Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

U.S. Treasury Secretary Defends Bond Market Intervention; A.I. Leaders Unite To Urge Slowdown Amid Safety Concerns; "Godfather Of A.I.": Leaders Not Ready To Address Dangers; Trump Blasts U.S. Supreme Court Over Mail Ballot Ruling; French Wine Production Expected To Fall To 30-Year Low; New App Offers Last-Minute Transportation, Childcare. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired September 15, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:25]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell is ringing on Wall Street and the markets are lower. It is ahead of a Fed

meeting, of course, on Wednesday and we will get results on interest rates.

The market was down throughout the entire session. And a one and two and a one, two, three, four. Trading is over. Those are the markets and the main

events that you and I will be talking about.

The U.S. Treasury Secretary facing questions about his bond market intervention as yields hit 19-year highs.

President Trump says concerns about A.I. safety are a hoax. I will be speaking to the president of Cisco about that allegation.

And after a summer of wildfires and blistering heat, harvest season for vineyards across France, we will hear from one chateau about the toughest

year in decades for French wine.

We are live tonight in London. It is Tuesday, September the 15th.

I am Richard Quest, on this side of the Atlantic, I mean business.

Good evening.

The U.S. Treasury Secretary was pressed on Capitol Hill about rising bond yields and what they say about the country's wider economic direction.

Scott Bessent appeared before the House Financial Services Committee, where Democratic members grilled him on rising oil prices, inflation and the

growing national debt, all of which have helped push yields on bonds higher.

The Secretary was also asked about the Treasury's bond market intervention, and he told Congressman Jim Himes that the buyback operation has kept

borrowing costs down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): when you started, the 10-year bond was at 4.8 percent. Today, it is at a 20-year high of 5.04 percent, 20-basis-point

rise. Was your intervention successful, and will there be more?

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Yes, it was, sir. And --

HIMES: Wait, wait, wait. The 10-year went up by 20 basis points. How can you say it was successful?

BESSENT: The -- well, there is a counterfactual of what would it have done and we then proceeded to have the two most successful Treasury auctions

that we've had in 20 years and the U.S. bond market, it continues during the past month during -- since President Trump has come in, it has been the

best performing bond market in the developed world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Yes, Dave Goldman is in New York, the best in the developed world is not saying much when you look at the rest of them. But on this point of, I

guess it is a negative-negative. We can't prove it because we don't know what it would have done if they hadn't done the intervention.

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Right. "I am the house now." That's what Scott Bessent had to say about his role in the market. I

thought the house always wins, Richard. I mean, look at this. We are at five percent. That's the first time that we've seen that since 2023.

This rose to 5.04 percent earlier this morning. That was the highest since 2007. Wait a minute! 2007. That doesn't sound like a date that I want to

compare anything financial to, so clearly that has not worked.

And there are a few reasons, you spelled some of them out. But the biggest thing is inflation and gas prices today are significantly higher than they

were before the war. Until this can get reversed, and that's going to take a big, big effort to get this reversed, then bond yields are going to

continue to go higher because the Fed tomorrow is probably going to raise rates.

Now, whether or not the higher rates can combat this, that's a whole other discussion, but we are seeing higher rates because there is an anticipation

that we are going to see higher interest rates.

QUEST: There is almost nothing that they can do, in a sense, on the macro - - I mean, unless they have a complete shift in macroeconomic policy, because the market -- well, you tell me, what is the market actually

telling the administration?

GOLDMAN: Well, the market is saying two important things. One is that we want more back for our money. We want more yield because we are concerned

that this inflation problem is going to continue for a long time. So that's number one.

[16:05:02]

Number two is that despite what President Trump says, that we are going to have lower yields, the bond market says, no, no, no, this is the one that

follows the Fed and that is higher, too. There is no way out of this.

Yields are going to go up. Rates are going to go up and that's going to cause a lot of pain for customers who are looking for home loans and auto

loans.

QUEST: Dave, I am grateful. Dave Goldman and you'll be with -- you'll be watching, of course, tomorrow.

GOLDMAN: Of course.

QUEST: I know you don't -- you and I don't engage in the speculation, the rampant speculation, but the market is absolutely expecting a hike

tomorrow. If they don't get it, there will be disappointments. I mean, the market won't be a disappointment, but they will have fooled the economists.

