need updating for this unusual situation of falling labor supply,

which was a result of policies that they would not normally take into account directly when forming their estimates. That's something that ought

to be looked at.

But I have no doubt of the integrity of the people who have been doing this job for years in exactly the same way.

QUEST: Is there a way to improve the numbers?

ALTMAN: Well, some people have said, why don't you just count everybody instead of doing statistical estimates based on a sample? That's

essentially what these revisions come from. And as you can see, we have to wait about six months for that count to complete. So it would take a lot

more funding and a lot more effort to make that happen. Unfortunately, the bls is now getting less funding.

QUEST: And finally, Stephen Miran, of course, who been put forward to fill an unexpired post on the Fed. He believes well, they are so dodgy, these

numbers, let's not bother even issuing them at all. I am guessing you don't subscribe to that view.

ALTMAN: Well, I know that a lot of businesses, when making decisions, want to understand the employment picture and consumer demand as close to real

time as they can.

Now you can ask them, would they rather have a statistical estimate, which is unbiased, but perhaps noisy, and have it a month after the data

available? Or would they rather wait six or seven months for something that's a bit more accurate?

I think some of them would say they'd still rather have the noisy estimate sooner.

QUEST: I think that's a lovely way of putting it, noisy estimate. It describes exactly what we are talking about. I am very grateful.

Dan, thank you for joining us. Thank you.

Now, as you and I continue, we will continue to look at the unprecedented attack by Israel on Qatar, the ramifications. Well, we can only really just

begin to understand the ramifications. You heard the Qatari Foreign Minister. We will talk more about all of this after the break.

QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:30:45]

QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. Together we'll have a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. We'll talk about France and the new prime minister. President

Macron has picked a loyal deputy, Sebastien Lecornu, for the job. Apple has unveiled its latest products, including AirPods designed to translate

languages in real time.

We'll only deal with all of those issues after the headlines because this is CNN and here the news comes first.

Israel has dramatically escalated its war with Hamas far beyond Gaza. Israel carried out a surprise attack against the group's leadership in

Qatar, a key mediator in ceasefire efforts. Hamas said the strike killed five members but failed to assassinate the negotiation delegation.

Nepal's prime minister has resigned after the country's worst unrest in decades. Protesters set fire to the parliament building following the

announcement by KP Sharma Oli. The country has been rocked by violent protests over corruption and government imposed restrictions on social

media. More than a dozen people have been killed and hundreds of people have been hurt in clashes with the security forces.

The French President Emmanuel Macron has picked the outgoing Defense minister to lead a new government. Sebastien Lecornu will be France's fifth

prime minister in less than two years. His main challenge, of course, to try to pass a budget. He's also facing dwindling public trust in government

for a nationwide protests planned for tomorrow, which is Wednesday.

Israel's strike against Hamas targets in Qatar is having seismic impacts on the region. Qatar itself says it received no warning about the strike and

has accused Israel of sabotaging its efforts to mediate a ceasefire. It's unclear what the attack means for the hostages being held by Hamas. The

mother of one of them says the strike could serve as the death sentence for her son. The brother of another told our Wolf Blitzer he too now is more

concerned.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ILAY DAVID, BROTHER OF HOSTAGE IN GAZA: We're very worried, very, very worried. We don't know who will be now negotiating with Israel about the

remaining hostages. There are still hostages suffering there. I believe that taking military actions on Hamas leaders can wait. And right now, what

we need to be focused on is saving the hostages.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Jeremy Diamond is with me.

Two issues you and I to talk about tonight. The hostages, of course and why did Netanyahu do it. Theres no urgency, per se. Let's do the hostages

first. The fear is obvious, and there really is nothing that I can immediately see that Israeli government can offer by way of succor.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM: CORRESPONDENT: Without a doubt, this Israeli strike targeting Hamas's leadership in the Qatari capital raising serious

questions about Israel's commitment to this negotiating process, and also the ability of the parties to move forward and actually continue to

negotiate in light of the fact that Israel has not only attacked Hamas's chief negotiator, several members of its senior leadership, who would be

making decisions about whether or not to agree to release hostages and enter into a ceasefire agreement.

But additionally, because of the fact that Israel has struck the Qatari mediators violated their sovereignty and in fact killed a member of Qatar's

internal security force in the process of carrying out this strike. And so that's why we've been hearing all day from the families of hostages who've

expressed serious concern about what kind of impact this will have, not only on these negotiations, the possibility of reaching an agreement

anytime in the near future, and also the price that the hostages may pay.

I can tell you from personally speaking with several released hostages, they often talked about moments like this or moments where Israel escalated

its assault in Gaza and the ways in which their captors would often make them pay for Israel's actions.

