Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Supreme Court Lets Texas Enforce Controversial Immigration Law; US House Committee Holds Hearing on Afghanistan Withdrawal; Bank of Japan Raises Rates for First Time in 17 Years. Ex-Trump Aide Peter Navarro Jailed In Miami; "Post Apocalyptic" Scenes In Port-Au-Prince Amid Gang Violence; Princes Of Wales Spotted Shopping Near Home; Argentina Battles Rising Poverty Despite Slowing Inflation. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired March 19, 2024 - 16:00:00   ET



JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Chipotle ringing the closing bell though in a rather aggressive manner, an unfamiliar looking New York Stock

Exchange. They are actually in Vegas for the day and a strong performance for the Dow as you can see, up eight-tenths of a percent ahead of that all-

important Fed decision day on Wednesday.

Those are the market these are the main events: The US Supreme Courts allows Texas to begin enforcing a controversial immigration law.

On the eve of the Fed decision, the Bank of Japan raising interest rates and signaling the end of an era.

And what a strange trip it's been. Unilever planning to spin off its ice cream unit including Ben & Jerry's.

Live from New York, it is Tuesday, March 19th, I'm Julia Chatterley, in for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

Good evening.

Once again, the US Supreme Court is letting Texas proceed with a controversial immigration law. The law allows state officials to detain and

arrest people they suspect of entering the country illegally.

Now the order isn't a final decision, though the law is facing challenges at a federal appeals court. Immigration advocates have raised concerns that

the law could lead to an increase in racial profiling among other concerns. Joan Biskupic is in Washington for us.

Joan, great to have you with us. Profound implications for migrants, whether they're recent or otherwise, for foreign relations with Mexico and

upending long-held a balance of power between state and federal authorities.

This was a big decision today.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It really was, Julia. It is good to see you and you just struck the right note of how this is

usually the kind of dilemma that the federal government is responsible for.

For more than a century, the federal government has been the one that would take enforcement and to its own hands and what Texas has done here is

really different. And the fact that the US Supreme Court allowed it to take effect today is very significant, even though, as you say, this could be


Now the majority of the court did not explain its reasoning, but three of our liberal justices dissented and said, at one point: "Today, the court

invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement. Texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and removal of noncitizens and

explicitly instructs its state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. That law upends the federal-state balance of power

that has existed for over a century."

So as I said, a lot of reverberations, now, to your point about the fact that this could be just temporary, a lower appellate court here is actually

going to hold a hearing on the merits of this law signed by Governor Abbott on April 3rd.

So the lower court could reconsider its original decision that this law should be able to take effect and maybe that would change things in the

immediate weeks, but Julia, there is also a chance that the merits of this case will not be resolved for months and months, and that this law would be

able to stay in effect for the long term, actually.

CHATTERLEY: What we've got here is the Biden administration sued to prevent this because they've said and you've emphasized it once again that this is

federal jurisdiction. They get to police borders. Texas has said, look, this is a problem, it is a crisis. We are effectively under attack and

that's what they are using under the Constitution in order to try and push this law through.

Joan, joe, do you have any sense of how likely it is that under appeal in these lower courts. They come through and say, hang on a second, look, we

have to leave it with the federal agencies, because that's the way it has been now for what -- more than a hundred years, and this is the

jurisdiction that the Supreme Court has sort of upheld, too, until this moment.

BISKUPIC: Yes, That's exactly right. And just -- let's set aside today's action which sends a bit of a mixed signal, but I would predict in the long

game of this litigation that the federal government will actually win just because the federal government has prevailed on these kinds of cases in the


Arizona had tried a bit of a similar law about a decade ago, a little over a decade ago that the Supreme Court invalidated. So if I just look to

precedent, Julia, I would say, you know, over all of these proceedings, in the end, the federal government would prevail.

But this signal today is pretty strong even though two of the justices who joined the majority wrote a separate concurrence to try to point up the

unusual procedural posture here, stressing that things are in a temporary status right now.


And they're not trying to assess the merits, it nonetheless, for the first time allows this kind of law to take effect that allows the state to

actually essentially have immigration enforcement powers to arrest and detain people.

And you're exactly right also about what Texas says, Texas says essentially they're being invaded, so it is justifying it based on its unique role

right there on the border and you know, it is an argument that could resonate in lower courts, but will it resonate with the Supreme Court if it

gets up here? I would say in the end, no, but we do have a court that has certainly been hewing more and more conservatively.

