Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Trump Administration Ramps Up Threats As Harvard Resists; European Visitors To U.S. Plunge Under Trump Administration; Bloomberg: China Has Halted Deliveries Of All Boeing Aircraft; Mark Zuckerberg Takes Stand On Day Two At Meta Antitrust Trial; Hearing In Case Of Wrongfully Deported Maryland Man; Hamas Says It's Lost Contact With Militants Holding Hostage Edan Alexander; Merchants In New York's Chinatown Concerned By New Tariffs; Canadian Superhero Back In Action Amid Tariff Wars. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 15, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:05:12]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street. Axis Capital has the honor of doing the deed today.
The market bifurcated in a sense. We were up all morning and then suddenly fallen sharply there, but we are only really about a hundred either way.
Let's have the gavel. One, two, three. Wimpy gavel.
Nothing right to write home about from Axis Capital. The markets and the main event that you and I are talking about.
President Trump is threatening to tax Harvard as a political entity after the University refuses to cave in to his demands.
There are alarm bells for U.S. tourism, as the number of overseas visitors falls. We will hear from Skift on their latest report.
And the chief executive of Swiss Re is with us tonight. His take on adapting to the world of increased risk.
We are live in New York on Tuesday, April the 15th, middle of the month. I am Richard Quest and I mean business.
Good evening.
We start tonight with the escalating threats from the Trump administration going head-to-head, toe-to-toe with Harvard University.
The U.S. President now says the school could lose its tax exempt status, accusing Harvard of not acting in the public interest. Mr. Trump has
already frozen more than $2 billion worth of federal funds after the school refused government demands for reforms. They included getting rid of
diversity programs and screening international students.
Trump officials say they are combating antisemitism after multiple incidents involving students from elite universities responded to the war
in Gaza.
The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, says, anyway, Harvard doesn't need the money.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: More than $2 billion out the door to Harvard when they have a more than $50 billion endowment. Why are
the American taxpayers subsidizing a university that has billions of dollars in the bank already? And we certainly should not be funding a place
where such grave antisemitism exists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: The escalation is now pitting the President against one of the most important, famous and valuable educational institutions, if not
institutions per se, in the United States. Just look at this. Harvard was founded in 1636, so it is older than the United States itself. It has
educated eight U.S. Presidents, a popular icon in culture depicted in movies like "Social Network" and even "Legally Blond."
It is a private, nonprofit institution. It receives federal funding for research and other projects. In 2021, nine percent of the total revenue,
including Harvard, came from the federal government.
Kevin Liptak is at the White House.
The administration must feel that it is on strong ground going against such an important organization as Harvard, even though many of the people in the
building behind you will be alums from Harvard.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and President Trump is someone who in the past has pointed to a Harvard degree as sort of the
ultimate qualifier to work in his own administration. He is someone who sees the Ivy League as the best picking ground for his own aides. So it is,
I think, somewhat ironic that he has picked this fight with Harvard.
Yes, I do think he believes that he is on solid political ground, at least with his own supporters trying to paint Harvard as essentially a hotbed not
only of antisemitism, but of liberalism and a campus that is hostile to conservatives, I am not entirely sure that he will be on solid legal
ground, because when you talk to academics in the United States, they do see this all heading to the courts, challenging the freeze of that $2.2
billion in funds for the university.
And I think it is important to note where that money is going. You know, it is not going necessarily to support, you know, these undergraduate programs
that had been in the administration's views, hotbeds of antisemitism, it is going to medical research and science research, places that are trying to
develop, for example, cures to cancer. That's part of what the federal government is funding up in Cambridge.
And so I think, it is just important to note where that money is actually going.
QUEST: Right. Why do you think Harvard didn't cave when other universities did?
LIPTAK: Because they have a $50 billion endowment and can afford to stand up to the Trump administration in a way that a lot of these other Ivy
League schools can't, and I am thinking, for example, Columbia University, which faced a very similar list of demands from the Trump administration
and came to a settlement with them just in the last few weeks, their endowment is far smaller than Harvard's.
[16:05:18]
Harvard is the oldest university, but it is also the wealthiest in the country, and it has a lot of money behind it to both fund potentially some
of these lawsuits, but also to fill any gaps where that federal funding might be stopped.
