Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Trump Gives Full-Throated Defense of His Economic Record; Global Central Bank Heads: Powell Held in Highest Regard; Human Rights Group: 1,850 Protesters Killed in Iran's Crackdown; U.S. to Host Officials from Denmark and Greenland; California Governor Vows to Stop Billionaire Tax Proposal; Henley Passport Index Reveals Most Powerful Passports of 2026. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 13, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:13]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street. It was a down day on the markets. They were down at

the open and they've not really -- I mean, a bit of a tepid recovery. They are not -- let's not call it that. I think we need to be put out of our

misery today whoever is doing from bang-bang. Go on! Oh, no. Come on. Hurry up. Come on, come on. We haven't got all day. Talk about dragging it out --

15 minutes of fame. There you are, sir. Thank you.

Trading is over and the main stories were covering. Central Bank chiefs from Europe, the U.K. and beyond voiced solidarity with the Federal Reserve

Chair. In a moment, the former Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester is on the program.

President Trump says help is on the way for Iranian protesters. What that means is far from clear. But Human Rights groups now say the number of dead

is nearing 2,000.

And Vice President Vance is preparing to meet with the Danish Foreign Minister. It is all over Greenland. We will have a report from Greenland.

Live in New York, Tuesday, January the 13th. I am Richard Quest. I mean business.

Good evening.

We begin tonight with President Trump taking aim at his enemies as he defends his economic record. The President was at the Detroit Economic Club

when he said growth is exploding and inflation is defeated.

Prices, in fact -- excuse me, prices are rising faster than the Fed's two percent target, 2.7 percent. Mr. Trump blamed his enemies for setbacks,

calling affordability a fake word made up by Democrats, and he accused the Fed of killing market rallies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You announce great numbers, they raise interest rates to try and kill it, so you can

never really have the kind of rally you should have.

I want somebody that when the market is doing great, interest rates can go down because our country becomes stronger. So you view it differently. Our

country becomes stronger and therefore interest rates should go down, not up.

They kill every rally.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: These remarks follow new data showing U.S. inflation held steady. CPI 2.7 percent year-over-year. That was slightly above expectations, but

it marks progress in the fight against high inflation, but it does suggest that at 2.6 to 2.7 percent inflation is now, as we would say, is now

sticky.

Kevin Liptak is at The White House. I listened to the President's speech and I mean, you know, it was the usual hits, as they say, and it was very

difficult to sift fact from fiction in some cases. But the U.S. economy is doing well.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. I mean, that was his overall message. And he does have, you know, some figures to back him up. I

think the problem is not necessarily the figures for President Trump. It is how Americans are feeling about the economy, and you can rattle off all of

these numbers, you know, whether they're true or not, that's not necessarily going to convince the people who don't feel like they have any

money left over at the end of the month, who feel like the economy isn't serving them, that they are going to do any better.

And even in his remarks, the President sort of shrugged off the entire concept of affordability, claiming that it was all sort of a Democratic

concoction to do him in politically. And I think, you know, when you talk to the President's advisers, they do say, you know, they have this strategy

of getting the President out on the road this year, talking more about the economy, talking more directly to the issues that Americans are concerned

about.

But in this speech, he didn't necessarily lay out anything new that is going to help Americans feel better. He did say he was going to do that in

Davos next week, which I am not sure is the venue I would pick for an affordability speech.

But, you know, the President, very happy to talk about the numbers but not necessarily talking about what he is going to do to make people feel

better.

QUEST: Oh, I assure you, Kevin, Davos is perfectly affordable. You can't afford anything. It is really as basic as that.

Look, I am interested in in his comments on Powell because Powell is obviously saying that the President is on a personal vendetta with this

investigation. The President didn't do himself any favors by almost proving it by attacking him.

LIPTAK: Yes, I mean, he has claimed throughout all of this that he has nothing to do with this criminal investigation. But when you listen to him,

it is pretty clear that the President has it out for Jay Powell, and he said it over and over again that he has a stiff at the Fed, that he is not

lowering rates.