CHATTERLEY: Certainly. But to your point, this could be four weeks of utter chaos, to quote Justice Sotomayor, who you did at the beginning suggesting

that this will invite chaos, especially if it is only a law that's going to apply for four weeks until a formal precedent is set. We will have to see

what happens.

But Joan, thank you for explaining this to us.


CHATTERLEY: A fascinating decision made today.

Let's talk more about the implications of this. I want to bring in senior national security analyst, Juliette Kayyem.

Juliette, I am sure you were just listening to that. Just from a practical perspective. If you have a situation now where local and state police can

now arrest those that they believe have crossed the border from Mexico illegally operating at the same time one would presume as federal officers

who were and initially had jurisdiction in this remit at least until today.

How do you see that playing out?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Not well. I mean, I cannot describe what complete 180 this is by the Supreme Court in terms of our

understanding of the division of constitutional authority between states and locals -- excuse me, between the state and the federal government at

the border as well as, as you point out operationally. How is this going to work?

So first of all, we don't know how long it is going to last, but what we do know is at least for the next couple of weeks Texas authorities, if they

believe, right, "suspect" is the language, so we have no standard for this. That someone is suspected of having broken immigration law, they will then

have authority over that person.

So that now all of a sudden, implicates anyone who doesn't satisfy what a police officer thinks an American looks like and secondly, once they're in

court, does that mean that a state judge can say, well, I don't care what the federal rules are, I am going to detain this person even if the federal

authorities determine that this person could seek asylum, that this person had family members, all of the complicated immigration rules that stand

under federal law.

So it is -- it is going to be a nightmare for not just law enforcement at the border and they are already dealing with a crisis, but obviously for

Brown and Black people in Texas.

CHATTERLEY: So, that's -- and you've pinpointed one of the fears that the federal government raised was the idea of racial profiling taking place in

the state of Texas as a result of this.


CHATTERLEY: Do you want to talk about that?

KAYYEM: I have no doubt about it. I have --


KAYYEM: I have absolutely no doubt about it. So, if you think about the Hispanic -- the US citizen Hispanic population in Texas is a large

population. You also have an immigrant surge coming from our border. It is not all Hispanic as we've been reporting, there's Chinese, there's others

in this pool, so how are you going to separate if you're a law enforcement person, you see someone walking down the street, you suspect that they've

crossed the border illegally, let's say it is a border town.

So you now have an authority to pick them up. They haven't done anything else illegal. They haven't gone through a red light, they haven't pick

pocketed anyone. They've done nothing illegal.

So, if you're a US citizen and you are Hispanic or even Black because we don't know how far -- we don't know -- you're not -- let's just say, you're

not White, so are you going to carry a passport now to prove that you're actually a citizen?

We've never had this before in the United States, and that's why we've always let the federal government control the enforcement of immigration

status in the United States and it is -- there are things in my world, right, that you think are solid, right?

You think like, okay, this, we know, right, that the national government controls the borders and states control law enforcement and policing. This

completely upends what we have known about federal and state dynamics for a hundred years and it is done without analysis.

I mean, it is just sort of thrown out there for others to determine what it means.

CHATTERLEY: And I guess the government of Texas, were he able to speak for himself here would say, look, it was up to the federal government and quite

frankly, they failed and we have to take action and we have to do something.


So the middle ground, somewhere to your point required greater perhaps emphasis, investigation, and action. And we've seen that Congress has

failed to achieve that.

KAYYEM: Right.

CHATTERLEY: The other thing I think --

KAYYEM: I -- yes.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, I was just going to say, the other thing that comes to mind is and I have sort of been wading through SB 4 as best I can is that a

judge, if indeed somebody, a migrant and let's say they are a migrant in this case comes before a judge. The judge could drop the charges if the

person agrees to go back to Mexico.

But in many cases, a lot of these people came from Mexico. They didn't originate in Mexico. So I can also see challenges with people saying, look,

you just hand me back over to Mexico. Mexico is saying hang on a second, these aren't Mexicans.

KAYYEM: That's exactly right. I mean, we've been reporting on it. The numbers coming -- Mexico is just a through way.

So from South America, from China, from Asia, and other countries in Africa. So you're going to send them back to a country that is not ready or

available to take them. So this is the foreign policy implications of this, and this is why you want a federal government in charge.

But what if the immigrant says no? So now, you've just put this burden on state courts and state facilities. I can tell you Texas will not handle

what is about to happen to it. It may not like -- I -- you know, this idea that the governor that we have this border surge, right, we have this

border crisis. There is no exception in the Constitution for a governor to say, I don't like federal policy, right? And that's what the Supreme Court

has now recognized and no, we just know given the Supreme Court that if this were a liberal governor deciding, we just want to let everyone in,

right? We are not going to do anything to help the federal government, that the Supreme Court would say. That's not allowable.