GOLDMAN: You got it. This is forcing the issue, right? At some point, the Fed has to reckon with the fact that the market is forcing it to raise

rates, Richard. This is going to go haywire if they don't tomorrow.

QUEST: Dave, I am grateful. Thank you.

A moment ago, Dave Goldman said about how Scott Bessent is the house.

Well, the Treasury Secretary says he will continue his efforts to stabilize the bond market. When discussing the Japanese yen, the Treasury Secretary

warned the market not to bet against him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BESSENT: I am the house now, so, right? So, when we intervened with the Japanese yen. I have pretty good insight into what the Japanese, what the

Bank of Japan is going to do, what the Japanese policymakers are going to do and -- but -- you can bet against me, if you want.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Now, when he says, I am the house, Scott Bessent is essentially talking casino talk, but we decided that there is a different type of house

that he could be talking about.

It brings to mind the story of "The Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf," or in this case, Scott Bessent and the big bad bond market, the

vigilantes.

The secretary announced his buyback plan in August. We know that that turned out to be a house made of straw. The big bad bond market blew it

right over and yields kept moving higher.

Bessent then expanded the buyback. The Treasury Department said it would buy up to $6 billion in long dated bonds. You think of it as a house made

of sticks. The big bad bond market blew that over, too.

And now the 10-year , as you just heard, has topped five percent. So what Bessent really needs is a house made of bricks and a way to truly reassure

investors and lower yields, the question is, how does he bud that house?

Neale Mahoney is an Economics Professor at Stanford University advising the White House National Economic Council under President Biden.

Neale, look, we could slice this any which way and backwards, but the reality is the market is saying not only on inflation, but also on long-

term debt, we are seriously worried.

NEALE MAHONEY, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Yes, absolutely.

And the market is pointing to fundamentals that are putting upward pressure on rates and that is one, demand from the big tech companies, the A.I.

companies, they want to borrow as well and so that is putting pressure on the cost for government. The second is inflation, which is nowhere near the

target of two percent. And the third is the government's debt level have crested $40 trillion, just about a month ago.

So put all of those factors together and fundamentals are telling us that we should have higher rates. And the Treasury Secretary tried, though he

might, he doesn't have the tools to push against the fundamentals.

QUEST: But, what I don't understand and listening to him earlier today and listening to him last week, he seems to believe he does have the tools and

he is advancing this argument, it is the argument in the negative, we don't know how much worse it would have been if we had not done it. But he is

only talking about a few billion, which is a drop in the ocean.

MAHONEY: Yes. So look, he is making the best argument available to him, which is, you know, things may have gone from bad to worse. You know, we've

talked about the 10-year going from four percent to 4.5 percent when he started his activity, to higher than five percent, the highest value we've

seen since 2007, at least earlier today and he is saying, look, things would be even worse if it weren't for my actions.

[16:10:10]

The issue is that's a really hard argument to make, I think, for two reasons. One is, I think regular people look at the actions of this

administration, the war, the passing of huge tax cuts when they could have used additional revenue to pay down the debt. And they say, well, look, it

is part of this, not all of this. Obviously, there are many folks to blame. But part of this is on you. You've created this problem.

And two, you just don't have the tools. Like you said, these actions are in the billions and the amount traded in these markets is in the trillions.

QUEST: But when it comes to intervention at all levels, it is always the stick that is supposedly, you know, the mere threat. I always think about

the standby agreements of the IMF. You hope never to use them because the mere presence of a stand-by agreement is supposed to be the gold standard.

In this case, you're saying it is irrelevant because the Treasury could do what it likes in a sense. It does not have the firepower to coral the bond

market. Is that right?

MAHONEY: Well, you know, the Treasury and the U.S. government for good reason, has incredible credibility, right? It has the trust that it has

built up over generations.

The problem is that when you take actions that you can't follow through on, you take actions where the talking points that support them may not be the

whole truth, then you're spending some of that credibility.

And so look, we will see whether the Treasury Secretary is able to use the resources and the credibility of the Treasury to -- you know, to put some

downward pressure on prices. But I am worried that, you know, that will also cost the Treasury some credibility in the future, and so this is not a

costless action.

