Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Federal Reserve Votes Nine to Three to Hold Interest Rates Steady; Trump: We are Going to Beat the F*cking Sh*t Out of Iran; Fires Scorch Southwest France Amid Extreme Heat; Meta, Microsoft Announce Q2 Earnings; New Bridge Between U.S. and Canada Opens After Trump Imposed New Tariffs; Some Countries Approving Generic Ozempic as Patents Expire; UEFA Slams FIFA Proposal to Take on Private Investors. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 29, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:22]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: A real dive for the markets in the last hour as Kevin Warsh, the Fed Chair, stands pat on interest rates for
now, but definitely these markets believe interest rate rises are coming.
Those are the markets and these are the main events.
Kevin Warsh gets his good family fight. The Fed holds interest rates steady with three dissenting votes.
Two tech giants, Meta and Microsoft will announce earnings as they face growing skepticism over A.I. spending.
And FIFA is under fire over a plan to let investors buy a stake in the World Cup.
Live from New York, it is Wednesday, July 29th. I am Paula Newton in for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
Good evening.
Tonight, Fed Chair Kevin Warsh got the family fight. That's what he calls it that he was looking for in his second interest rate meeting. The Central
Bank voted to hold its benchmark interest rate steady, but there were three dissenting votes. Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan all wanted to
raise rates by a quarter percentage point. U.S. markets turned positive after the initial decision, but then gave up those gains and then some by
the time Warsh finished speaking with reporters at that press conference.
Now, Warsh told them the Fed spent the last two days grappling with how economic shocks are playing out. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN WARSH, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: Our goal is to have growth that is broadening and inflation that is becoming more limited, more
circumscribed. I will be the first to admit the shocks make this job and this policy conjuncture a little tougher, but that's among the chief
questions we've asked ourselves.
And around the room, people have different views on it. I tend to think in the coming months, we are going to refine that view and have a better
judgment, and we are going to have market prices trying to help inform it, too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Matt Egan is at the Federal Reserve.
You were in the room. The Fed Chair said it was not an interest rate pause in his words, but a review of big, hard questions. So how about it, Matt?
What was the takeaway? Because the market certainly has its opinion.
MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, Paula. That's right. It doesn't seem as though the market loves what they heard today from Fed Chairman Warsh.
Obviously, as you mentioned, no change in interest rates, but the fact that we now have not one, not two, but three dissenters in the same direction
for the first time in almost a decade, it does speak to this growing divide at the Federal Reserve over how to address inflation.
Now, time and again during the press conference, Kevin Warsh, he referenced the market reaction, specifically the bond market. He seemed pleased with
how he thinks that the market is no longer being spoon fed by Fed officials and it is reacting in real time to economic data.
However, I would just note that some of the market reactions, specifically the fact that bond yields have gone up in recent weeks, likely does reflect
a reaction to other Fed officials, not Chairman Warsh, but some of the hawks on the Fed, who do want interest rate hikes, and the fact that bond
yields went up again today as Warsh was speaking, that is one of the reasons that we see the stock market taking such a hit today. Eleven
hundred point decline, 2.2 percent for the Dow.
Higher interest rates, that's going to be more competition for stocks, more competition for those A.I. high flying stocks, higher borrowing costs as
well. Now, time and again during the press conference, Warsh was pressed by what some view as a divide here because he has stressed repeatedly that he
will get inflation down, and yet since he has taken over, the Fed hasn't actually taken any real action.
Take a listen to Warsh's response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARSH: The patience, the impatience that households and businesses feel have been going on for 63 months. We are on the job. We will deliver. We
are focused like a laser on making sure we can do it. But the suggestion that we are going to be able to do it with our magic wand is one I want to
disabuse you and everyone else of, but the discussion in the last two days give me more confidence even than I had eight-and-a-half weeks ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EGAN: Okay, so no magic wands here. And Warsh is expressing some confidence. However, the vote count again, the fact that this was a nine to
three vote, that does suggest that some officials inside this building, they are growing impatient, like the public with high inflation. They are
starting to clamor for more action, namely an interest rate hike.
[16:05:06]
And so if you put all this together, it does suggest that unless inflation starts to come down very soon, the Fed will have to seriously consider
taking action, perhaps as soon as the next meeting in September.
Back to you, Paula.
NEWTON: Yes, and that is what everyone will be watching given the fact that that is the next possible time you can raise interest rates. So many
questions in the room, right, Matt, about why he didn't do it today. We will get into that though.
Matt Egan for us at the Federal Reserve. Appreciate it.
Now, the Fed's split decision reflects an unusually uncertain time for the economy. Oil prices are volatile, up sharply today. Again, that is on the
renewed fighting in the Middle East. They fell sharply last month on a tentative ceasefire which eased headline inflation.