[16:05:03]

He blamed him for persistent sort of market concerns. I think there was an interesting point, though, when the President said, look, he is a jerk, but

he will be gone soon. You know, Powell's term is up in May. He was always going to be leaving. The President was always going to be rid of him in

five months.

And so I think that he is sort of acknowledging that this investigation is going to lead inevitably to the same outcome. So it is not necessarily

clear how the President is helping himself or how the administration is helping itself by putting this criminal investigation and leading to all of

these questions about the independence of the Fed, when he was always going to be out of his term in May.

QUEST: I am grateful to you, sir. Kevin is at The White House. Good to see you.

Somewhat extraordinary, global central bankers rallied to Jerome Powell's defense. I mean, not that it is extraordinary that they rallied, but that

they all came out and made a statement following that investigation.

So you had Christine Lagarde, ECB; Andrew Bailey from the BoE and others from across the world, from Norway. Well, you can see -- Sweden, I beg your

pardon -- Japan, Brazil, Australia, Canada, et cetera -- and they wrote: "The independence of Central Banks is the cornerstone of economic

stability. Powell is held in the highest regard by all who have worked for him."

Loretta Mester is the former President of the Cleveland Fed, now Adjunct Professor of Finance at Wharton.

Well, I mean, what do we make of it all? This is a very, very, very serious matter. But to question Powell's integrity from -- you know, him, obviously

well.

From everything you've seen, the man is a paragon of virtue.

LORETTA MESTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CLEVELAND FEDERAL RESERVE: Yes. I mean, Jay Powell has tirelessly worked on behalf of the public to run the

Fed on behalf of the public to actually meet the congressionally mandated goals of maximum employment and price stability, and he is very careful to

meet all the requirements of the job. His integrity is impeccable.

You know, to attack him in this way is unconscionable. And moreover, it is damaging to the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy is founded on, you know, the

fact that it has strong institutions, foundationally strong institutions, right? It has the rule of law, so investors feel right that they sign a

contract, it will be upheld. It has, you know, rules of the financial markets so that they are fair, right?

And this Fed independence or Central Bank independence, which allows the Fed to pursue appropriate monetary policy irregardless of political

considerations is part of that foundation. And that is what is damaging about this.

It brings to question that independence in a way that is not helpful for the U.S. economy.

QUEST: Some suggest -- Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase says that it actually could be counterproductive because if you start questioning the integrity

of the Fed or the independence of the Fed, you could actually be pushing interest rates higher because investors will be more nervous, in a sense

and the sanctity will not be as strong. That is a real risk, isn't it, if you carry on down this road?

MESTER: Yes, and if you look at when the announcement came out about this Justice Department investigation, you did see movement in the financial

markets in precisely that way. You saw bond yields on U.S. government bonds go up, you saw the dollar go down. People were running away from dollars,

and you saw the price of gold move up because people were demanding gold as an inflation hedge.

So to get investors to want to hold U.S. debt, right, they will likely need to be compensated for the fact that inflation may end up being higher if

the Fed has to pursue a non-independent monetary policy, and you have to be compensated for higher volatility as well.

QUEST: So we end up in this strange situation and might I -- can I suggest that the damage is done, because even if it is rowed back, even if you

know, sorry didn't mean to type of thing is done. The fact it was able to take place either through cack-handed incompetence or through malevolence,

one or the other, the damage has already taken place, and the questionable that we are questioning the independence of the Fed.

MESTER: Well, I think you're right, Richard.

I think, you know, even if the Fed does make all of these decisions going forward based on economics and financial developments, just the way they're

supposed to, keeping their eye on the dual-mandated goals that Congress gave them, the fact that people will question that is already damaging.

[16:10:14]

So, you know, this is the problem with this, is that you can't roll these things back. And it is unfortunate, it is just going to complicate the Fed

doing it. Now, I am convinced that everyone on the FOMC, when they go into the room in their January meeting, are just going to be focused on what is

best for the economy, what is best policy to get price stability and to have the labor markets be maximum employment.

But the fact that others will be skeptical of that, whatever decision they make, right, is also -- is a problem in the sense that it is an unfortunate

stain that the Fed has to work through.