QUEST: Neale Mahoney, I am grateful. Thank you, sir, for joining us.

Politicians and activists of all stripes have been gathering today in Washington. They have united behind the call for tighter controls on A.I.

With me after the break, Cisco's president to join the debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:15:13]

QUEST: Both sides of the political aisle are uniting in Washington to call for restrictions on A.I. The longtime Trump ally, Steve Bannon and the

progressive senator, Bernie Sanders are among those leading the charge at the Pro-Human Assembly, not the people who would normally be on the same

platform.

Former President Obama is echoing those concerns. In a statement on Monday, Mr. Obama wrote: "We can't stuff A.I. back in a box, but we can

collectively determine how it is developed and how it is used, rather than sitting back and letting A.I. and its fallout happen to us." Mr. Obama is

urging policy makers to prioritize A.I. regulation.

Now, President Trump keeps dismissing these calls to action. He is expressing his views in a surprise phone call to Jensen Huang while the

NVIDIA CEO was on stage at a summit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They are just playing right into the hands of a lot of people that don't want to see it

happen, and that could be political. It could also be China, and we are not going to let that happen. It is a hoax.

Well, I also have common sense about A.I. and the robots will not be taking over. The A.I. will not be taking over the rest of the world. The whole

thing is a hoax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: All of this, just days after several tech executives called for a slowdown of A.I. development.

Now, my next guest says the solution is less about slowing down A.I. and more about making sure guardrails are moving at the same pace as the

technology.

He is Jeetu Patel, the President and Chief Product Officer at Cisco.

Sir, it is good to see you.

I am trying not to dance on the head of a pin here. What is the difference between making sure that the guardrails keep up and slowing down

development if one can't be done versus the other?

JEETU PATEL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF PRODUCT OFFICER, CISCO: Well, I think firstly, Richard, thank you for having me on the show. It is great to be

on. I am looking forward to the debate.

If I think about what is happening, if you take a step back, we have moved squarely from the world of chatbots, where we used to ask questions of

agents or of models to now agents who are conducting tasks and jobs for us almost fully autonomously.

And I think what has happened that is true is that the stakes of failure have been risen quite a bit because with the chatbot, if there was a

cyberattack, you'd get a bad answer; with an agent, if you have a cyberattack, there is a bad action that could be irreversible.

And so the way I think about this, Richard, is agents are like teenagers. They are supremely intelligent. They have no fear of consequence and they

tend to be -- you know, they tend to exercise poor judgment from time to time, and so what you have to do is you have to make sure that you can

observe that agent, you can actually have visibility in what they are doing at all times.

And when you start seeing drift, when you start seeing behavior that's out of the bounds of what you think is normal, you have to be able to exercise

guardrails.

QUEST: Okay. But we are in this very difficult situation now where the President of the United States is basically going full tilt ahead because

he wants to beat China. We've actually got CEOs saying we should slow down. The battle, in a sense, is joined globally and yet, the A.I.s just get

cleverer. So I wonder, how do you cut that gordian knot and make real progress?

PATEL: The way I see making real progress and which, by the way, is happening in the -- but firstly, it is a good moment that all of us are

thinking about both dimensions, safety and speed. I think those two are mutually interconnected to each other and we need to make sure that an

A.I., you have to move fast and you have to move with safety and security, and I think it is important for us to think about being very nuanced in

this.

And I think you phrased it well when you said, this is what we've been saying, which is the race is not about innovation versus safety, it is

about making sure that safety moves at the same speed as the rate of innovation that is happening and the rate of innovation should continue to

move really fast. But all of these are technological problems where we have gotten exponentially faster than what we used to be before.

QUEST: Right. But can I just ask you to nail your colors to the mast? On the question of, do you -- I mean, the doomsday scenarios that some are

speaking of, the Armageddon environment, do you subscribe to this in any way that if we don't get it right, that we are looking at such a very --

pardon my understatement -- gloomy ending.

[20:16:20]

PATEL: Well, look, if someone says there is a X percent chance, 10 percent chance, I have no idea how you actually assign a 10 percent chance to

something like it is false precision. But what I do know is that there is risk and that risk needs to get mitigated and the way that that risk gets

mitigated is through extreme innovation in cyber defense, because you're going to have extreme innovation in cyberattacks that happens because of

A.I.