Now, the economic impact of A.I. is another big unknown. Chip stocks are down sharply this week as investors grow skeptical of the massive data
center build out that could put a damper on what has been a real driver of growth in the last couple of years.
Loretta Mester is the former President of the Cleveland Fed. We can think of no better person, someone who was around the table not that long ago,
because he is calling this a family fight. He says it was a good family fight.
So three dissenters, what does this division tell you, if anything, about where the Fed might go next? And if you'll allow, you are a friend of the
show. So I am just going to put it out there for you, would you have raised rates today?
LORETTA MESTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CLEVELAND FEDERAL RESERVE: So I probably would have voted to raise the rate today, although I understand
why some people didn't think it was necessary at this juncture, just because we did get a pretty good read on inflation the last report.
So, you know, this is really a question of do you believe that policy at the current setting is well-calibrated for getting inflation back down to
two percent? It is hard for me to really think that the current level of the funds rate is restrictive and therefore, I think they are going to have
to eventually bring that rate up.
But whether it be today or September or even the next meeting, I think that is where the debate should be and I think that's what they talked about at
the meeting, because that's really the question.
NEWTON: Do you think that's what the family fight was about?
MESTER: I think, you know, what we saw -- yes, well what we -- that was what the family fight was about. But I mean, I don't like that word because
it almost sounds like we weren't expressing our views about policy when I was on the committee and that is very far from the truth, right? Everyone
would come to the meeting and express their views about policy, about the economy, about their outlook, where they saw the risk and therefore what
they would support on policy.
So we've always had those discussions, at least in my time at the Fed and I've been going to FOMC meetings for many, many years, even before I was on
the Committee itself. So we've always had that.
I think what Kevin was trying to articulate when he came into the job is that he really welcomes that kind of debate, and so I think we've seen
that.
You know, I think they have some real hard decisions to make going forward. You know, the economy seems to be doing -- still holding up very well.
Labor markets are in balance in terms of not adding to inflationary pressures, but not pushing them down either.
And they have inflation that's been above target for over five years now, eventually you can say you're committed to two percent inflation and we all
were. But you eventually have to take an action to underscore that if you believe that policy isn't well-calibrated to getting inflation back down to
two percent, and that's what we really missed or I missed in the press conference is really well, what's their rationale? What are they seeing in
the economy? Where do they see the economy going? Where do they see inflation going and what's the narrative around the inflation path going
forward?
We didn't really get -- well, I at least didn't feel I got that in the press conference. Maybe we will get more information about that when other
speakers go out and give their views about the economy and we will probably get a little bit more, as we did last time in the minutes.
But I was missing that. I would have liked to have heard more from Chair Warsh about how are they actually coming up to -- coming to these
decisions?
NEWTON: Right. And again, making the point if you're firm on two percent, you didn't start raising rates today. So, what is the data that you're
looking at?
To that point, though, he did say that he might look beyond CPI. I mean look, we will take a look at CPI right now. It was a bit soft in June, but
kind of worrisome before that and here we are again to some more supply shocks here.
So when he says that he wants to understand underlying inflation, what does he mean? Is he not trusting the data that he is getting right now on
inflation? We just have the Consumer Price Index up now.
[16:10:07]
MESTER: Now, this is exactly what the Fed has been trying to do all along, which is any month's number can be up or down because of special factors,
it really is. Where is inflation going? What's the underlying trend in inflation?
You know, sometimes you'll have an oil price shock that's very short-lived and you know, you'll get a higher reading because gasoline prices went up,
but then next month they're down again. You want to sort of abstract from that and really get a sense of where is inflation going? And I think that's
what he means.
And of course, the Fed for many, many, many years in my time, we've looked at a lot of different inflation indicators. Our goal is set in PCE
inflation, right, but we always would look at many, many indicators because we really wanted to get a sense of where is inflation going.
I think what is troubling about the current period is even before the war in Iran started, inflation, taking away from the tariffs was not on a
downward path to two percent. In fact, it had start -- if you look at services, it started moving up again.
And I think that's when more of the Fed members got more concerned about inflation, because the whole narrative was, okay, we are going to be able
to like leave the rate where it is and inflation will resume moving down to two percent.
NEWTON: Right!
MESTER: And I think the current data is really pointing in the opposite direction.
NEWTON: And consumers and businesses are really feeling that. And yet, can you explain something to us? You know, the central economic challenge for
the Fed and if it gets even more complicated, is that you have this elevated inflation, but so much of it is due in part to supply shocks,
whether it is the energy crisis, whether it is tariffs. And yet Loretta, will raising rates really fix that? Because that's not what we are used to
in this economy. Right?
It is not sometimes very effective to raise rates. Sometimes it won't bring down inflation in those conditions. Right?