[16:35:05]

QUEST: So why did he do it? I mean, the outrageous nature of attacking within a sovereign country. I mean, you know, let me paraphrase the Qatari

prime minister. He attacked the negotiators in the negotiating, mediating country. What can he hope even his -- even Netanyahu's comments that nobody

is immune, they'll strike Hamas wherever they are. Even that doesn't really pass muster.

DIAMOND: Yes. I mean, listen, that's the Israeli prime minister's perspective is that he always said he was going to go after the leaders of

Hamas, whom he held responsible for the October 7th massacre. And he said that today he made good on that promise by carrying out that strike. But

that still leaves the question of why now. We know from speaking with Israeli officials that this operation had been in the planning for months.

It was only executed, though, days after the United States presented this new ceasefire proposal and, you know, with a sense that there might be once

again some new momentum behind these negotiations. And so it's important to look at what has happened in the past as well and what has happened in the

past is that Israel, at several different junctures, has taken steps at critical moments in the negotiation that have stalled progress.

For example, the killing of Mohammed Sinwar, Hamas's former de facto leader that came one day after Hamas released the Israeli American hostage Edan

Alexander, in what was viewed at the time as a goodwill gesture that would propel negotiations forward, and instead, after doing that, Hamas's then

leader, Mohammed Sinwar, was killed the next day in an Israeli strike, and so many people who have been watching this closely, watching Israel's

behavior in the negotiations, they are wondering whether this is part of that very same pattern -- Richard.

QUEST: I'm grateful. Thank you, Jeremy Diamond is in Jerusalem tonight.

The international reaction has been fierce and widespread. Turkey, not surprisingly, denounced it, saying it shows Israel seeks not peace but the

continuation of war. The UAE, United Arab Emirates, called it a serious assault on international law, and the charter of the United Nations and the

French President Emmanuel Macron called it an acceptable. Whatever the reason may be. Multiple countries, including Saudi and Kuwait, have offered

Qatar their support.

Dania Thafer is the executive director of the Gulf International Forum with me from Doha.

It's difficult to know where this goes from here. I mean, you can't exactly have a mediation and a negotiation when one of the parties is busy

attacking the actual negotiators.

DANIA THAFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GULF INTERNATIONAL FORUM: Yes. Thank you, Richard, for having me. Indeed this is concerning because it's really

dismantling the framework for peace and even the release of the hostages. And you know, attacking Qatar, which you rightly noted, is the negotiator

and usually the negotiator or the mediator is a neutral party. And part of the strategic imperative of being a mediator is to not be caught in the

crossfires, and so this attack really undermined that imperative and that goal of being a mediator.

QUEST: Right.

THAFER: And which I think you've heard. Yes.

QUEST: But to just -- the Israeli position is that they will attack the leadership of Hamas wherever and however and whatever. If that is the case,

then no negotiator from Hamas will ever be safe in terms of sitting down through the mediation, whether that be in Istanbul, Doha, wherever it might

be.

THAFER: Yes. Well, that's concerning if there needs to be a negotiation to even release the hostages or find a solution for the situation in Gaza. So

I think that while the Israelis, you know, obviously see Hamas as their enemy, you know, what is the overall strategic goal? That's the question.

Is it to resolve the situation, the crisis? Let alone in Gaza, you know, we have the West Bank, and also what's the overall goal in terms of what

Netanyahu said to Trump recently when Trump spoke to him. And Netanyahu said that he's going to go ahead and try to move forward with peace. So

there's a little bit of a conundrum here.

[16:40:04]

QUEST: OK. Just turning to the Hamas side of this, the ability of Hamas -- I mean, the Americans have basically now said release all the hostages or

you're going to be sorry. Why --Hamas is really determined to push Donald Trump, it would seem, to the nth degree. Put Israel to one side for a

second. They do seem to be able to or willing to push the United States under this president to take actions that basically Hamas may regret.

THAFER: Yes, I see your point. But also from my understanding, Hamas was meeting to review a ceasefire deal proposed by the U.S. when this attack

happened and therefore what was the point of the proposal and having it while at the same time trying to kill the key negotiators? So I think

that's the concern that many are raising across the region.

QUEST: I'm grateful. It's late for you in Doha, although I suspect you've got many more hours of work ahead of you. But I'm grateful that you've

taken time out of your busy evening to talk to me. Thank you.

Now, news just in, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear President Trump's appeal over whether his tariffs are valid. We've talked

about this on this program many times. The lower court has ruled, remember this special trade, tribunal has ruled that saying they're not legal. The

power to tax lies with Congress. The tariffs remain in place while the Supreme Court hears the case.