So this is only working one-way and it is in the very conservative, and unfortunately likely racially discriminatory way.

CHATTERLEY: You raise a very valid point. Basically, at this moment, it is in the sphere of immigration, but the push back here between one political

governor and a message from the Supreme Court is clearly made with potential profound implications.

Juliette, great to have you with us. Thank you.

Juliette Kayyem there.

KAYYEM: Thank you.

CHATTERLEY: Now, two top generals during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are blaming the State Department for some of the chaos as troops left.

Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley told lawmakers that US civilians and embassy personnel should have left the country much sooner. He called

the entire US operation in Afghanistan a strategic failure.


GEN. MARK MILLEY, FORMER UNITED STATES CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Nothing were going to discuss today happened overnight. It was a

process of withdrawal that spanned a decade.

The outcome in Afghanistan was the cumulative effect of many decisions over many years of war. At the end of 20 years, we, the military helped build an

army, a state, but we could not forge a nation.

The enemy occupied Kabul, they overthrow of the government occurred, and the military we supported for two decades faded away. That is a strategic



CHATTERLEY: Oren Liebermann is at The Pentagon for us.

Oren, he said that before that this withdrawal was a strategic failure, but I think what became very clear to those people that were listening to this

hearing today that these generals and the Defense Department was at loggerheads with the State Department.

The Defense Department were clearly saying, we need an evacuation plan and we need to get those noncombatants out. And the State Department, it seems

dragged their heels.

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: We knew there was friction between the Defense Department and the State Department. We reported on it

to some extent. We heard about it in the conversations we had here in the halls of The Pentagon.

This is the clearest we've seen it out in the public from General Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the top US general and

General Frank McKenzie, who was head of US Central Command at the time and oversaw the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

They both made quite clear here, they were pushing the State Department for plans, including what's called the NEO, a noncombatant evacuation order,

and those plans either didn't come, weren't given in full or simply weren't made quickly enough.

In fact, McKenzie said during this hearing that a month earlier in July, he looked at the scenario, looked at the situation in Afghanistan, and was

worried that the State Department wasn't ready to carry out a NEO and yet when he asked for the plans, he says he either didn't get responses, didn't

get full plans.

Part of the concern from the State Department is that ordering an evacuation would cause panic and chaos in Afghanistan and the Afghan

government would feel like it was being abandoned. Because of that, at least partially, the NEO order, the order to conduct an emergency

evacuation didn't come until August 14th. One day later, as we found out, the Afghan government, leaders of that government fled the country and we

all remember the scenes of chaos at the airport.

And of course, in the closing days of the evacuation, the 13 US servicemembers that were killed in a suicide bombing here.


So again, this has given us a clearer picture into the friction between DoD and State as the Defense Department pushed State to evacuate the embassy

earlier, to call for the evacuation of American citizens earlier, and then we saw how this played out.

And we of course know, as Milley pointed out, a strategic failure. The US tried to build a sustainable government, that government collapsed in a

matter of days as the Taliban swept across the country in August of 2021.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, the irony was, they tried to avoid that sense of abandonment and it was there already and the consequences of course were


Oren, thank you. Oren Liebermann there.

Okay, we are going to take a break here on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

Coming up, Unilever, losing its taste for ice cream. Icing out. Big brands like Ben & Jerry's. The details just ahead.



Now, on the eve of the decision by the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan has raised interest rates for the first time in 17 years ending its long

chapter of negative rates and growth measures.

The bank's policy rate is now zero to 0.1 percent. It has been negative since 2016. Rising wages and mild inflation made the pivot possible.

The US Federal Reserve has also begun its two-day policy meeting. It is expected to hold its benchmark rate steady on Wednesday. The fed will also

release interest rate projections for the rest of the year.

Raghuram Rajan is the former chief economist for the IMF, and now, professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Raghu, great to have you on the show. Let's talk about the bank of Japan first. It had a sort of carpe diem, seize the moment feel about it, not

just lifting interest rates out of negative territory, but abandoning some of the other measures that they've long been taken. Was now the right time

to take this step?

RAGHURAM RAJAN, FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: Well, they were waiting for inflation to start picking up, that it has

done. Then they were waiting for wages. The wage negotiations that Japan has every year to really look healthy for workers. And this time around,

the shunto wage negotiation seemed to be trending towards 3.7 percent on average, wage growth for workers. So I think the Bank of Japan being the

last Central Bank to raise rates.