MESTER: It really depends on how long you think supply and demand are going to be out of balance, right? So you're right. The usual story is you get a
supply shock like an oil price shock. By the time the Fed, the effect of the Fed rate increases would affect the economy, the supply shock would be
over. And then you ended up doing the wrong thing. But what we've seen over the past, you know, post pandemic period is it wasn't just one supply
shock. It was a supply shock and rolling and serial supply shocks that never abated. Right?
They were just layered on top of each other. Some of them eased off, but you never got the relief. And so you've had supply constrained for quite a
long time. And that means the Fed does need to recalibrate, likely to bring demand and supply back into better balance. They also have to be prepared
that, okay, once you're back into balance and inflation does start to come down on that two percent, then be prepared to take off that
restrictiveness.
So I think in this environment where supply is moving around and demand is also moving around, they just have to be more nimble than they've been,
right? They have to recognize that you're always looking forward, right? If supply and demand are allowed to remain out of balance for a long time,
you'll be in an inflationary period for longer than you want to tolerate, and therefore you're going to have to act.
I think they're not there yet, all of them, but obviously we had three members today who thought this is the time to start recalibrating policy,
and we will see, if the data comes in and persuades more people, or perhaps dissuades people and says inflation is moving back down. We will have to
wait and see.
NEWTON: Loretta Mester from someone who was in the room for so many years. We appreciate it. We know you would have raised rates today. We will see
what happens in the next meeting.
Loretta Mester for us, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.
MESTER: Thanks.
NEWTON: Now, President Trump is promising retribution for an Iranian attack intercepted by U.S. Forces. Mr. Trump used expletives in his new threat,
saying Iran is going to get a beating.
U.S. Central command says Iran launched multiple ballistic missiles that were all intercepted on Tuesday. Iran says it targeted U.S. Military sites
in Jordan. Now meantime, Saudi Arabia confirms that it flew joint strike missions with the U.S. The strikes targeted Iranian backed militias in
Iraq.
An Iranian allied militia in Iraq says at least 20 people were killed and dozens more were wounded.
Kevin Liptak joins us now from The White House.
Kevin, I know the President was just speaking from the Oval. I mean, what more are you learning about what the President might do? Because not 24
hours ago, perhaps even less, we heard from him that, in fact, Iran wanted to talk, that they wanted to go back to the negotiating table.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. Yes. And the way he framed it in the Oval Office just now was that the faction of Iran that
fired this missile was separate and apart from the faction of Iran that the U.S. is trying to speak to. And he suggested that those -- that the U.S. is
speaking with had, in fact, apologized for this incident.
[16:15:13]
And so you get the sense from the President that, yes, he feels obligated to respond here. He said that it was, "our turn to fire back." But he said
that it was going to be the U.S. smacking them a little bit. And so I think the question of whether the President is going to go in with some kind of
outsized attack in retaliation here, he seems to be suggesting something short of that.
We will see what happens, I guess, in a few hours, which is striking time for the U.S., but I think it is clear here the President doesn't
necessarily want to get locked in another night by night strike tit-for-tat with Iran, but still feels as if he needs to show that the U.S. won't let
these attacks go unanswered for.
But it is clear that the President still finds himself in a bind here as he tries both to show the U.S. will retaliate, but also get the Iranians back
to the negotiating table.
He also, I should mention, has a whole other front in the war opening up in Iraq. The U.S. joining with Saudi Arabia to go after the Iran-backed
militias inside of Iraq, that Saudi Arabia had accused of firing on oil facilities in that country.
And so, you see, as this war actually seems to be expanding, at the same time, the President tries to be winding it down through these negotiations,
it is not at all clear how precisely he plans to go about that.
NEWTON: Yes, and this, Kevin, as you know, so materially affects what is going to happen in the U.S. economy in the weeks and months to come. We
will be keeping a close eye on it.
Kevin Liptak for us at The White House, thanks so much.
Ahead here on the show, wildfires scorch parts of France, Spain and now Greece as extreme heat makes the fight to contain them all the more
difficult. What meteorologists are saying about the coming days.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Authorities in Spain and France say some of the wildfires in the hardest hit areas of those countries have now stabilized. There are still
10 active fires burning in Spain, and extreme heat is expected to create dangerous fire conditions there throughout at least Sunday. Temperatures in
France's Bordeaux region are expected to remain well above average for the rest of the week.
Now, the fires have forced hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate their homes near Madrid and Bordeaux. Nada Bashir is in Southwest France
with the latest.
[16:20:05]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER: This is a scene which has become all too familiar now in France's southwestern Gironde region. The scorched earth
and burnt trees across miles and miles of woodland and farmland in this region as a result of wildfires that have been blazing for days now.