QUEST: Can I test some of the President's statements, with you, at least in the wider sense. Best economy ever, fastest growth ever, inflation is non-

existent. The Fed can lower interest rates. That's the gist of the Detroit Economic Club speech, you'll have heard him give today.

How accurate is that gist?

MESTER: Well, I think that inflation is still a problem. I mean, if you talk to people, they still are concerned about the high level of prices.

Their wages have not gone up enough to cumulatively make them whole with inflation they've experienced. We are not back to two percent yet. So I am

a little more cautious about that part of the economy.

The labor market is probably in a balance right now, but it is an uneasy balance, in fact, that firms are reluctant to hire. And, you know, if

you're a household with a person who just came out of college, it is very hard to get a job for young college graduates.

So again, there are some good things about the economy. The growth rate is pretty strong. There has been a lot of investment. I think next year,

people will get higher tax refunds than they had before. That's positive for growth. But it is not a great economy in terms of what is happening on

either inflation or in the labor market right now.

QUEST: If you were voting in this month, what would you say? I mean, would you stay your hand and say, no change? I can almost predict that there will

be no change in rates this time, and the outliers will again want to -- one of the members will want two cuts. Somebody may want one cut. But what

would you be going for?

MESTER: Well, given the mix of data that we've got on inflation and in the labor market, and they've cut already three times, 75 basis points, I think

it is a good place to stop and assess things. They are going to get more information, you know, over the first three months of the year. They will

see whether, you know, consumption is holding up.

This is a good place for the Fed to stop. The policy rate is really much closer to a neutral rate, and they really need to be a bit restrictive if

they want to get inflation down. So I would not be supporting a cut at this meeting.

QUEST: Which of course -- I do -- by the way, you can plead the fifth on this, Madam. You can plead the fifth if you'd like. Do you, by now have a

favorite who you would like to see as the next Fed Chair?

MESTER: You know, I don't have a favorite. I just really want to have someone who will really be basing the decisions of the Fed on what is

happening in the economy and their forecasts, and the risk, and someone who can push aside all of these distractions and political considerations so

that they are making policy the way it should be done and preserving that independence of the Fed.

QUEST: Well, now, you do realize, of course, when we do know who that person is, we will have you immediately back to make sure to test whether

or not you think they will -- that particular person will do it.

I am grateful to see you as always, Madam President. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. Thank you.

MESTER: Thank you.

QUEST: A show of solidarity from the U.S. President as Donald Trump told protesters in Iran, help is on the way or help is on its way, but what does

that mean? The practical help that a U.S. President can give to protesters on the streets in Tehran and other major cities?

QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:17:02]

QUEST: A U.S. based Human Rights group believes nearly 2,000 people have now been killed in Iran since mass protests erupted two weeks ago.

President Trump responded by breaking off diplomacy and reaching out directly to the protesters, encouraging them via Truth Social to take over

the country's institutions, and promised help is on its way.

Mr. Trump declined to elaborate when asked about the comment. The White House says the President did not attend a meeting today on Iran that was

held with his National Security officials.

Mr. Trump isn't the only western leader escalating the rhetoric. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the violent crackdown to him suggests the

Iranian regime is in its final days and weeks.

Nada Bashir has been following the story, and with me now from London. That comment by Chancellor Merz was very, very interesting because, you know, it

wasn't off the cuff and it immediately begged the question, well, what is he seeing? What evidence has he got? Because it was quite specific.

And then you take President Trump's comment where he says help is on its way, and we have no idea what he means by that.

NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER: Yes, absolutely. And in fact, we've been also hearing Richard, from U.S. officials indicating that what we are hearing

outwardly from the Iranian regime and what is actually happening in those back-channel conversations between Iranian officials and their regional

allies, as well as with U.S. officials, is something very, very different. But again, no clarity on what that actually means or looks like.

And when it comes to the sustainability or viability, rather of the Iranian regime, well, that still is a real question. Just on Monday, we saw

enormous rallies taking place in Iran in support of the Islamic Republic, in support of the theocratic regime. That is something, of course, that the

regime had called for. It is something they openly broadcast on state media in an attempt to shift that narrative.