So, they all feel, it is there, that inflation is here to stay. This is not a premature move. And of course, with investors seeing seriously negative

real rates in Japan, it is time for them to let the short-term interest rate go up.

It is a tiny move, from small negative to small positive. Yes, they did abandon yield curve control that is holding the 10-year rate, but even that

was not binding. They had said, if it goes about above one percent, we will react, but it is at 0.7 and change.

So really these are tiny moves. It is more important for what it suggests for the future.

CHATTERLEY: And what does it suggest to the future -- about the future because to your point, it was a teeny-tiny move and it was not just

physical intervention here. There was also verbal where they said, look effectively, we are going to take this incredibly slowly and we stand ready

to take action if necessary.

Even the Japanese yen fell, and in this situation, surely, you would have expected a little bounce, a little strengthening in the currency, but it

seems investors were like, "yeah, yeah."

RAJAN: Yes, I mean, it is hard to say why the markets did so little, but I think it is -- it is an important move from what it presages because if

they didn't take this, you would start worrying about when they would actually do it since the wage negotiations actually came out in a direction

that they wanted.

What the long-term effects will be depend of course, on where they take interest rates, too. Right now, Japanese household are seeing that on their

deposits on which they own pretty much nothing with inflation at two and three percent, they are earning negative real rates, contrast that with the

US investor or the US household who is getting two-and-a-half percent real on their deposits.

So a lot of Japanese money is going outside and what happens when Japanese rates come to a reasonable level, it is going to go back. That is going to

affect liquidity in global markets.

I mean, Japanese investors have been buying US equities. That is going to change. But it is also going to have effects on Japanese debt. The

government is one of the most indebted governments in the world by some counts 250 percent of GDP.

Of course, people talk about whether it should be net or gross. Nevertheless, it is a big number. And if you raise interest rates on that

big number, very quickly, the Japanese government has to pay a lot in interest expenses and that is going to play out over time as a physical

constraint on what it can do.

Of course, lots of Japanese businesses have enjoyed really low rates. As rates go up, some of them will go bust.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, there is so much in that answer. I think your point as well though about the fact that we've seen the best wage increases since

the early 1990s, and it barely keeps up with inflation now is a very important point about some form of money illusion.

But from one highly indebted country to another highly indebted country, and that's the United States, don't even want to get you on the fiscal

situation in the United States. Let's stick to monetary policy if we may.

The Federal Reserve, not expected to cut in interest rates tomorrow. But I think perhaps the forecast now are more interesting in light of recent

inflation data coming in a little bit higher than I think perhaps they would hope and others anticipated.

What do you think they end up doing this year and at least telling us they anticipate doing when they've produced the report tomorrow.

RAJAN: Well, for sure the language remain, we are sort of watching the data. We are going to be data contingent. I think Chairman Powell in his

last couple of public remarks had said, well, we may be getting to the point where we will cut, but of course he hasn't said when and my guess is

that there are two pieces of data we will see in what comes out.

One of course, is the dot-plots, the famous dot-plots where the members sort of say what will happen over the year. The last set of dot-plots said

three cuts by the end of the year. Maybe it goes down to a couple.

Of course, it is not going to be clear when they will start, probably midyear sometime is the most likely guess, provided inflation cooperates.

And the other big issue that they will opine on is what they will do with the quantitative easing where the Federal Reserve is shrinking its balance

sheet, are they going to slow it down? Will they say something about when it is enough? How big a balance sheet would the Fed hold? And that's

important when we start talking about things like market liquidity.

Already, the Japanese decision means liquidity will be lowered through the year. And of course, if the Fed also continuous quantitative tightening at

the pace at which it is doing. That will also means lower market liquidity going forward.


CHATTERLEY: Yes, this is so important. The decisions of both of these Central Banks for investment flows around the world, really critical. Thank

you for explaining it.

Raghu Rajan, fantastic to have you on the show, sir, thank you.

RAJAN: Thank you.

CHATTERLEY: Okay. Consumer goods giant, Unilever seems to have lost its taste for ice cream. It has announced that it will spin off its market

dominating ice cream unit and create the world's biggest ice cream business in the process.

The new company will be made up of household names like Magnum, Ben & Jerry's and Walls, whose sales hit more than $8 billion last year. It's a

big business.

The split follows a period of frosty relations between Ben & Jerry's and Unilever over the ice cream brand's activist values.

Let's get to Nathaniel Meyersohn on this story.