And according to an official update on Wednesday, officials have said that the majority of the fires that they have been battling over the last few
days have stabilized. They haven't seen any sort of spreading of those fires, although there have been some blazes which have rekindled, although
they say that they were quickly dealt with.
But we are seeing peak temperatures on Wednesday today expected to reach around 41 degrees Celsius, soaring past 100 degrees Fahrenheit, that is
what is expected as the heat wave continues, and there is a fear that these extreme temperatures that we are seeing could lead to more fires.
And, of course, for the residents of this region, there is a huge amount of fear around the potential for more fires. More than 200,000 people already
evacuated, many of them desperately waiting for news of when they will be able to return home. But for some, they will not have homes to return to.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Thanks, Nada Bashir there.
Now the E.U. is warning that the risk of wildfires is growing further east in Italy and Greece.
The Greek island of Lesbos is already dealing with one. Authorities advised people in the seaside town of Lomati to leave their homes. With the global
climate crisis, wildfires are threatening to become the new normal for so many parts of Southern Europe.
Joining me now is senior researcher at the National Observatory of Athens, Theodore Giannaros. I want to thank you for joining us on the program as we
continue really to watch in horror what is unfolding in Europe.
But beyond this current crisis, there is an ominous future here on many levels. I want to start with, you know, what is happening right now in
Spain and France, because you point out that these fires are in many ways creating their own dangerous storms.
Can you explain that for us? How it works? I know you had an analogy to a campfire, which might help everyone understand.
THEODORE GIANNAROS, SENIOR RESEARCHER, NATIONAL OBSERVATORY OF ATHENS: Yes, exactly. So when we talk about these wildfires that we are witnessing
across Europe in the past few days, especially the one that affected the region of Bordeaux in France, we are not talking for a simple, extreme
wildfire. We are talking, in fact, for what we call in meteorology, a coupled fire atmosphere system.
So basically the fire produces that heat that is possible to create its own weather that eventually manifests itself through the creation of a storm
like cloud. It is basically a storm cloud that has the same structure as the clouds that produce the thunderstorms, but this one is created by the
fire.
And when this happens, you have the initiation of a feedback loop between the fire and the atmosphere. The fire modifies the atmosphere, then the
atmosphere feeds back to the fire behavior at the surface and this creates a vicious circle with very severe implications for those operating in the
ground.
You have a very strong wind gusts, erratic winds, changing directions abruptly. You have strong updrafts that prohibit planes from attacking the
fire and altogether, it is a very dangerous situation. And it often, if not every time it is very difficult to directly attack these fires.
So the only chance you have when we have these convective events is to actually monitor the situation and identify the windows spatially and
temporally, when you can actually defend the fire and contain it.
NEWTON: And made all the more dangerous, right? Because it is difficult to predict and difficult to contain, we have seen some terrifying escapes in
Europe, not just this year, but last year as well, that you can't really give people the notice that they need to evacuate. We've seen so many
terrifying escapes.
GIANNAROS: Yes, this is exactly why we need to shift our attention more to the local communities. Because when we talk about civil protection and
protecting the communities, we need to start from bottom and go back to the top. So we need to engage more with the people. We need to engage more with
drill exercises on what we do in the case of a wildfire.
We need also to educate people in how they defend their own houses, how they create the buffer zones in order to be protected. And if we have to be
honest, we also need to say that on certain occasions it could be much safer, especially in the Mediterranean. The way we have built our houses,
it could be much safer on certain occasions to stay in house rather than try to escape.
But for all this to work properly, we need to educate the communities and we need to also learn from the communities.
NEWTON: Yes, the picture that you painted is really terrifying because if you've got fire all around you, you're actually saying in some cases, if
the home is well built, that is your safe harbor. You are to stay home and not try and escape.
[16:25:09]
I want to ask you about the context going forward for Europe.
Did you -- I know you study this. You're a researcher. Did you think these fires would be this extreme in Europe in your lifetime, even though you've
been at this for many, many years?
GIANNAROS: I believe yes, and I think it is -- we have to say that this is the new normal. We are going to experience it. I mean, in fact, in Europe,
less than a year ago, we experienced the worst fire season ever recorded with more than one million hectares of land burned. So it is definitely
getting very much worse.
But I want to be precise about what climate change, for instance, is doing here. Climate change is setting just the stage for the fire. It does not
light the fire. It is still human activity. And the land management choices of decades that create those pictures today.
So in the way forward, I would say that we need to reconsider more about prevention and less about suppression, because suppression deals with the
problem. When the fire ignites, it does not address the vulnerability that led these fires started.
But in terms of fire weather, unfortunately, our climate projections and all the research that has been conducted not only across Europe but
globally, shows that conditions are going to get worse and worse every year. We are going to have more heat, more drought, stressed vegetation,
tinder dry fuels, and all of these are the ingredients that would allow a fire that will ignite in a region to grow large, and probably catastrophic.