So in a moment, France. So new prime minister, fifth in just a couple of years, the replacement for Bayrou. But can this chap actually get anything

through.

QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: Now. Just news into CNN. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to fast track the legal decision as to whether President Trump's tariffs are valid.

The lower courts ruled the president's use of the International Powers Act to impose duties is not legal.

Joan is with me. Joan Biskupic is with me.

And now I realize you've just seen this as quickly as the rest of us have.

[16:45:03]

I'm not surprised in a sense because so much rests on it. But if you -- look, as I understand it, the initial tribunal and the appeal have both

agreed on this. I mean, there is a sort of a -- it's not unanimous, but there is a consensus that this Emergency Powers Act was not designed for

this case. So now, when is the Supreme Court going to take it?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: OK. You're right. The lower courts both said that the Emergency Powers Act that was invoked by Donald

Trump, it cannot be read as broadly as he wanted to read. And both sides of this case wanted the Supreme Court to resolve it. You said there was a

consensus in the lower courts that it was, but it's not over until the Supreme Court rules.

And what the Supreme Court said just a few moments ago, Richard, was that they will put it on a fast track. They will accept briefing over the next

couple of weeks. And then in November, they will hear oral arguments. So we'll all be able to hear what the justices' questions are here and to

figure out which way they might be leaning. And I would think, given how they're expediting this case, that we should know by the end of this

calendar year whether Donald Trump's liberation day tariffs can stand.

If the court had not acted and not picked it up for a fast track here, Richard, they wouldn't have resolved this until, for example, June of 2026.

QUEST: Right. OK.

BISKUPIC: And the Trump lawyers made the case that they don't want to have to be collecting these tariffs and then suddenly have to repay them.

QUEST: OK. You can plead the Fifth on this next question. Knowing the issue and knowing the jurisprudential makeup of the court, what do you think? You

completely -- I mean, that is how long is a piece of string. I'll grant you. It's an unfair question, but take it anyway.

BISKUPIC: It's an unfair question, but I will take up some of the dimensions. Remember, this court is dominated by Republican appointed

conservatives. And even within the Republican Party, as you know, within the business community, there's a lot of conflicts over whether these

tariffs are good or bad for Americans. And so -- and historically, Republicans have opposed these kinds of tariffs. But this is also a court

that has read a lot of powers into Donald Trump's authority to flex his executive muscle.

So I think -- I think there could be a close call here. But I do think that we were lucky that we're going to be able to see sooner rather than later.

It's better for the administration and it's better for the American public to know exactly what they're up against in terms of this very big

pocketbook issue and a very big issue in terms of Donald Trump's overall economic agenda.

QUEST: Beautifully negotiated, Joan, if I may say so. Beautifully done so. Thank you. We'll talk. I know, listen, I do know one thing. You and I will

talk about this a lot more for years.

BISKUPIC: We go again, Richard.

QUEST: Thank you. Good to see you. Thank you for coming up so quickly.

BISKUPIC: Thank you. Bye-bye.

QUEST: Thank you.

Now, the political turmoil in France. Remember last night we went through it all. Well, now, President Emmanuel Macron moving faster than many people

thought. Some thought to take a few days. Sebastien Lecornu is the nation's new prime minister. He was the defense minister. So he's no longer that,

replacing Francois Bayrou resigned after he lost his vote of confidence.

Melissa is with me from Paris.

A good stalwart, a loyalist. And yet that could be the exact problem because will the left give any succor to somebody who is absolutely in

Macron's court?

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Given, Richard, the anger that there is directed towards the French president from

many of those MP's who pushed out Francois Bayrou in that vote yesterday. And I don't just mean here the far-right and the far-left, but the more

moderate right and the more moderate left, and specifically the French left. Very disappointed in not having been given a shot at power since

those parliamentary elections last year, handed them such a win.

And you're going to see that from the streets again tomorrow. This was a day of blockage that was called for by many here in France. What you're

likely to see a big proportion, though, is from the left and the far right is a great deal of anger that this staunch Macron ally, a man who had been,

by the way, on the political right before he joined Macron's ranks in 2017, becoming a minister and many of his -- in both of his terms, that this

particular man should have been chosen, the fourth prime minister from the center to be chosen since that snap election failed so spectacularly to

deliver him the majority he hoped for, Richard.

QUEST: We will talk more about that. What a busy day. Thank you for staying and being with us late. Thank you. Melissa is in Paris.