QUEST: And on this question, I mean, one of the things about Harvard, which I was always fascinated to read, is that apparently, you know, they don't
even look at students or potential students. They don't even look at whether you can pay before they accept you.
They are completely blind on the question of resources and they basically will pay anybody's fees and living expenses if they get in and can't afford
to go.
LIPTAK: Yes, and that is where a lot of that endowment ends up going, particularly for, you know, the undergrads at Harvard in the attempt to
make it a more egalitarian campus. You know, if you are smart enough to get in, you'll be able to go even if you can't afford to go there.
I think from the Trump administration's perspective, all of that money can be used to separate itself out from the federal government, and in an era
when President Trump is one, trying to cut down on government funding all across the board, but two, when he is trying to go after institutions in
the United States, whether it is in higher education or the arts or law firms or the media, that this is an area that they think they can go after.
And so, you know, it remains to be seen how this will play out in the courts. But it is, you know, the first example really, that we've seen in
academia of putting up this resistance to ever more aggressive Trump administration.
QUEST: Kevin, I am grateful.
David Walt is one of the professors hit by the Trump funding Freeze. The professor is part of Harvard's Medical School and has lost hundreds of
thousands of dollars in research grants. It follows months after he was awarded the National Medal of Technology and Innovation, the highest honor
in his field. The professor joins me now from Massachusetts.
Professor, so you've lost this grant money. Was it specifically lost in a sense, you know, you were told you were losing it or was it just a whole
swathe of grants were withdrawn and yours was unfortunately one of them.
DR. DAVID R. WALT, PROFESSOR, BIOLOGICALLY INSPIRED ENGINEERING, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Well, Richard, I am not quite sure how to answer that question
because there is very little information. Last week, I received notice that my grant funding for a grant that is aimed at early diagnosis of ALS, also
known as Lou Gehrig's disease was canceled for the second year. I am presently in the first year of the grant and that it would end, effective
June 30th.
This morning when I came to the office and opened my e-mail, I was shocked to find that I had received notice from the Department of Health and Human
Services that even this year's funding was canceled, effective immediately.
I have three people working on this project here at Harvard, who I will need to find other funds or simply stop working on the project.
QUEST: That was going to be my next question. The effect of this. Let's look at the effect in terms of research. And, you know, try not to lose me
with too much of the detail in terms of the technical detail, but the research that you're doing is designed to do what? And who will be the
loser as a result of it not continuing?
WALT: Well, I think the big picture, before I get to my own specific research is that cancellation of funding to researchers across the U.S.
will delay medical progress and will threaten public health. There is no question about those outcomes.
This cancellation -- these cancellations will cost lives that could potentially have been saved in the future if the medical research was
allowed to continue.
Look, I am not young, but I am still doing research because I am committed to helping patients. My lab, specifically works on neurodegenerative
diseases, cancer, infectious diseases that have the potential to enable early detection. They can help discover new drugs, and they can potentially
lead to cures for these devastating diseases.
[16:10:13]
And so if we can even solve one of these problems, it will benefit many, many patients. That's my motivation, and to take that opportunity away from
me and other dedicated researchers, in my opinion, is a travesty.
QUEST: When you are in the canteen and the cafeteria and in the staff dining rooms and bars, and you're talking to your fellow professors, your
fellow faculty, how damaging is this firstly, to Harvard as an institution and secondly, to, if you will, research USA as a world class home of
innovation and research?
WALT: Yes, you know, I think that at least the effect on Harvard is to be determined, as I understand it, you know, there is possibility of this
going to the courts. I am not involved in any of that, but I can answer the second part of your question. And, you know, I think these cancellations, I
think one of the biggest effects is that they are going to affect young people who want to enter these STEM fields.
You know, job hiring here is paused. Acceptances into graduate programs are being cut, and the future workforce in these fields of science and
technology will not be here in the U.S. This is going to have devastating consequences on innovation, education and the economy for years to come.
The U.S., in my opinion, is ceding our science and technology leadership to China and to other countries.
QUEST: Professor, we will check in with you again as this continues. Because if we may, sir, and I am grateful and honored that you took time
tonight to speak to us. Thank you for joining us, professor. Thank you.
WALT: Thank you.