NEWTON: And we will await more programs that deal with, as you said, that prevention so that we are getting to these, you know, really dramatic
suppression operations that are going on throughout Europe at this hour.
Theodore Giannaros, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
GIANNAROS: Thanks.
NEWTON: Now, the new bridge linking Canada and the United States could make transport cheaper. Ahead, we will explain why that may not lead to lower
prices in the stores, at least for now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:30:16]
NEWTON: Hello, I'm Paula Newton, and there is more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment when Meta and Microsoft announced earnings under heavy scrutiny
from investors over A.I. spending, and FIFA is under fire for a proposal to privatize the World Cup. Before that, though, the headlines this hour.
Saudi Arabia is confirming that it conducted strikes with the U.S. in the war against Iran, raising fears of a wider conflict. The joint strikes
targeted Iran backed militias in Iraq. At least 20 people were reportedly killed.
U.S. President Donald Trump, meantime, is threatening a beating for Iran after its surprise attack on American forces. Iran says it targeted U.S.
military sites in Jordan.
Officials say firefighters in Spain and France are starting to gain the upper hand in some of the biggest wildfires there. Authorities report
favorable conditions, and some evacuees are now returning home. But there are warnings to remain vigilant as a heat wave and strong winds could
threaten the area in the coming days. There's also concern that wildfires could break out soon in Greece and Italy.
Doctor Anthony Fauci repeatedly invoked his constitutional right against incriminating himself in refusing to answer questions today during a tense
U.S. Senate hearing on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Senator Rand Paul is among the Republicans who have accused the former top infectious
disease expert of lying under oath about the virus in previous testimony to lawmakers. Fauci has long denied those allegations.
And we return to our top story. A difficult day for the markets. The Nasdaq finished in correction territory, 10 percent below its peak in June. And in
the last few minutes, Meta and Microsoft announced their quarterly results. Here's the reaction in afterhours trading. Now Microsoft you can see
they're up 2 percent on better-than-expected results. But look at Meta now down 6 percent.
Our Clare Duffy is following all of this for us.
I mean, Clare, look, a lot riding on both of these technology stocks and some mixed reaction there to the results.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Paula, both of these companies were facing big questions coming into this earnings print from investors
about their spending on A.I. infrastructure and when and how much of a return we were going to see on that spending. And it is sort of the tale of
two reports here. On the one hand, you have Microsoft posting better-than- expected earnings and -- profits and sales, I should say.
And the company, the big question for the company was going to be, how did Microsoft's Azure Cloud computing services segment, do? Because that was
really going to show whether their investments in A.I. infrastructure are paying off. You see Azure revenue up 43 percent year on year, exceeding
expectations. And so that is why you see Microsoft in the green there.
On the other hand, Meta again facing tough questions about its A.I. spending. And the company posted lower-than-expected income expectations,
income down 14 percent year on year, a sign of just how much the company is spending on A.I. and not yet seeing a significant return.
Interestingly, too, Paula, Meta also acknowledged the youth safety related trials and regulations that it said could eventually pose a material --
result in a material loss to the company's business. So you've got a number of these risk factors that when it comes to Meta investors are looking at
and raising big questions.
And I think it is especially interesting, in light of the PR campaign that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been on, on the last few days. Meta put out
this national ad painting, a very rosy picture of the A.I. future. Then Mark Zuckerberg puts out this op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal" talking
about how A.I. is going to create abundance for everyone.
And I think you can see why he might have been wanting to paint a rosy picture around this technology because the company is spending a lot of
money on this, but not yet seeing the kind of return that investors want to see.
NEWTON: Yes, it has been interesting, right, just to see the difference in the way not just as Mark Zuckerberg, but other CEO are talking about A.I..
They've really changed their tune and tried to be much more optimistic.
DUFFY: That's right. I mean, I think that they're facing the reality that for years, the leaders in this industry have been talking about the risks
of this technology to people's jobs, to cybersecurity, to what we mean as humans and our contributions to the world. And then they wonder why people
are really concerned about this technology, why they don't want to see A.I. data centers built in their backyard.
And so I do think that you're starting to see some of these A.I. leaders change their tune a little bit and sort of pull back on some of those
risks.
[16:35:02]
But at the same time, then you've got folks like Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, Dario Amodei of Anthropic, talking about the very real cybersecurity risks
that we have seen manifest over the last few months, talking to the White House about putting stricter controls around these technologies.
So interesting dance they're trying to do here. On one hand signal to the public that this technology is going to bring all of these benefits. But
then on the other hand, you've got some of them wanting to make sure that people are aware of and handling the risks that this technology brings.