I want to make it about problem child, Ben & Jerry's, but I don't think it is. It is a bigger story than that, Nathaniel. Just talk us through this

decision and what they'll save as a result.

NATHANIEL MEYERSOHN, CNN BUSINESS REPORTER: Julia, it is a bigger story than just the tension between Unilever and Ben & Jerry's. It is really

about where the ice cream market is right now and where the company and the food market is.

So you look at Ben & Jerry's sales. They were up about two percent last year. So that's slower growth than Unilever has experienced throughout the

company. So it is Unilever's weakest unit right now.

And also, Unilever can save money by spinning off Ben & Jerry's. You think of the Unilever supply chain. They have brands like Hellmann's Mayonnaise,

Dove soap and shampoo, those are those are dry products versus Ben & Jerry's and Magnum which are cold supply chain products. So it is tougher

to integrate the two of those.

And then global ice cream consumption has actually dropped the last several years. People are not eating as much Magnum and other ice creams as they

used, too, surprisingly.

We looked for Ben & Jerry's, but there was no Ben & Jerry's at the store.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. You know what? One of the things I was going to ask you is whether this is tied to weight loss drugs as well. I saw that Morgan

Stanley was citing data saying it is one of the things that people are cutting and they are substituting for things like yogurt and fish.

So it might also be strategically time towards booming weight loss drugs as well. But we don't have time for it, I am being told off.

Nathaniel, great to have you with us. Thank you so much for that.

Okay, still to come, chaos in Haiti. Residents and local police join forces to fight the gangs. CNN reports from inside the capital amid the capital

amid the violence.



CHATTERLEY: Hello, I'm Julia Chatterley, and there's more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment when we'll get a report from on the ground in Haiti

where evidence of gang rule and violence is everywhere. And Argentina's president facing opposition to his vision 100 days into office. But before

that, the headlines this hour.

Gaza's civil defense says Al Shifa Hospital is under siege as Israel presses ahead with a military operation. The IDF says it's going after

militants using the hospital as cover. It says it's killed more than 50 so far. Thousands of civilians are sheltering at the complex. One doctor warns

it could become a, quote, "mass grave."

The International Olympic Committee is slamming Russia's Friendship Games, quote, "set for September." The IOC says the competition is a political

stunt. It also accuses the Russian government of total disrespect for anti- doping measures. Russia cannot officially participate in the Olympics due to the war in Ukraine.

And Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro has been indicted for alleged fraud. He's accused of ordering an aid to falsify COVID-19 vaccination

records. The former president's closest aide and 15 others are also accused of participating in the scheme. Bolsonaro's lawyer calls the indictment


And here in the United States now where a former member of Donald Trump's inner circle is now behind bars. Peter Navarro served as trade adviser in

the Trump White House. Back in September, a jury found Navarro guilty of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the panel that was

investigating the January 6th Capitol attack. Before reporting to prison, he called the verdict against him a, quote, "unprecedented assault."


PETER NAVARRO, FORMER TRUMP ADVISER: Every person who has taken me on this road to that prison is a freaking Democrat and a Trump hater. This is the

partisan weaponization of our judicial system.


CHATTERLEY: Katelyn Polantz joins us now.

Katelyn, to be specific, he said it was an unprecedented assault on the constitutional separation of powers, and he tied his situation to how Trump

could end up being treated, which I found quite interesting insofar as Trump is yet to face any criminal consequences for any of the crimes that

he's been charged with. It was an interesting comparison.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It is. What Peter Navarro is saying, the way it boils down is he's saying that this is

an attack on people who served in the Trump White House or in and around the presidency, that there should be some level of protection there.

That is not the case for Peter Navarro. He was subpoenaed by Congress, the U.S. House, to testify in turn over documents in their January 6th, 2020

election inquiry. He didn't respond to them in any substantial way. He barely -- he didn't turn over anything to them and he didn't show them any

evidence that Donald Trump was trying to invoke the authority of the presidency to protect Peter Navarro from having to participate in this


When the courts gave him an opportunity to show that as well, show any evidence he had that he should have had that bubble around him as a member

of the Trump White House, he had nothing to show. And so because he forfeited all of those opportunities, that is why the courts now are not

stepping in there, allowing him to go to prison. He was convicted by a jury in Washington, D.C. for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over

documents and failing to provide that testimony.


So Peter Navarro says this is bad for the executive branch, but actually the facts of his case are very specific, and Julia, he is one of the only

people in recent memory, in decades, to be apprehended and in prison held, detained for some time because of a refusal to participate in a

congressional inquiry like this.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. More history in the making. Katelyn Polantz in Washington, thank you.