And so you cannot go out and fight machine scale attacks with human scale defense. You have to have machine scale defense. That is true.

Now, the way that we have to think about this is -- the way I think we should think about this is, America should be the leading defense factory

of the world, and we should make sure that A.I. as an industry is the leading defense factory of the world, which means that we find multitude of

different ways to go identify when there is anomalous behavior and are able to intercept it.

Here is the thing, Richard, that is important that most people don't understand is, the ability to distinguish between an adversarial attack

because of ill-intent by a bad actor is going to be harder to distinguish compared to just bad behavior of an agent that's just thinking it is

fastidiously going out and just pursuing a goal that you've given it.

And so what you need to do is --

QUEST: These are --

PATEL: -- the technologies around security -- I am sorry. Go ahead.

QUEST: Yes, sorry. I mean, your answer just really demonstrates the real difficulty that we are all facing. But I am curious, sir, within Cisco, how

much of this is being debated on when -- well, I say daily basis -- I mean, is it just -- are there major discussions or is it just over the water

cooler?

PATEL: No, no. This is -- we aren't just debating it, we are building products to go out and make sure that we can solve these problems for the

world. There are two or three things that are very important. Number one, you have to have the right kind of visibility on what is happening within

your state with these agents. We've built technologies for that. That's extremely important to make happen.

Number two, we need to make sure that we have dynamic guardrails that can be applied to an agent and observe an agent behavior and monitor that. And

if they start to kind of behave in ways that are unacceptable, then intercept them right away. We are doing that.

We are also making sure that we are lowering the cost of tokens by providing infrastructure at scale, because the one thing that's not fully

understood yet is if you don't economically and efficiently generate tokens in your organization and use tokens effectively, you will not be as secure.

You're going to be directly proportionate to the amount of efficiency you can garner in tokens, to how secure you can be. Because if the adversary is

using a lot of tokens and attacking you, you as a defender have to make sure that you have a very efficient use of tokens so that you can go out

and combat that attack effectively.

And so all of these areas, whether it be token efficiency, whether it be going out and making sure that you actually have dynamic guardrails, all of

these things, we are not only just debating, we are building technology solutions for the world to use that are being used currently by the largest

and the smallest organizations alike.

QUEST: I am so grateful, sir. Thank you for joining us tonight and we will talk more about it one way or another.

Thank you, sir, for joining us.

Now, one of the so-called "Godfather of A.I." says world leaders aren't ready to address the dangers posed by it.

Clare Duffy has been speaking to Geoffrey Hinton.

Clare is with me from New York.

You know, those who started the whole thing and have been doing it for 20, 30, 40 years, they are almost weary of the ingenu amongst us suddenly

finding these very difficult problems as if, oh, look, it has just happened now.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS TECH REPORTER: Yes, Richard, it is true. Geoffrey Hinton has been a leading voice in raising alarms about the dangers of A.I.

technology. At the same time, he is also, interestingly, investing in growing the A.I. ecosystem in Toronto, Canada, which is where he completed

his Nobel Prize winning research. He does see potential benefits from this technology if governments get these guardrails right.

I visited him in Toronto earlier this summer.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEOFFREY HINTON, GODFATHER OF A.I.: We really don't know yet how to make A.I. safe or whether we really can.

[16:25:10 ]

DUFFY: Nobel Prize winning computer scientist, Geoffrey Hinton worries the world's leaders aren't ready to address A.I. safety risks.

HINTON: A.I. has got two sides to it. It is going to do tremendous good, but it has also got a lot of dangers like mass unemployment, child sex

abuse videos, fake videos for corrupting elections. I wish I had thought about those issues sooner.

Look, when nuclear weapons arrived, they arrived at the end of the Second World War, when people were totally fed up with war. They didn't want more

wars, and governments were much more reasonable than they are now.

Now, we've got people like Putin and Trump and Xi. It is a terrible time to have to deal with the new technology with governments like that.

DUFFY: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently announced a national A.I. strategy aiming to boost the local industry that's grown up around

Hinton. It includes more than $2 billion in spending on A.I. research and education, and new safety guardrails.

Are governments moving quickly enough to put guardrails around this technology?