NEWTON: Clare, thanks so much for breaking it all down for us, especially those late-breaking results. Appreciate it.
Now, the new bridge between the U.S. and Canada that opened this week could save trucking companies serious money. But consumers they might not see
prices go down. The Gordie Howe Bridge connects Detroit and Windsor, Canada. It has a number of improvements over the, yes, 96-year-old
ambassador bridge. And while companies may save a lot of money, those rising fuel costs and President Trump's new 50 percent tariffs on some
Canadian goods could still mean higher prices on store shelves and that includes for Americans.
Stephen Laskowski is the CEO of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, a national trade organization, and he joins us now.
Stephen, I am going to quote your alliance. You say, "The new bridge is an economic lifeline built to connect two great trading nations." I know you
want to believe that this is a -- we're going to pardon the puns here -- speed bump and not a roadblock in years to come. But wow, things are really
dire in this trading relationship just when this beautiful bridge, I will say, opened.
STEPHEN LASKOWSKI, CEO, CANADIAN TRUCKING ALLIANCE: Yes. You know, though, I think, though, Paula, that what this means to our industry and the 36
U.S. states and the Canadian provinces that rely on U.S.-Canada trade, it's nothing but good news. That bridge symbolizes easier access into the United
States and Canada, more efficiencies for the goods that move on trucks, and it's the vast majority of which that moves on trucks.
So, you know, there are challenging days that we've gone through, challenging days that remain ahead. But this was a bright day in some
cloudy days to bring some economic certainty to both Canada and the United States.
NEWTON: Now, Stephen, you and I have known each other for more than four decades. I can't even remember in the high school cafeteria, a time when
you did not have a smile on your face. So there you go. That's the Stephen I know and love. There you go.
OK, but I'm going to hit you with this now. You are an optimistic person by nature. But look, 50 percent tariffs could be a reality by August 19th. And
look, I say this in the interests of both Canadians and Americans, it's going to be not good news economically for an organization like yours, but
also lead to increased prices.
So how optimistic are you that there might be some kind of a deal by August 19th, and if not, a good deal in the months to come?
LASKOWSKI: Well, you know, Paula, I won't pick on the August 19th, but I think there will be some form of deal, whether it's tripartite or
bilateral. You know, there's just so much money on the table. And both of our economies in Canada, the United States, have grown as a result of those
trade deals in the past. So I think common sense will prevail that we will move forward together as we had.
It will look different. But I believe that, you know, you just can't get away from the numbers, Paula. You just can't. It's 36 states. It's all of
our provinces. There's too much on the table, too much benefit for all to walk away from it. I believe just like the bridge, that better days are
ahead for the trade deals. And the trucks will continue to move across that bridge both ways, bringing jobs and prosperity for 36 states and all our
provinces.
NEWTON: And we will see if your optimism bears out, if not, like you said, by August 19th to the end of the year.
I want to talk to you about diesel prices. Of course, since we've had the war in Iran begin, there's been a big concern. Still a big concern for your
alliance right now? How much is it adding to the cost of goods going back and forth?
LASKOWSKI: You know, I think that, you know, going back over 20 years as diesel prices fluctuated based on very geopolitical reasons and also
refinery reasons that the supply chain built in some business solutions, which are -- which is referred to as fuel surcharges. So there's mechanisms
in place for all size carriers and their customers to adjust to these rising and fluctuating prices.
So I think for the most part, no one likes to see rising fuel prices, rising fuel prices is not good for the economy. What's not good for the
economy isn't good for trucking, but from a business perspective, there are solutions in place for the trucking industry and their customers.
[16:40:02]
NEWTON: And so you don't expect it to really have that much of an inflationary effect. You don't think?
LASKOWSKI: Well, it has an inflationary impact in terms of the overall goods delivered. Correct. But in terms of how it impacts my members, they
have a business solution in place to deal with it. There's no question about it that as diesel prices go up, goods go up. But the trucking
industry itself has put in a business solution to deal with those types of rising prices.
NEWTON: Gotcha. And Stephen, before I let you go, on this show, we have covered a lot of this issue about autonomous trucking and autonomous
truckers -- autonomous trucks. I know that your organization obviously has looked at this as well. So I ask you, do you believe they are inherently
safer? And where are we in terms of actually seeing these trucks on the roads in a big way like are we a decade away? Are we five years away?
LASKOWSKI: So you're seeing the trucks on the road today in big numbers. They're just not autonomous. You're taking that autonomous technology,
putting it inside the truck to make driver-assist technology. Just like your viewers have in their cars from every make and model, there's various
driver assist technologies. Well, they're also inside the modern class eight trucks that you're showing on your screen here.