QUEST: In just a moment, I've got a statistic that you really will want to know about. Apparently, 60 percent of travelers say the reason they are not
coming to the United States is because of fear and anger over Trump policies. And this new survey from Skift gives the details of how much it
is dropping, the number of visitors and the reasons why and it really is quite extraordinary.
Canada down 36 percent, Germany down 31 percent. The U.K. off 21 percent. The Skift editor-in-chief after the break. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:15:38]
QUEST: The new traveler numbers to the United States are really quite dramatic. The Trump administration is putting travelers off actually coming
to the U.S.
Arrivals from overseas fell nearly 12 percent in March compared to last year. I can't remember ever seeing numbers like this outside a pandemic or
something like that. The numbers from Europe are particularly sharp. From the U.K., down 14 percent. Britain is the top source of overseas tourists
to the U.S. That is going to hurt big time.
Spain down 25 percent. Germans are really not interested in visiting the U.S. right now, with arrivals off 28 percent. And the reason is not a
secret. The Skift survey of travelers across five countries, 46 percent of them said they are less likely to visit the U.S. because of Donald Trump.
Only about a quarter said they were more likely.
Sarah Kopit is with me, the editor-in-chief of Skift.
When I see that the reasons are fear and anger, 60 percent say that's the reason that they've canceled. And the quotes -- here, I am just trying to
find the quote page. Some of the U.K. tourists were basically, "I am concerned about being arrested and detained while going through Customs,"
concerns relating to LGBT, trade and tariff policies.
This is just the beginning.
SARAH KOPIT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, SKIFT: Yes, absolutely.
I mean, the world is angry. They are upset with the United States right now. I mean, look. Donald trump and his administration ran on an America
First policy and we are seeing right now the results of what that means in practice at the border.
QUEST: Then you get a few very high profile detentions. The Australian woman, and there is a man, a couple of people from Germany, a British
woman, highly publicized back in their own country. And what happens?
KOPIT: Yes, I mean, look, travelers, they are really telling us loud and clear, we just don't want to come to the United States right now.
Now, interestingly enough, 74 percent of our respondents did say when Donald Trump was no longer in office, they would be more than happy to come
back to the United States. We do get the impression that the beef here is really with the Trump administration, not the American people necessarily.
But yes, these high profile incidents that have really gotten a huge amount of worldwide press don't do the United States any favors for its inbound
travel market.
QUEST: A lot of people will still come because they're locked into tickets that they've already bought. I guess the real tone of this will be after
the summer. And now, when I was at A-4E in Brussels a couple of weeks ago, the airlines then said they weren't seeing any evidence of this in forward
bookings.
Since then, we've had Virgin Atlantic sort of hinting that it is not as rosy. What are you hearing on that front?
KOPIT: Yes, so you know, one of the things that's happened, as you well know, from reporting business news, is that the tariff kerfuffle to put it
kindly, has really impacted the world over and above what is going to happen to, you know, the price of toys and whatever.
It has really kind of taken -- I think it has kind of taken everybody's breath away, right? And it has played with people's money. It has played
with people's bank accounts. And so, you know, and that's relatively new.
And this Skift survey, we did it in April. So this is very new data, so I think that anything that was too backwards looking, stuff is changing so
quickly. It is -- you know, it is like you can step out and come back and everything is different. So --
QUEST: So people like Fred Dixon of course, who is head of Brand USA, how on earth do you sell to the United -- now, tourism has always been
extremely important in some states -- California, Florida, New York, less so in other states, but it is going to be very difficult to sell Brand USA.
KOPIT: Yes, I mean, you know, the United States is a big country. We are far more than our politics. I think that is what is dominating the news
cycle right now and that is what you're seeing here in this report that we just had.
[16:20:00]
But, you know, I think if I were Fred, you know, maybe I'd take a bit of a cheeky approach. I don't know if we would want to anger the Trump
administration, but, you know, perhaps, that's the solution that we are more than our than administration.
QUEST: How bad do you think it is going to get in the winter and after the summer?
KOPIT: You know, I think people are mad right now, but I -- the United States, people want to come here. They've always wanted to come here in the
modern era. I hope that if there can be a little bit of certainty that's built up, if maybe some of these edge outlier cases go away, people will
become a little bit more willing to travel and cross the border, you know, just your regular average person that shouldn't have any problem
whatsoever. So, that's my hope.