HINTON: No!

JORDAN JACOBS, MANAGING PARTNER, RADICAL VENTURES: Yes.

NICK FROSST, CO-FOUNDER, COHERE: No.

HINTON: There we have the diversity of opinion.

FROSST: Diversity of opinion, I think the government is doing a good job of talking to experts and understanding the nature of the technology.

DUFFY: That diversity of opinion is just one benefit of building in Toronto, its A.I. leaders say.

Nick Frosst studied under Hinton and co-founded the enterprise A.I. firm Cohere.

Jordan Jacobs is managing partner of investment firm, Radical Ventures.

All of you have decided to build in Toronto. I am sure all of you could have gone many other places? What potential did you see here?

HINTON: Really good researchers like to be in a nice society, and Canada has decent health care. It is a much more multicultural society.

It used to be that the States welcomed immigrants. Now, the States is pretty neutral on that.

FROSST: There is a great tech ecosystem. There is also a great arts community. There is also a great academic community. There is a great

business community, like all of it is here.

DUFFY: It is not just startups now. You've got major corporations. I know pharmaceutical giant, Sanofi just announced it is investing nearly $300

million in an A.I. Center of Excellence in Toronto. Why are they choosing Toronto?

JACOBS: The number of really high quality data scientists, people in A.I. engineers is extraordinary. And then secondly, it is the proximity to huge

markets. So you can get on a flight that's 90 minutes long and reach 200 million people from Toronto.

DUFFY: Toronto now ranks as the world's third best tech talent market, according to an analysis by commercial real estate firm, CBRE. That's

helping to create globally competitive tech unicorns like Frosst's Cohere and autonomous trucking company, Waabi.

One of the things that people might worry about when thinking about building outside of Silicon Valley is access to capital and yet, Waabi is a

five-year-old company, and you announced this year that you've raised over a billion dollar Series C, the largest funding round in Canada history.

RAQUEL URTASUN, CEO, WAABI: At the end of the day, what attracts investors is, you know, whether it is going to be the top company that is leading a

massive market, whether we are in Canada, whether we are in Silicon Valley, it didn't really matter whatsoever.

You know, a lot of the innovation that has powered the revolution of A.I. that we see today actually traces back to the Toronto ecosystem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DUFFY: And Richard, the other really fascinating thing that Hinton told me is that it is essential for Canada's economy to become less reliant on

American A.I. He said, if A.I. does end up wiping out thousands of jobs, as many expect it will, Canada needs to have A.I. companies that it can tax to

help cover the costs for those employees who lose their jobs. So, that is why he is really backing this Canada A.I. ecosystem.

QUEST: I am grateful. Clare Duffy in New York. Thank you.

Coming up, its QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight from London.

President Trump has lambasted the U.S. Supreme Court after it blocked mail- in voting. The latest from The White House in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:24]

QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. There's a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight.

We're going to be talking about these are not the people I interviewed. We'll discuss why President Trump appears to be having second thoughts over

his Supreme Court nominees. And the owner of a historic French chateau tells me about the toughest year for French winemakers in decades. We get

all of that after the headlines, because this is CNN and here, the news always comes first.

The FBI director is refusing to say whether agents may be at polling stations across the United States on election day in November. He was

appearing before a House panel on Tuesday when Democrats pressed Kash Patel about election security and FBI investigations into already debunked claims

over the 2020 vote. The director also clashed with lawmakers over his travel spending and changes to the bureau's hiring standards.

High-profile names from across the political spectrum came together to call for more guardrails on A.I.. The independent senator Bernie Sanders joined

the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, and other others at the Pro-Human Assembly in Washington. The event was aimed at pressing for new policies

around A.I.. It follows the CEO of Anthropic calling for a slowdown in how quickly the technology is being developed.

The pop star Ed Sheeran says it was his promoter who made the decision to drop Macklemore as an opening act. During a recent performance Macklemore

made remarks to free Palestine. Sheeran posted that other venues then threatened to pull the show if Macklemore remained on the bill. Sheeran

said he tried to find a resolution with stadium owners like Robert Kraft, but it was to no avail.