But we are still seeing demonstrations taking place. And of course, while there is this total internet and communications blackout in place over

Iran, we've only been able to get snippets of information and video from on the ground in Iran, and some individuals have told us that the protests

that we saw last night were smaller than we have seen in previous nights, but they are still going on.

And of course, the real fear is that as these protests continue, we are also seeing the violent crackdown by the regime also ramping up. As you

mentioned, Richard, we now have this updated death toll from a U.S. based Human Rights organization putting that figure at over 1,800.

And important to underscore, that is a staggering rise from what we had heard yesterday, which put that figure at just over 500 protesters.

QUEST: Now, but it is difficult to see which way it goes in the absence of external influence or forces. I mean, the logic would suggest one of two

things, either the number of protesters becomes overwhelming or the crackdown becomes even more brutal, and with the obvious results.

[16:20:14]

BASHIR: That's right, and we've seen that in the past, the crackdown becoming more brutal. But of course, this is a very different protest

movement. This has grown far beyond a single focus for protesters. It is no longer just about the economic crisis, but it is about so much more, the

multiple grievances that many have from different demographic groups against the regime.

But there is also division over what actually needs to happen next, what Iranians want to see next, whether that is foreign intervention, which many

feel wary about, or perhaps it is diplomatic action in the form of more sanctions.

But of course there is concern over the potential for military action by the United States. We know the U.S. President is weighing up his options.

And, of course, that has struck a lot of concern amongst ordinary Iranians.

QUEST: I am grateful, Nada. Nada Bashir is in London.

We will stay with international affairs and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance will hold talks on Wednesday with the Foreign Ministers of Denmark and

Greenland.

The Vice Presidents backed Mr. Trump's call for Greenland to become part of the U.S. as a matter of National Security.

Our correspondent, Nic Robertson, is in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, and takes the temperature, which is cold, as you can imagine on the question of

attention from the U.S.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice over): Its 11:00 A.M., daybreak off the coast of Greenland, the strategic Danish island

President Trump wants for American security.

A hundred and fifty miles from the Arctic Circle, it is a winter wonderland of stark, snowy beauty.

ROBERTSON (on camera): Out here in these remote fields, it seems impossible to imagine that this tranquil arctic wilderness can really be at the heart

of a geopolitical crisis that has the United States pitted against its NATO allies, potentially threatening to upend decades of global security.

Aron Josvassen, an Inuit, a Native Greenlander, is taking a seal hunting. Food from the land and sea is a core Inuit connection with nature, a

cultural totem.

So I know we are waiting for the seal and looking out for the seal, but Donald Trump says there are Russian and Chinese ships here. Where are they?

ARON JOSVASSEN, INUIT, A NATIVE GREENLANDER: There are no ships from China or Russia.

ROBERTSON: Donald Trump says that it is not enough just to be friends with Greenland and have a treaty, but he has to own it. What do you say?

JOSVASSEN: I am afraid the nature will (be) destroyed and many animals will disappear.

ROBERTSON (voice over): Greenland is massive. More than 1,600 miles from Arctic tip to Atlantic tail, so wide it straddles several time zones.

It is also geographically strategic, sits right between the U.S. and Russia, adjacent to newly thawing polar shipping lanes, but despite its

size, barely 57,000 people live on the ice-shrouded island. Most of them, like Aron, Inuit.

SARA OTSVIG, CHAIR, CIRCUMPOLAR COUNCIL: We are people of the Arctic. We have specialized skills in surviving and thriving in the Arctic. Inuit have

been here in Greenland for 4,500 years at least, maybe longer.

ROBERTSON (voice over): Sarah Otsvig is also Inuit, a former Greenland politician in the Danish Parliament stands up for Inuit rights.

But President Trump now says that he has to own Greenland. That's the only way psychologically, that he thinks that the deal will be right.

OTSVIG: If the case is so that he really thinks that Greenland is so important for the U.S., well, then there is something to talk about and

let's solve it through dialogue.

ROBERTSON: Is there a dignified dialogue right now?

OTSVIG: I think we are far from what we would call a dignified dialogue. I think that's obvious -- silence has a significance in our culture.

ROBERTSON: So how do you deal with somebody loud like Donald Trump and be heard?