QUEST: I do need to ask, of course, there is the anomaly in your -- you looked at five, six or so countries -- Canada, Germany, India, Mexico, U.K.
Why was India up 41 percent? Was there some unique factor on that that you managed to determine?
KOPIT: India is a really interesting case because India has such a strong and growing middle class that is new for them. So traveling is new for that
bunch of travelers, and I think that they really they're kind of putting this aside, it has been like I've wanted to go to the U.S. for a long time,
and I am going to book my trip. Yes.
QUEST: It is great to see you, Sarah. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
KOPIT: Thank you.
QUEST: Thank you very much.
The Skift report has Canada, by the way, down 36 percent. I mentioned this, Sarah, because our next guest is in Canada. Thank you, Sarah.
In Canada, it is Paula, and Paula is talking about telling us about Boeing now caught in the middle of the trade war between the U.S. and China.
Bloomberg says Beijing has halted all deliveries of all Boeing jets. President Trump posted about it on social. He says China has reneged on the
big Boeing deal and refused to take possession of committed aircraft. Boeing shares, not surprisingly, are down 2.5 percent. Boeing was expected
to deliver 29 planes to China this year.
BOA, Bank of America says it should be able to easily redirect them to other carriers.
Our Paula Newton is with me.
We will split this discussion into two parts. We will discuss, first of all, let's do the planes.
Very difficult for Boeing. They made the planes. They can't -- the Chinese government won't let Boeing deliver them or won't let the airlines accept
delivery. What happens?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, the bottom line is China is trying to send a message to the Oval Office. Now, I will
say that China will not comment. Boeing will not comment. But, Richard, you know, more than many that this has had a chilling effect, the trade dispute
between China and the Trump administration since Trump's first administration, and Boeing is in the crosshairs.
And let's put this in context. I know we say on the air all the time, Richard, right? There is no such thing as an American made car anymore. You
know what? Boeing passenger planes, an American made passenger plane, almost everything in that plane, as you well know, is made in America. Two-
thirds of everything made by Boeing for those commercial jets is exported.
It is one of really the largest contributors to GDP in the United States. So that's the stakes, right? But what does this mean for China, especially
given that the order book for China did not look good going way back to 2019?
I do have a couple questions for you, though, if you want to keep going.
QUEST: No, you go ahead.
NEWTON: I want -- I seriously doubt and there is nuance here about if this is actually going to mean much to Boeing, given the fact that it is not too
big to fail, but Boeing is too big to ignore. Youve got Airbus and you've got Boeing, and a lot of airlines are clamoring for those planes.
So I ask you, Richard, do you think this is China's opportunity to really, in the next five to 10 years, rely on its domestic production? And is it an
opportunity for Airbus to really gain market share over Boeing?
QUEST: Oh, the second part is, yes. I don't think it is going to last that long because there are all sorts of contractual issues. Boeing can't just
take those planes and give them to somebody else if the deposits have been paid. So there is a legal quagmire about who owns the plane, who is
entitled to it. Does Boeing just have to keep it in the delivery run line for the future?
And secondly, on this, you may have seen last week, Ed Bastian of Delta said he is damned if he is going to pay a 20 percent tariff on his Airbus
planes being delivered from Toulouse. So the whole aircraft question is very murky and no one is quite sure because of the nature of those
contracts.
[16:25:02]
NEWTON: Yes, and forgive me, Richard, what you say really, given your expertise in this area, is key, and that's why I actually found Donald
Trump's response on social media a bit tepid, and I think you and I both know that.
QUEST: And I have one more one more question back to you. The Skift report has Canadian arrivals down 36 percent and anecdotal comments just trying to
find them from Canadians, tariffs on Canada threats, we will take our money elsewhere. You're in Ottawa. Do you have friends colleagues whatever up
there who have decided they are not coming? Give me the anecdotal. I've got the stats.
NEWTON: Besides the hard data, Richard, the first inkling I had is when my sister-in-law called me. It is spring break. This was several weeks ago,
earlier in March. She said, Paula, we are at the border. There is no one here. There is no line from the border from Canada by car to get into the
United States during spring break. That is all anyone had to hear, and I knew these numbers would come out in terms of the hard data.
And I can tell you, Richard, for the summer, forget about it. There are not Canadians contemplating trips to the United States in large numbers
anymore.