Now the humanitarian situation in Haiti is deteriorating. Armed gangs are choking off the supply of food, fuel, and water. And aid organizations say

they're running out of life-saving medical supplies, too.

David Culver reports from inside the capital Port-au-Prince.


DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Port-au- Prince feels post-apocalyptic.

This is basically the aftermath of a war zone.

(Voice-over): Driving through the battlegrounds between gangs and police, we dodge massive craters and piles of burning trash. The police control

these roads leading to Haiti's international airport, for today at least. It's been shut for weeks. Out front, checkpoints to search for suspected

gang members and an armored truck to keep watch. It sits beaten and battered.

Less than a month ago, we flew in and out on commercial flights here. Now, it's desolate. The country is in chaos, essentially held hostage by gangs

eager to expand their reign of terror. Over the weekend, more businesses looted and cars stolen, gangs leaving behind a scorched path of ruin.

We're headed to one of the last remaining hospital trauma centers that's still functioning in Port-au-Prince.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: February 29th was probably the worst.

CULVER (voice-over): As soon as we meet one of the doctors, a call comes in.

Go ahead if you need to get it.

(Voice-over): A gunshot victim heading into surgery. He takes us to him.

Most of those cases that are brought here are gunshot victims from the gang violence.

(Voice-over): With the patient's family giving us permission, we go in as staff prepare to operate. We're told the 24-year-old truck driver was

caught in the crossfire between police and gangs.

The doctor is showing me here images that are very disturbing, but they show an entry wound of a bullet basically around the temple and went right

through and caused damage to at least one eye.

(Voice-over): The doctor tells us the man has lost vision in both eyes. Another bullet hit his arm.

And so they will have to amputate his arm?


CULVER (voice-over): We peer into the ICU. It's full.

Are most of these gunshot victims?


CULVER: All of them are.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She's in pain. She feels a pain in her leg.

CULVER: And so how did it happen? Where were you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was going to the market.

CULVER (voice-over): 86 years old, a reminder no one is shielded from the violence that's gripped Haiti's capital in recent weeks.

Police are exhausted. One local commander telling me morale is broken and that the gangs have more money and resources than they do. Low on ammo,

their squad cars out of gas. It is personal for the commander.

He was forced out with his family from their own home, and now this is his home essentially.

(Voice-over): The police, at least in this community, do have backup in the form of local residents.

Do you feel like gangs are trying to move in and take this area?


CULVER (voice-over): While many community leaders call for peace, they admit they're tired of feeling threatened. So much so some have created

their own checkpoints and barricades, staffed 24/7, redirecting traffic and determining who comes in. Not everyone gets out.

You can see right here at this intersection there's a massive burn pile. This is actually where the community takes justice into their own hands.

About a week ago was the most recent such case. They captured four suspected gang members. They brought them here, killed them with machetes,

and set their bodies on fire.

(Voice-over): The gruesome vigilante acts recorded in part as a warning to the gangs. But even amid utter turmoil, life moves forward, and with it,

moments to celebrate. Outside a church, these bridesmaids excitedly awaiting their cue to walk down the aisle.

Port-au-Prince is a city now shattered by the relentless blasts of violence that have forced more than 300,000 of its residents out of their homes.

Where are you staying here? Where's your home in this facility? Right up there?

(Voice-over): They take refuge in places like this school, classrooms turned dorm rooms, where more than 1500 people cram in.

So she's showing us this is all her stuff that she's been able to bring.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's her stuff. Yes.

CULVER: And this is where she is set up right now.


(Voice-over): In the classroom next door, we meet this woman, her husband killed by gang members. She and her 5-year-old, like many here, have been

forced to move every few weeks.

We're sleeping hungry, we're in misery, she tells me. We'd probably be better off dead than living this life.

Adding to the complication for those folks is the reality that they are not only facing threats from gangs, but as they described it to me, they're

also being ostracized from the communities in which they are now essentially camping out in. They say those neighbors don't want them there

and will likewise attack them because they feel like having these refugees now within their community is drawing the gangs' attention and potentially

bringing more violence to their homes.

David Culver, CNN, Port-au-Prince, Haiti.


CHATTERLEY: OK. So still to come tonight, Princess Kate's video out and about shopping near her home. The question is, will it end the speculation

over her whereabouts? We'll have the latest next.