OTSVIG: Hopefully there will continue to be a path in a respectful manner for creating stronger bonds of partnerships. But that doesn't mean you know

that coercion or taking over or annexing --

ROBERTSON (voice over): Inuit are traditionally quiet, but what they say now will be the single biggest factor facing a Trump takeover.

Mia Chemnitz is a successful businesswoman has been silent until now.

ROBERTSON (on camera): Does Donald Trump understand Greenland?

MIA CHEMNITZ, INUIT FASHION DESIGNER: I am afraid that he understands everything and that he doesn't care.

ROBERTSON (voice over): She specializes in Inuit clothing. Her store is doing well with locals and tourists, but she has got orders to fill, so she

is taking us to her workshop.

[16:25:10]

CHEMNITZ: Donald Trump and his government, they know about all the agreements between Denmark and Greenland and the U.S. They know everything.

They are very welcome to invest in Greenland. We are always looking for investments, we want to develop. I don't think it is about that.

ROBERTSON (on camera): What is it about?

CHEMNITZ: I think it is about land.

ROBERTSON: Donald Trump wants a big country.

CHEMNITZ: I'm afraid so, yes.

ROBERTSON (voice over): Inside her tiny workshop, she is busy, ready to hire more staff. Items like seal mitts, jackets and trousers, making a

comeback. Exports possible because the animals are hunted for food as well as the hides.

But Trump's Greenland grab is crimping her business, putting her own expansion plans on hold.

CHEMNITZ: Well, if you don't know which country you're living in in a month, then you know --

ROBERTSON (on camera): It is that real for you right now.

CHEMNITZ: No, I don't want it to be real. I really try to push that thought down, but that is the worst case scenario that, you know, in a month, I am

American. We don't even have military in Greenland because we don't do war.

So of course, you know, there would be -- I don't know, you know, we wouldn't be able to resist the American military. No one can resist the

American military.

ROBERTSON (on camera): Trump isn't the first President to try to get Greenland. The U.S. tried shortly after buying Alaska from Russia more than

150 years ago, tried again in 1910. And then after World War II, U.S. President Harry Truman secretly offered Denmark $100 million in gold.

This time, Donald Trump seems determined to have it his way.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: Nic Robertson in Nuuk.

Now our next guest says that President Trump is concerned with the pursuit of national power that is quite similar to other previous presidents.

Michael O'Hanlon is the Director of Research for the Brookings Institution's Foreign Policy Program. Also the author of "To Dare Mighty

Things: U.S. Defense Strategy Since the Revolution," where he argues that the U.S. has never been a truly isolationist power.

Now with me from Maryland, Michael, I am grateful. Thank you, sir.

This is a fascinating idea because, you know, how do we square that circle of protectionism/isolationism when at the same time, another star on the

flag preferably by the 250th Anniversary seems to be part of the goal?

MICHAEL O'HANLON, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION'S FOREIGN POLICY PROGRAM: Greetings. Well, by the way, I am not defending President

Trump or encouraging him on when I say that there are precedents in our history, and if we look at the 19th Century in particular, up through the

turn of the 20th Century, I think that's where we see presidents who have done things that still echo in the Trump foreign policy today, starting

with President Monroe and the Monroe Doctrine, warning all you big, bad Europeans in 1823, you better not come over here to the Western Hemisphere

because, you know, we feel like we have the right to supervise.

And it was sort of a laughable thing for the United States of 1823 to promulgate, because we didn't have the power to back it up, but we still

said it.

QUEST: Right.

O'HANLON: And of course, we are expanding westward this whole time and keeping a very wary eye on Britain and fighting Britain again in the War of

1812, partly about competition for territory in what was then sort of the Northwest Territories to the -- you know, well beyond where the original

United States existed, and we see that with President Polk invading Mexico and then demanding the American southwest from Mexico by way of a coercive

action.

And then we see a big naval buildup towards the end of the 19th Century, because the United States decides it wants to compete with European powers,

even though we don't want any part of your land wars, if we can avoid them.

And then we see the Theodore Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that basically said, we will do what we wish here in the close

neighborhood, Central America, Mexico, Caribbean, down to Panama, which we helped, you know, break off from Colombia so we could build the Panama

Canal.