QUEST: Paula, I am not sure which one of us interviewed which one, but it was great and we certainly covered a lot of ground. Thank you.
NEWTON: I got it worked.
QUEST: Thank you.
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight, a federal hearing is underway in Maryland in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. You know, the chap at the center
of the legal battle wrongly sent to El Salvador. I will bring you up-to- date in a moment.
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Hello, I am Richard Quest. Together, we will enjoy a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS when the chief executive of Swiss Re, one of Europe's
biggest insurance companies will be with me and we will talk about the conventional measures of managing risk and how they've reached their limit.
There is too much risk everywhere.
And a report from New York's Chinatown, the effects of the tariffs are already being felt. We will get to all of it, but only after the news,
because this is CNN and on this network, the news always comes first.
QUEST: And a report from New York's Chinatown, the effects of the tariffs already being felt. We'll get to all of it but only after the news because
this is CNN and on this network, the news always comes first.
[16:30:11]
President Trump is suggesting that Harvard University should lose its tax exempt status. It's the latest salvo in the faceoff between the White House
and the university. The Trump administration is freezing $2.2 billion in federal funding for research and other things after Harvard refused to meet
the government's demands to make a number of policy changes.
The armed wing of Hamas says it's lost contact with the militants holding the last living American hostage in Gaza. Israel's military bombed the
location, they say, where Edan Alexander, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, was being held. We cannot independently confirm those claims.
Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been on the stand for the second day in his company's antitrust trial. The court heard that Zuckerberg considered
spinning off Instagram back in 2018 because he was concerned then about future antitrust pressure. The U.S. federal government has accused Meta of
building a social media monopoly.
And we stay with that Meta story where the chief exec, Zuckerberg, made a key disclosure at the company's antitrust trial. He admitted, Zuckerberg
admitted that he bought Instagram because it had a better camera quality than the one his company was trying to build for Facebook at the time.
It's Mr. Zuckerberg's second day testifying in the case that's been brought by the Federal Trade Commission. The case is alleging Meta used buy or bury
strategy to maintain an illegal monopoly over social media. The court has heard Zuckerberg considered spinning off Instagram because he was concerned
back in 2018 about future antitrust pressure.
Clare Duffy is with me.
Are any of these revelations smoking gun or killer?
CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: It's a good question, Richard. You can see over the past two days the way the FTC has sort of steadily tried to
build this case, that the acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 helped Meta to create this monopoly by quashing nascent competition.
And much of the questioning from the FTC's lawyer has focused on Zuckerberg's mindset, his internal communications ahead of those
acquisitions.
We saw a number of pieces of evidence presented where Zuckerberg is expressing being concerned about competition from those two platforms prior
to the acquisitions. And of course, that all could play into the FTC's argument here. But I do think the most interesting thing that we heard
today is that, you know, bit of information that you alluded to, Zuckerberg disclosing the fact that he actually considered spinning off Instagram in
2018 because he was concerned about future antitrust enforcement.
Here is what he said in a 2018 e-mail to other Meta executives. "As calls to break up the big tech companies grow, there is a non-trivial chance that
we will be forced to spin out Instagram and perhaps WhatsApp in the next five to 10 years anyways. This is one more factor we should consider since
even if we wanted to keep these apps together, we may not be able to."
And the interesting context here is that he was talking about concerns that Facebook was declining in popularity in comparison to those other apps. And
so if Meta had to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp, it would be left with a less popular product. So interesting as the FTC is sort of trying to build
this overall case.
Now, Meta's attorney has taken over to cross-examine Zuckerberg, and I think we'll start to get a better sense of the company's argument here, the
way they're building their strategy, and Meta's argument here is essentially that it can't be a monopoly because it has plenty of other
competition from platforms like TikTok and YouTube and Snapchat.
QUEST: I sort of see, I see where their argument is. But at the same time, the ubiquitous nature of them. And I guess I wonder how much of all of this
comes down to, as you and I have discussed, political pressure.
DUFFY: It's a good question. I think the challenge for the FTC here is going to be defining the market that Meta operates in, and that in theory,
it dominates, as the FTC is claiming here. Is it social media? Is it messaging? These apps often have sort of different functions that they
serve. And so I think that is the thing that the FTC is going to have to really successfully do here if it wants to win this case.