CHATTERLEY: Welcome back. After rampant speculation of her whereabouts, Catherine, the Princess of Wales, has been spotted in public. A British

tabloid released this video of Kate and Prince William shopping near their home in Windsor this past weekend. Princess Kate, of course, has been

recovering from an abdominal surgery she underwent back in January, according to Kensington Palace.

And now, there's a claim that another official photograph taken by Kate of the late Queen Elizabeth and her family was digitally manipulated.

Max Foster has more.


MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Smiling, happy, and seemingly healthy, new video, not sanctioned by the palace, but reassuring

royalists that the couple are well. British tabloids also celebrating Kate's re-emergence and apparent recovery from surgery.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it's good to see that she's back and hopefully she's doing well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm sure that it'd be quite nice for her to walk around, do some shopping with her husband.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn't really have any doubts. Just a bit weird, wasn't it?

FOSTER: Weird because of the conspiracy theories that have swamped social media in recent weeks, filling a void of information from the palace. And

the video did nothing to quell them as it was accused of being fake. Trust in any royal imagery undermined in part by Kensington Palace itself after

it sent out not one but two doctored photos to the news media, both taken by the princess.


Kate's edited Mother's Day photo, manipulated in several places, and now this one released last year, which Getty Images has now labeled digitally

enhanced. CNN found inconsistencies in several spots, such as a misalignment on the Queen's skirt and blanket. Strands of Princess

Charlotte's hair appeared to have been cloned, and Prince Loui's shoulder is blurred, overlapping the background.

Getty told CNN in a statement it's reviewing all so-called royal handout images and placing where relevant an editor's note saying it could have

been digitally enhanced.

KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL HISTORIAN: William and Kate, Kensington Palace was so trusted at Christmas and now three months later we have a situation in

which whatever photo it's put out, people don't believe it.

FOSTER: The lack of information coming from the palace about the princess has created conspiracy theories often wild ones, which get worse when the

palace has been found to be manipulating images.

WILLIAMS: Either they should have said nothing and kept with that just as they said they were not going to say anything until there was significant

updates, or they should have put out a few little statements, perhaps a little statement from Kate saying, thank you for the lovely cards, and kept

people pull updated to a degree.

FOSTER: Seemingly unfazed and in good spirits, royals refusing to be distracted in public. Prince William making a long-planned visit to a

homelessness project in Sheffield. No lack of support there or from the papers. as the rumors continue online.


CHATTERLEY: And let's get straight to Max Foster now.

The quote of the entire episode, Max, a bit of a weird one from that young lady. It's great to see her looking well. I think first and foremost that's

the most important thing despite what we don't know in this situation. It's good to see her looking well and happy, and bouncing around I think there.

The problem is this trust deficit that now appears to be surrounding the palace and surrounding them.

How big is that or is this something else that's just being in many ways blown up by social media and the press, in a similar way that the

conspiracy theories will?

FOSTER: Yes. I think time will tell on that. They're definitely playing the long game. They decided they had a communications plan when she went into

hospital, only coming up with relevant updates and not responding to any pressure from the media. And they've literally stuck to that even when

images like this come out, which we know to be true, which they're not officially confirming because it wasn't official photography.

But it's certainly works for them to show that she is indeed well. But they just will not move away from this plan. The next part of that plan will be

when we see her next and we've been given some guidance about that, which is that it'll be around found Easter Time. So we're really waiting for

that. But it does nothing to calm or quell this, you know, surge of speculation online. A lot of it legitimate, of course, because there are

people genuinely concerned about her health.

And I think most people would have watched this video today and actually felt reassured. The ones that aren't reassured by it or maybe they are in a

way are all the conspiracy theorists who are making money from creating videos with lots of views and they will literally just say anything to fill

in the gaps. And today the example was that, you know, they were, you know, stunt doubles or something.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, I saw that, too. I mean, this is such a perception, at least in certain quarters, Max, that she's sort of a people's princess but

only on her terms as a result of what she's been through. This is a medical issue. The difference between her handling and obviously King Charle's has

been very different and perhaps been that much more stark because they happened at the same time. Is that harsh to say? And again, do you think

they can just move on from this?

FOSTER: Well, you're right to point out -- yes, a massive difference. And even today, we have photos of King Charles at Buckingham Palace meeting

Korean War veterans. We're getting several updates about him. I think, you know, fundamentally that is about the fact that he is the head of state. We

have an absolute right for regular health updates. We're not getting them in terms of medical texts.