And by that point, we did have enough power in that area.

QUEST: Right. Let me just jump in, if I may. How does then -- which of the president -- the current President's strategy is most telling to you? Is it

the Venezuela even to the point of trolling with a meme calling himself "acting president of Venezuela"? Or is it Greenland? I am going to take it

-- I will do it the nice way or the hard way, or is it just the sort of the belligerence wherever you look?

O'HANLON: Combined with the Nobel Peace Prize efforts?

QUEST: Oh, yes.

O'HANLON: Don't forget that.

QUEST: How can I forget.

O'HANLON: Eight conflicts. Right. But I think that, here is what I hope and pray that the Venezuela operation, however debatable and however open ended

it may become, still in some broad way fits in with American traditions.

It doesn't really fit in with international law, and it doesn't really fit in with the Constitution, because Congress was not consulted. But it fits

with a lot of presidents, not just one or two.

[16:30:46]

QUEST: Right.

O'HANLON: And like I say, it sort of echoes the Theodore Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. And most people think Theodore Roosevelt

was not such a bad president. However, if Trump goes out and grabs Greenland, then this would, you know, I think be unprecedented even

compared to President Polk taking the southwest from Mexico because that was a different era. Those parts of --

QUEST: Exactly.

O'HANLON: -- the southwestern states at the time were not really firmly in Mexico's control. There was no long standing tradition of Mexico being in

control. And so, you know, I'm not going to excuse that altogether. But it was a different time, different era. And taking Greenland now would be much

more egregious than taking the American southwest in the 1840s.

So I think if Greenland becomes the prize and becomes the big defining characteristic of Trump's foreign policy, then we'll really be in dangerous

territory and we won't have a strong American tradition or history that can help explain or partly justify it. It'll be, you know, putting the entire

NATO alliance at risk in a way that's dangerous for the world.

QUEST: Michael, we'll talk more on this as each bit of this develops. We'll have you back, if we may, sir, to learn more from your wisdom. Thank you.

Now, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, one of the ways or telling ways countries have the most international clout is through the Henley Passport Index. And

we'll take a look. Which is the best passport? Best? I realize that's a subjective phrase. We'll go into the details.

Christian H. Kaelin of Henley and Partners after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:35:27]

QUEST: The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, has told "The New York Times" he's determined to stop a proposal to tax billionaires. According to

the proposal, it would require billionaires living in California as of January this year to pay a one-time 5 percent tax on their assets. The

governor told "The Times" the proposal is driving some billionaires to relocate. Peter Thiel and the Google co-founder have reportedly already

started cutting ties with the state.

Elex Michaelson is with me in Los Angeles.

Sir, good to see you. I'm grateful for your debut on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Thank you sir.

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR, THE STORY IS WITH ELEX MICHAELSON: Likewise. Thank you.

QUEST: Why -- I mean, Governor Newsom, listen, this could bring him in a lot of money. Why is he getting all sniffy about it?

MICHAELSON: Well, he thinks and has said this for many years, even before he was, you know, essentially running for president, that the wealth tax

may help you in the short term, but not in the long term. California's basic entire tax structure is really dependent on rich people. 1 percent of

Californians pay 50 percent of the revenue in California. So if you have a bunch of billionaires that leave the state, long term it could really,

really hurt the state's budget.

The Independent Legislative Analyst who doesn't have a party in all of this said that this wealth tax could result in tens of billions of dollars in a

one-time fee. But then hundreds of billions of dollars of lost revenue over the long term. That's been the Newsom approach on this. Others say we're

desperate for the money. The unions say we need this for health care. And the rich have too much to begin with.

QUEST: So in California, is there a proposal that Californians will vote on? Does the governor -- can the governor veto it? I mean, what's the

mechanism by which this will either happen or not?

MICHAELSON: So there are two different ways you can make something happen in California. One of them is to do it through the legislature. They've

tried to do this through the legislature.

QUEST: All right.