President Trump has launched a blistering attack on the U.S. Supreme Court for blocking his attempt to restrict mail-in voting. The justices rejected

the president's plan to give the postal service new powers over the delivery of ballots. If allowed, millions of ballots could potentially have

been withheld from voters. Now, Mr. Trump has lashed out on Truth Social. He has accused the court of being beholden to liberal interests.

[16:35:02]

The attorney general of the United States, Todd Blanche, defended the president's outburst, calling him frustrated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Part of the decision was the timing and that we ran out of time because of the litigation in part. And so our

efforts to -- and President Trump's efforts to make sure that we have free and fair elections are not going to stop just in November or after or

thereafter. So I expect you're going to see that work continue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Kevin Liptak is at the White House.

Now, I guess the president's attacks on justices that he appointed is not new if you think, of course, of some of the recent ones on, for example,

birthright citizenship, but this seems to have gone further. Explain why.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: (INAUDIBLE) voiced displeasure at these justices that he appointed in the first term. But this

does seem to go to an entirely different level, suggesting that they themselves had changed in the time between when he appointed them some

years ago to now when they have ruled against him in this issue, not only of the mail-in ballots, but on tariffs and on birthright citizenship as

well, saying that these are not the same people that he interviewed during his first term, and in fact, claiming that they were just shells of their

former people.

Now the president is claiming this because he got a very negative ruling on the mail-in ballot issue. But I think we should point out that the Supreme

Court by no means has been against the president uniformly over the last several years. You know, remember, they ruled that the president has

criminal immunity from any act that he does in office. That was a landmark ruling, really kind of overwhelmingly in the president's favor. Just

earlier this month, they ruled that the president could continue building his ballroom.

And so these justices are not for the president or against the president any kind of uniform way in terms of their track record. But clearly, he's

very frustrated that this attempt to change mail-in voting did not go his way. And he's lashing out against these justices, which I do think raises

the question of whether any future justice that the president names to the Supreme Court can really be considered impartial and a separate branch of

government. He's really throwing into question any future independence for justice he may or may not name going forward.

QUEST: On the actual case itself, I have to confess, the mail-in ballots issue, I am completely lost by now. There have been so many different cases

and lower court rulings which have then -- we've had an interim injunctions, et cetera, et cetera. And now we get to this stage. I pity the

poor election -- electoral tellers around the country who actually have to make sense of it all.

LIPTAK: Right. Or voters themselves who have heard that the president wants to change mail-in voting, have not been able to follow this sort of

dizzying back and forth in the courts about whether it's legal or not, and may now question whether they can, in fact, mail in their ballots and

question whether their votes will, in fact, be counted.

And in a lot of the president's critics have said that that was his intent all along, to sow so much confusion in this process that it will dissuade

people who would have otherwise voted by mail either from voting at all or from going into the polling centers and voting on election day, which is a

lot less reliable for some people than voting using the postal service.

And so despite this negative ruling that the president received from the court, it is certainly going to create more confusion for a lot of people

going forward.

QUEST: Right.

LIPTAK: Now, what he was trying to do was change, one, the envelopes that ballots had to be mailed in, but he was also going to require states to

send in their voter rolls to the postal service so they could ensure that every ballot going out was going to a registered voter. Those were the

changes that he was trying to make.

The Supreme Court actually did not rule on whether that was constitutional or not. They simply ruled that there wasn't enough time for the states to

get this in order before the midterm elections in November.

QUEST: Kevin, I'm grateful. Kevin is at the White House. Thank you.

In a moment, a wine crisis in France. How the country's wine industry is feeling the impact. It was a scorching summer, and now the result.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:23]

QUEST: It is a crucial time of the year in Bordeaux in France, one of the major wine-producing regions in the country. No more so than this year when

winemakers have had to contend with record temperatures and the risk of wildfires. French wine production this year is expected to fall to its

lowest level in 30 years. At the height of the heatwave, we spoke to the manager of one winemaker in Bordeaux as wildfires raged only 20 kilometers

away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUDOVIC FRADIN, CHATEAU SMITH HAUT LAFITTE: We are worried about the -- about the fire and the progress of the fire, which is at the entrance door

of Bordeaux. At the time being, now, they just moved from north to south, so it pushed south, the fire. So we don't have any -- we didn't get any

effect with the smoke as well, or just a little bit. That's quite manageable. So -- but it's something that you cannot forecast and you

cannot see any plan because the wind obviously is turning around 360 degrees every day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Now, Florence Cathiard is the owner of that vineyard, Chateau Smith Haut Lafitte. And Florence is with me now.