When you and I continue, Apple unveiled the biggest redesign of its iPhone in years. The Apple Air or something. The iPhone Air. That's what it's

called. Is it any good? Well, Clare will tell us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:52:28]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's our thinnest iPhone ever, with the power of Pro inside. A paradox you have to hold to believe. This is iPhone Air.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: This is Quest's iPhone. Is it much different? Well, Apple just unveiled the biggest redesign of its iPhone in years. It's the Air, the

thinnest phone, as you heard. About a thousand bucks, give or take. The company is hoping a fresh design will give companies reasons to be excited.

Critics say the recent iterations have been incremental, especially compared to the --look at the first models, from number one right the way

through.

You have the home button, you had this, you had that, the other. But from third to 12, 13, onwards very little change, bit bigger, bit wider, bit

this, that or the other. Now investors are greeting with some skepticism. The shares are off about 1.5 percent.

Clare is with me. Clare Duffy in New York.

What do you make of it?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Richard, I mean, the pressure was on for Apple to try to wow consumers with these new releases. Of course, as

you mentioned, consumers have been slower to upgrade their iPhones because of those more iterative releases that we've seen in the past few years, and

also because Apple has been falling behind its competition like Google and Samsung when it comes to incorporating A.I. into these smartphone devices.

Now, Apple seemed to really try to hone in during this event on the fact that it is the leader in hardware, and I think the iPhone Air was meant to

really be an example of this. The iPhone Air will be about three millimeters thinner than the regular iPhones that you and I have at this

point. And analysts tell me that that could actually be different enough to get consumers back into the stores to try out, check out the new iPhones,

which, you know, whether they buy one or not remains to be seen. But at least they'll be back in the stores wanting to check it out.

QUEST: Right.

DUFFY: And also, if consumers have the new iPhone out in public, on a table, you might get other consumers asking them, is that the new iPhone,

generating excitement around these new -- these new devices. So that is potentially a good sign for Apple, I think, Richard.

QUEST: All right. I'm more interested in two other things. Are they going to raise -- did they say anything about raising money on tariffs? I hear it

was supposed to be up to 100 bucks or so, or are they just going to eat the billion plus?

DUFFY: Yes, it was a big question going into this because as you say there, Apple said that it was taking a $1.1 billion hit just this quarter because

of tariffs. But it looks like they're keeping device prices mostly the same obviously in an effort to try to get consumers to upgrade this time around.

We did see that the Pro model is going up by about $100, but it's getting more storage because of that. So otherwise the iPhones are remaining

largely the same.

QUEST: Right.

[16:55:09]

DUFFY: And I do think there are some other pretty compelling features that they announced today. In the health space, the new Apple Watches, for

example, are getting hypertension, high blood pressure alerts, and a temperature recording detection feature. So Apple also leaning into the

health space in an effort to get people to buy more wearables and pay up for services like Fitness Plus that, you know, carry across its various

devices.

QUEST: The AirPods Three. I'm fascinated, obviously, with all my travels, this idea of a real time translation. It's been tried before. Apple could,

could get this right.

DUFFY: Yes, it is a super interesting feature. It is an opportunity for people to have live conversations with somebody who speaks a different

language. You'll hear the English translation in your AirPod. This is something that, you know, competitors like Samsung have already rolled out.

But I do think it's compelling for Apple to have its own offering, given it's so much easier if you're already in the Apple ecosystem to continue

using other Apple devices.

QUEST: I look forward to you getting your hands on an Air as quickly as you can, and letting me have a look at it. Thank you very much indeed.

DUFFY: Thank you.

QUEST: Clare Duffy, as always.

The markets were just all over the place. But they did actually eked out some small gains at the end. We will take a "Profitable Moment" after the

break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: Tonight's profitable moment. We've always known the jobs numbers are a bit tricky. The sheer size and scale of the sample, the methodology.

Well, today that was brought into very, very sharp focus when we saw just how far off they are. But it's the reasons that are important. The job

supply collapsed because of the president's policies. Visa applications, the number of new people coming into the United States, the way they are

counted.

All of that meant that the numbers we've been working on so far were simply way off. So what's the answer? Well, clearly you want to try and get the

numbers better, but the answer isn't to fire the head of the BLS as happened earlier. Nor is it not to produce the numbers as the Fed nominee,

Stephen Miron, wants.

The answer is to have some sort of bipartisan commission that looks into how can you get it better? What you don't want is competing private

economists all trying to vie to give the best numbers. That's just a race to the bottom. Nor do you want to have such dodgy numbers that nobody

believes them, or you call into question the integrity, as I'm afraid to say, the president has done.

The jobs numbers are among the most important economic indicators anywhere in the world, and ensuring that they are fair, accurate and timely. Well,

I'm afraid that seems to be harder than anybody originally thought.

And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest back in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, there's the bell, I hope

it's profitable. Please let's get together tomorrow.

END