MICHAELSON: And Governor Newsom has vetoed it before. So now they're trying to do this as a proposal that voters would have. It's got to get 900,000

signatures from Californians, which it hasn't done yet, to then go on the ballot. And if it's passed by voters, Governor Newsom can't do anything

about it. But as you know, if this is a referendum before the voters in November, it will be incredibly expensive, with both sides putting a lot of

money to try to get an outcome one way or another.

QUEST: You will help us understand if it's going to happen or not. Elex, I'm very grateful. Thank you very much. Look forward to seeing you in Los

Angeles. Thank you, sir.

MICHAELSON: Thanks, Richard.

QUEST: The passport in your pocket. How powerful is it? It's called the Henley Passport Index, and it ranks attempts to answer that question. If a

passport allows visa-free entry, it receives one point. This index tracks 227 countries and territories. So that's the maximum score. 227. Singapore,

number one. You can go to 192 places without a visa. Japan and South Korea tied at 188. And the U.S. is back in number -- spot 10.

It's actually worse than that in a sense because you jump all those countries together that have got in the same area, or that have got the

same number. The U.S. last year dropped off the top 10 for the first time.

And now Christian H. Kaelin is the creator of the Henley Passport Index. Christian is with me. Also chairman of Henley and Partners.

Quickly, Esthers don't count for this, do they? Sort of Esthers and travel visas, and I mean that sort of entry online things. Do they count?

CHRISTIAN H. KAELIN, CHAIRMAN, HENLEY AND PARTNERS: No, it doesn't count. It's really just the visa restrictions that we measure. And so it's a very

interesting dynamic, actually, that you can see over time is now 20 years that we're doing this so --

QUEST: What do we -- what conclusions do you draw from this year's numbers?

KAELIN: I mean, one of the most interesting things that we see is the exceptional rise of some countries, especially the United Arab Emirates.

The United Arab Emirates has, you know, added consistently, with very wise policies, to its ranking. And it's now number five worldwide. It's fifth

worldwide. So it has actually overtaken the United States.

[16:40:03]

QUEST: Why does it matter? At the end of the day, you know, there are numerous passports, the value of a particular passport, the type of

passport. Why does it matter where one might stand in an index like this?

KAELIN: I mean, one, it's a very practical thing if you're a citizen of a country how many countries you can go to and to which countries you can go

to is quite important visa free. So if you want to travel quickly and you do not want to wait for a visa, it's quite important how far and to which

countries you can go to. And of course, at the top end of the ranking, you have, you know, generally the Western countries and so on, and they have

generally similar destination countries that are visa free.

But, you know, the gap between, you know, the mobility, that citizens enjoy has widened over time also, which is an interesting view on the world as

well. So more and more division worldwide between, you know, the poorer countries and the richer countries, and to which destinations citizens of

these countries can travel to.

QUEST: What's fascinating about this is, of course, it's actually quite difficult to get another passport. Now, yes, there are ways in which you

can buy your way towards a passport in certain cases, but those countries of the passports that you might want are quite difficult to get. And we're

talking not here about residency. Golden visas in the case of the UAE, or green cards in the case of the U.S.

If you're talking about good old fashioned passport and citizenship, it's most cases quite difficult to do.

KAELIN: It depends how you look at it. Actually, different countries have very different rules. So there are countries that are relatively easy and

relatively open to accept new citizens, and others are very restricted. You know, I'll give you two examples. Austria and Europe is relatively open for

investors, for people who donate, to make contributions to the country. Japan is extremely difficult. Even if you, you know, spend 20 years living

there, it may still be difficult for you to become Japanese.

QUEST: Right.

KAELIN: So there's a wide gap between countries what they offer to people who come and wish to become a citizen.

QUEST: I'm grateful to you, sir. Thank you. It's fascinating and interesting discussion on passports. Thank you very much. Thank you.

KAELIN: Thank you very much.

QUEST: Just to declare this, I have two passports, the U.S. and U.K., and both of them seem to have gone down the list or, well, there we go. Can't

pick and choose all the time.

And that is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. I will be using those passports in the next few days to Europe, to

London, to Davos. We'll be there, but I'll be in London tomorrow.

Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead -- "CONNECTING AFRICA" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:45:51]

(CONNECTING AFRICA)

END