So we are moving closer and closer to safer and safer trucks. But the reality is being a truck driver isn't just driving a truck, it's delivering
the goods. There's more to driving a truck than driving a truck, just like an airline pilot. So I think for those looking at the trucking industry as
a career to drive a truck, those jobs will be there for a very long time.
NEWTON: Huh. Interesting. You are not in line with Elon Musk. Perhaps I'll get him to call you so he can talk to you about this, Steve. I mean, see --
LASKOWSKI: Yes, I don't think he's taking my calls, Paula.
NEWTON: Well, we got Stephen's -- well, Steve, to me, your true personality to shine twice in this interview, I will note. I know you know your stuff.
I know you know your stuff. We will continue to check --
LASKOWSKI: I'll be with (INAUDIBLE) next time, Paula.
NEWTON: There we go. You know your stuff. We'll continue to check in with you, especially as we see where these tariffs could go.
Good to see you Stephen.
LASKOWSKI: Thanks for having me on the show, Paula. Take care of yourself.
NEWTON: Now several countries are about to have new generic GLP-1 drugs. Ahead, what that could mean for Ozempic pricing.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:05]
NEWTON: Brazil is the latest country to approve new generic GLP-1 drugs to treat diabetes and obesity. Now Canada and India have now done the same.
Drug maker Novo Nordisk's semaglutide patents have now expired in these countries. You see them there. The generic drugs are expected to be much
cheaper than brand name Ozempic. They're also expected to push Novo Nordisk to lower its prices, where generics are available.
Tahir Amin is the CEO of the Initiative for Medicines Access and Knowledge. His group is calling for drug patent reform.
I have to comment that this has been going on for decades, right? I'm going to deal first, you know, with what it means to have these generics on the
market right now. So can you speak about the transformative nature of these drugs, the fact that they have the ability to transform whole societies
that are in need of these kinds of drugs and why that's important?
TAHIR AMIN, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, INITIATIVE FOR MEDICINES, ACCESS AND KNOWLEDGE: Absolutely. These drugs have changed people's lives from weight
loss to basically treating heart conditions. And there's so many more uses that these drugs could potentially have. And the fact that many Americans
in particular, and also Europeans because they're still under patent in those regions and countries, that country, is they're not going to be able
to afford these medicines, at least until the patents come off, which is likely to be 2032.
So many Americans particularly are not going to be able to access these medicines. And the statistics show that. I think over 50 percent of
Americans who are taking these GLP-1 drugs are saying that they're finding it difficult to afford them, and that includes people under insurance, too.
NEWTON: And so your point for these drugs, this class of drugs, is the fact that they are too important to leave these patents in place. You believe
there should be more access obviously.
AMIN: Well, I think, I think patents play a role in getting the development of these drugs into the marketplace. They can do that. So I'm not going to
deny that. There is that incentive. But I think what we have in the United States, and I'm going to just focus on the United States, is we have
policies in place that extend these patents by five years. This is -- these are policies that were crafted in the 1980s, lobbied for by the
pharmaceutical industry under this idea that there would be some balance in allowing generic competition in.
But then we would actually give these pharmaceutical companies the branded ones a bit more time to extract further revenue to compensate them for any
delay in regulatory approval of their drugs. But when you're talking drugs of this, the revenue sizes that these GLP-1s are amassing, it's kind of
astounding to see what an extra five years of patent protection can provide, let's say, for a company like Novo Nordisk.
My organization has done studies on this. And those just in those five extra years, Novo Nordisk will earn in revenue approximately $146 billion.
And that is all money that is not going towards helping people get access. That's going to shareholders, dividends. And it's all at the expense of
patients who are not able to afford these things. And more and more people are either trying to find compounding, you know, outlets. And that's, you
know, raising a whole number of issues.
NEWTON: But your argument is a familiar one for so many class of drugs. So I'm wondering what gives you optimism that you're going to be able to
change this? Because as I say, other people with other classes of drugs have tried this for years and have been unable to move the expiry of these
patents
AMIN: So I think Congress is finally starting to see the role that patents play in denying people access. It's how it's shaping competition in the
marketplace. I mean, just last week, we saw a bill that was passed. It's not the greatest bill, but it's a start in a long process that has been
happening over the last six years, where it's a bipartisan approach. Both sides of the aisle are now realizing that we need to tackle the patent
system if we are going to lower drug prices.
Take a drug like the -- one of the best selling drugs, Keytruda, the cancer drug. I testified at a hearing in the Senate Health Committee, and there's
been a follow up to that, where a lot of senators are asking the question is, how come someone like Merck is going to be able to hold on to the
marketplace for much longer than their underlying patents suggest?
And these are questions that are being asked regularly now, including yourself in the media. And that I think has shifted the landscape in terms
of addressing patents. You're right. Over the last 20 years, the question of patents has always surfaced. But I think we're in a different phase now
where I think the evidence really is showing and the hardships affecting Americans is really telling.