Good to see you, ma'am. Thank you for joining us. Do you have any idea of how bad, if you will, this year's harvest will be for the vineyard and the

effect on the wine?

FLORENCE CATHIARD, OWNER, CHATEAU SMITH HAUT LAFITTE: The challenge was to preserve freshness and balance. But we were prepared because if you

remember, hot and dry conditions can make great Bordeaux. 2026 was exceptionally hot and dry and -- but many of our greatest vintages, 1961,

1982, 2005, 2022, came from warm, dry years and we were prepared. And our healthy wines were more resilient at Smith Haut Lafitte. Of course it was

hard for the region because the fires were devastating for communities, but not on the vineyards. I don't think so.

(CROSSTALK)

QUEST: So just --

CATHIARD: Because some people --

QUEST: Right. But does this weather affect the quality, if not the quantity? Or is it just the quantity? I mean I'm trying to understand what

you expect the effect will be from not only the drought, the hot weather, the winds, the fires, the whole summer of 2026.

[16:45:10]

CATHIARD: It was hard, but in my state, at Smith Haut Lafitte, we live on the premises. And that is a big advantage because we can connect and we can

prepare. And as we are organic, 100 percent, our roots are deep and they go to find the little patches of humid clay. And we had -- we were also lucky

because it was late July when the fires came and the vines were not at -- the grapes were still at a stage of low sensitivity to smoke.

So that was an advantage also. And the winds were the key and the winds were pushing away the fires from the vineyard.

QUEST: Right.

CATHIARD: But the city was more affected than the vineyards. And I think we can get a great vintage.

QUEST: Now --

CATHIARD: But of course, you have to work every day, every day to make a canopy.

(CROSSTALK)

QUEST: And now, when we met, when we met -- sorry, we have a difficult connection. When we met, you and I spent a bit of time talking about

tariffs and wine tariffs and the difficulty obviously for the United States. Do -- how are you managing now the issue of trade, trade relations,

all those issues? Because your wines are much prized in the United States.

CATHIARD: Yes. But United States, I think they understand because we have - - we had this serious problem of drought in Napa, as you know, and that does not prevent our 2023, for instance, to have many 100 points from the

expert wine tasters. And in Bordeaux, we prepare ourselves and I think all the best vineyards like ours, they do the same. And they make a canopy with

their leaves in the beginning of the season because we know the drought is here for staying a long time.

And it's a natural sunscreen to protect the grapes from the most intense heat. And we had a special derogation to irrigate the younger vines because

they were more fragile. And that was a big help, too.

QUEST: All right. I'm very grateful for you joining us tonight from Bordeaux. Thank you. Thank you very much.

CATHIARD: Thank you.

QUEST: QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Tonight we are all familiar with the "my dog ate my homework" excuse for school children. Now, adults might have a more

legitimate reason for missing work. You couldn't get a ride or find childcare. Coming up next, one app is aiming to help workers solve these

problems.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:50:53]

QUEST: Despite all the economic woes, by one measure, people in the United States are making more money than ever. The median household income rose

2.6 percent last year. The median income now $87,000. Even so, many Americans are obviously feeling squeezed by the rising cost of gas, housing

and groceries. So one platform is trying to alleviate some of this pressure for U.S. workers.

It's called Escalate, and it provides support services like food and housing assistance, childcare, and last-minute transportation to work. It

is confidential, if you will, at the -- to the companies it's providing it for, for who is actually receiving the help.

Sienna Daniel and Sean Segal are the co-founders of Escalate. Sienna and Sean are with me now.

As I tried to -- as I read the details of it, I'm still not sure I fully understand how it works. So, Sienna, explain how the thing actually

operates.

SIENNA DANIEL, CO-FOUNDER, ESCALATE: Absolutely. It's really quite simple. You know, the app is available to employees 24 hours a day, seven days a

week. And all they do is text what they're having a challenge with. So if they're having a difficult time getting to work because maybe their car

won't start, or they have a flat tire, or maybe they take public transportation and the bus is running late, then all they do is text in and

say, I need help with getting to work today.