We're getting them in terms of pictures. And they have to give us that because he is the head of state and we have a huge interest in that. Kate

isn't. And she will be queen one day, but she's not yet. So they feel that until that happens they can play it differently and they are allowed more


CHATTERLEY: Yes. And will continue to do so. Max Foster, great to have you. Thank you.

Now he promised to get Argentina's inflation under control, but now poverty is growing and protests are multiplying. What's next for Javier Milei's

presidency and the nation just ahead.


CHATTERLEY: Welcome back. He promised to take a chainsaw to Argentina's excess spending and pushed through painful austerity measures and reforms.

100 days into Javier Milei's presidency and he's done just that. Yet since he took office, Argentina's sky-high inflation has been slowing but now

poverty levels are rising sparking widespread anger and frustration.

Stefano Pozzebon has more.


STEFANO POZZEBON, JOURNALIST: It's still the afternoon when the soup kitchen in Buenos Aires opens for dinner, and for many including children,

these is their only meal of the day.

Walter Torres is a regular. He comes here every night, he says, since he lost his unemployment benefit last year.

Look how many we are. These people had a job or some plan. And now they're queuing for food. Our salary is worth nothing.

This charity was born as a shelter for the homeless with the capacity for 50 people, but most of the over 200 meals handed out today are taken away

and eaten at home. Volunteers asking for IDs to make sure nobody hoards on food, which is scarce for everyone. Inside, the kitchen is in full motion.

Some of the guests are our own neighbors who I would have never imagined they needed charity, says this volunteer. And next to the kitchen, a

clothing bank.

This is another aspect of the new poverty crisis here in Argentina. When these service was started it was mostly for homeless people, adults, while

instead here you see the sizes of 4 years old, four, five, six, seven, 8 years old, meaning that the families can no longer afford to buy the

clothes for their little ones.

Argentina's poverty rate was already rising before President Javier Milei took office in December. Since then, his focus has been on an austerity

drive to bring inflation down. His reforms like devaluing the Argentinian peso over 50 percent were applauded abroad but punished many in Argentina,

who have seen their salaries collapsed and can no longer afford to buy food.

Getting today's fair at the supermarket out of the question for these worker. While the analysts' verdict is still open --

MACARENA MICHIENZI, LEAD SPECIALIST, CEFEIDAS GROUP: I think we have to see how much the people is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and to

maybe adjust their budget.


Milei's Interior minister pleading for patients in an interview with CNN. "What we want is for people to receive their benefits themselves, and stop

relying on food kitchens. But changing the system takes time."


CHATTERLEY: And let's bring in Stefano Pozzebon in Argentina's capital Buenos Aires.

Stefano, the economist part of my brain exploding with how quickly he's moving on this, and one could argue that their populist policies of the

last, what, several decades haven't helped the nation either. But I can understand why people are scared in the face of the changes that are coming

and the subsidies that are being slashed.

Do they have the patience to withstand it because he did say it would get harder before it got better?

POZZEBON: Yes. Julia, this is the question on everyone's mind here in Buenos Aires and everywhere from New York to Beijing if you care about

Argentina. How long would it last and will the people's patience run out?

I think this is an interesting story, Julia, because more than 15 years after the Greek debt crisis and the euro debt crisis, there's now a new

head of state, Milei, who is spreading the austerity gospel, slashing down costs, trying to bring all the benefits down, and to say that, like he said

in that piece and when he took office, there is no more money and so everybody needs to tighten the belt.

Right now Milei is still popular here in Argentina. Most of the people we spoke this week in Buenos Aires have been telling us that they all agree

that something needs to be done. And frankly that a shake in the system like the one that Milei is proposing is much welcome. It's been 20 years of

continuous economic crisis, one after the other here in Argentina. But at the same time, they are worried that those who will end up paying the bill,

foot in the bill, will be the poor, the most vulnerable, like the people that we met in that food kitchen.

Those are people, Jua, that are not poor. This is Latin America. Poverty is an issue and is spread. But those people were the ones right on the

threshold between poverty and the middle class. And they feel that because of Milei they're falling down -- Julia.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. And these are voters, of course, so you can understand the pushback from Congress and courts, too, that he's facing.

Stefano, great to get your report. Thank you. Stefano Pozzebon there in Buenos Aires.

And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I'm Julia Chatterley, the closing bell ringing on Wall Street. And "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts now.



GORKA: Hate Bibi Netanyahu?

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I actually think they hate Israel.


TRUMP: I don't think they hate him, I think they hate Israel. And the Democratic Party hates Israel. Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats

hates their religion, they hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel will be destroyed.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: It's a fairly shocking thing for a presidential candidate to say about any religious minority.