NEWTON: Yes. And your message is clear. If you want those generic GLP-1s that they have in other countries, call your lawmaker whether you're in the
United States or Europe, that will likely have the most impact.
Tahir, I mean, we have to leave it there, but we'll continue to follow this story. Appreciate it.
AMIN: Thank you.
[16:50:05]
NEWTON: Now, ahead for us, FIFA's president under fire. Why he is facing so much criticism over his $20 billion plan for a new company to run the World
Cup. You'll want to hear this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: So UEFA, the governing body of football in Europe, is attacking FIFA's proposal to take on private investors. FIFA president Gianni
Infantino wants to create a commercial subsidiary to run the World Cup and other events. It would be open to minority stakeholders. FIFA says this
plan is about growing football worldwide, while UEFA says the plan crosses a line.
All right, we want to better explain this to you. In fact, Patrick Snell is going to explain it to me.
I understand that this is actually quite controversial.
PATRICK SNELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: It certainly is. And reaction coming in from all spectrums of the football world, Paula. No question about that.
Look, I want to say, first of all, the World Cup had just ended. So terrific games. It was a fantastic World Cup in terms of those terrific
matches. Highly successful World Cup, great storylines around countries like for example, Cape Verde, who were the smallest nation ever to get to
the knockout stages of the tournament. History was made there.
Financially speaking, FIFA actually banked record World Cup income of about $12 billion, $12 billion from the 2026 tournament, which I will say had
those really high prices for tickets, hospitality across all three of the host countries, including Canada and Mexico. But now it seems that
monetizing both the men's and the women's World Cups even further is so much on the agenda right now.
Gianni Infantino says FIFA, world football's governing body, looking to seek investors to try and raise over $4 billion. This on a $20 billion
valuation to fund what's being called the FIFA Forward Enterprise or FFE if you prefer. It's going to be a newly bonded body that would control
commercial and event operations for future editions of both the men's and the women's tournaments.
Now, one of the potential investors, here's where he gets political. Paula, is the new entity called Thrive Eternal. It's launched by Joshua Kushner.
He's the brother of Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law. UEFA, European football's governing body, is far from happy about all of this.
And that's putting it mildly. According to so many reports, UEFA holding an emergency meeting this week to discuss plans including a potential World
Cup boycott.
[16:55:06]
Why is that significant? Because UEFA have so many powerhouse nations, don't they? European countries have won five out of the last six World
Cups. For example, Spain, reigning champions again. In a statement, UEFA said, "This crosses a line that football's governing institutions should
never cross. The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade, especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us
are the owners of football. It's not FIFA's to sell."
Other reaction, too, from Britain's new prime minister, Andy Burnham, a massive Everton fan. by the way. The PM certainly not holding back with his
opinions. Just take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY BURNHAM, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Let me say this very clearly. Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill
the stands, who stand on the touchlines week in, week out, rain or shine. The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in the
world. And it was never anyone's to sell. Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out. Football belongs
to the supporters. It always has and it always will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNELL: Certainly not holding back. And this statement from Concacaf, Paula, that's the governing body for football here in North America, where the
tournament was just played. "As leaders within football, we are the custodians of the game. Collectively, FIFA, the confederations and every
member association have a responsibility to always act in the best interests of the sport."
It's going to be a really important week ahead, Paula. We'll stay across it all for you. The key one we're looking at is the emergency meeting of UEFA.
That's going to be really significant, I feel.
NEWTON: Yes, if you have those boycotts from those European nations, then it can't probably be called a World Cup anymore. So, yes, we will continue
to keep track.
Patrick Snell, grateful to you. Appreciate it.
Now, one of the U.K.'s most famous parody political candidates is running for a seat in parliament against the leader of the hard-right Reform U.K.
Party, Nigel Farage. Count Binface describes himself as an intergalactic space warrior. Most major parties, in fact, have not fielded a candidate in
this election, leaving Count Binface as Farage's best known challenger.
The Binface platform includes getting oil companies to pay for solar panels and making arcade games more fair. Last hour, the count spoke with our own
Max Foster.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COUNT BINFACE, LEADER, COUNT BINFACE PARTY: If I were to be elected as the member of the British parliament for Clacton and it's not just Clacton on
sea, you've got to include all the towns and conurbations, Weeley, where my new HQ will be, Walton, Jaywick, I want to represent them all, and as mad
as it sounds, be a more of a local champion for those humans than the current MP, or indeed the previous one until he resigned his commission.
So, you know, that's the thing. I want to be a local champion for local people. And I tell you what, I reckon I might jam up a few tourist quid as
well into the game. How about that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: He certainly is a binface, isn't he?
That is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for us. I'm Paula Newton. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