Our live and A.I. coaches will ask a few qualifying questions to see what's going on, get a better understanding of what their transportation challenge

is.

QUEST: Right.

DANIEL: And then we generate transportation help for them so they get an Uber or a Lyft voucher within about a minute, and that allows them to get

to work on time that day.

QUEST: Now, Sean, this is paid for by the employer, is that right? It's an employee, if you will, benefit.

SEAN SEGAL, CO-FOUNDER, ESCALATE: Yes, absolutely. But it benefits the employee and the employer. If you think about it, Richard, a missed shift

at a fast food restaurant, for example, cost the restaurant about $350 in terms of overtime, they have to pay someone else, slower sales. The time

the manager spends dealing with it. If you can give someone a $15 Uber and that saves you $350 missed shift, the ROI is so clear.

QUEST: When did you -- Sean, you first, then we'll go to Sienna.

Sean, when did you sort of come up with this between the two of you? When did you realize not only this was a problem, but I have to say, not in my

wildest dreams would I have thought of coming up with this solution.

SEGAL: Yes. So Sienna and I both started our careers as teachers in low income areas, and then spent 20 years running workforce development, non-

profits or charities across the U.S., training unemployed or underemployed people for better jobs. And what we saw was we would get them placed in the

job and then within about 90 days, lots of them would end up losing it. And so we spent a ton of time talking with them and asking them, you know, why

are you losing your job so fast after you did all of this training and work? And the answers were this, like, we don't have a safety net.

I don't have reliable transportation. I'm just starting my new job. I don't have childcare if my mom can't watch the kids today and I don't have

backup. And we thought, you know, this isn't rocket science. This can be fixed.

QUEST: Sienna, how far do you think Escalate can grow? And I don't just mean more companies with the same range. What do you believe you could also

add as future benefits?

DANIEL: Yes, that's a great question. And you know, a lot of the conversations we've had with companies are very specific to the communities

that they serve. And so right now, we're heavily focused on transportation, childcare and food because that's what the employees have told us that they

need.

[16:55:01]

So we survey employees when they first register for the app, and we kind of follow their guidance as far as the supports that we provide. But it's been

interesting because some of the other requests that we have gotten more recently are things like, can you help with providing even tow service for

cars? So if someone gets stopped on the side of the road on the way to work, they don't want to leave their car on the side of the road.

So, yes, you can get them an Uber or a Lyft but what do they do about their car? But quite frankly, you know, I grew up with 22 cousins that are around

my same age, and there's 40 some kids that are now from those cousins and my dad and my grandma provide this safety net for our family on a daily

basis.

QUEST: All right.

DANIEL: And, you know, the supports that are needed are far-ranging from housing support to even just general financial support around how do I

budget. And I think the great thing about our app is that it can do any of that.

QUEST: All right. I'm grateful to you both. This is an interesting and new development and we'll follow it closely. Thank you very much.

I want to show you quickly the markets and how they closed, because remember we have an FOMC meeting that is expected to raise U.S. interest

rates 25 basis points. Rising oil prices and rising bond yields, not surprisingly, the Dow was down. If you look at the Dow 30, you'll see the

components. We really just had a couple of the four or five at the top that showed that the green, if you will, Cisco, who you heard on the program

earlier, Chevron, and some sharp losses down at the other end of the market.

We will take a "Profitable Moment" after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment," we are in this very difficult position where President Trump says it is a hoax that there are problems

with A.I. and the Armageddon and the doomsday, and there needs to be more regulation. Yet the CEOs of those very companies that are involved in it

are absolutely saying, no, we need more regulation, we need new guardrails. Some cynics would obviously say that they're hoping the government will do

their work for them, and it makes it easier.

Whichever way you cut this cake, my thought is, do we really want to be on the wrong side of it? Whether it's China, the U.S., the E.U., doesn't

really matter. If we get this wrong, then the repercussions and consequences, I'm not going to say Armageddon, but they could be very

serious and they could be long lasting, and they could even be existential in the views of some. And that's why I suggest we listen to the experts and

at least make best efforts to ensure that we don't drive ourselves over the cliff like lemmings, to mix my metaphors.

And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in London. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable.

END