And the political pressure question is a great one as well. I mean, I think there still is an open question about whether President Trump could weigh
in on this case. Certainly Meta seems to be hoping that he will. They've formulated much of their argument in a way that sounds like it's appealing
to Trump. And a big part of what they're saying here is that U.S. regulators shouldn't be cracking down on an American tech giant at a time
when there is so much competition, especially from China.
[16:35:02]
So it will be interesting to see if Trump decides to weigh in on this FTC process that usually normally would be quite independent.
QUEST: Clare, good to see you. Thank you. Keep us informed.
Now at the moment, a federal hearing is underway in Maryland in the case of Kilmar Armando Garcia, the man, you know, you're familiar, the wrongly
deported to El Salvador. The hearing follows President Trump's meeting with the Salvadoran president, Nayib Bukele, at the White House. There, the two
leaders made clear that Garcia will not be returned to the U.S. despite the Supreme Court order saying that the White House must facilitate this.
Garcia's wife spoke emotionally ahead of the hearing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER VASQUEZ SURA, WIFE OF KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA: I will not stop fighting until I see my husband alive.
Kilmar, if you can hear me, stay strong. God hasn't forgotten about you. Our children are asking, when will you come home? And I pray for the day I
tell them the time and date that you'll return.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Priscilla Alvarez is with me, and I can't see how this resolves itself bearing in mind yesterday's two presidents and seemingly they just
going to -- I just can't see how this resolves itself without turning into a constitutional crisis.
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's exactly what they're trying to sort in the courtroom right now. This has been according to our
colleagues that are attending this hearing a very tense hearing. A judge who has shown some frustration because, again, she finds that her
questions, well, rather the answers to her questions by the Justice Department are not satisfactory.
And she has had some sharp words to that effect. For example, she says that both sides should have process, and quote, "There will be no tolerance for
gamesmanship or grandstanding." Something that she has been stressing over the course of this hearing in the back and forth with the Justice
Department is that there needs to be a record that is built, there needs to be evidence showing how they are facilitating the return of Abrego Garcia.
Now, to your point there earlier, given that Oval Office meeting that happened yesterday between President Trump and the Salvadoran president,
Nayib Bukele, she says that that doesn't matter when it comes to the court. She says, I don't consider what happened yesterday as really evidence
before this court yet, that is something that happened in the public forum. But she wants a record in the courtroom.
She wants that evidence to show how exactly they are facilitating his return. She also went on to say that she is, quote, "prepared to issue an
order which expands on the definition of," or rather, my definition of the word facilitate. And she goes on to say something else. She said, when a
wrongfully removed individual from the United States is outside the borders, it's not so cut and dry that all you have to do is remove domestic
barriers.
She says that because in the filings we've seen from the Justice Department, they're saying, look, we'll make it easy and we'll sort of work
through those domestic barriers should he return. But they say that anything else is really getting involved in foreign policy, and she is sort
of throwing some cold water on that and saying, I'm not trying to micromanage foreign affairs here.
QUEST: I keep -- I was just, while you and I were just talking earlier on, I was looking at the famous quote from Andrew Jackson, talking about Chief
Justice John Marshall. He famously said, Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, the chief justice, has made his decision. Now let him enforce it. And that's
going to be the issue here, both from the Supreme Court decision. Fine. A unanimous Supreme Court has said you must facilitate it. This judge may
say, yes, you've got to bring him back. But now let's see you enforce it.
ALVAREZ: Well, the question here is effectuating it. If the Supreme Court said that they have to facilitate but stopped short of requiring his
return.
QUEST: Right.
ALVAREZ: And also left some wiggle room when it comes to deference to foreign affairs. The question back to the lower court is the matter of
effectuating the return. What does that mean? What does that look like? And what has been true over the course of these proceedings that we have seen
the judge's note is that there appears to be a lack of desire, that there is still no record that is being built in terms of what exactly is being
done.
And the Justice Department was trying to point to that Oval Office meeting yesterday. But the federal judge is not having it and wants again there to
be filings in the court of record.
QUEST: How long can this go on, do you think?
ALVAREZ: That's a great question that is unanswered at the moment because, again, the Supreme Court didn't provide a deadline and the federal judge so
far, and I haven't looked at my screen here in the last few minutes, but they -- she also has not given a deadline again so far. So really the
matter of when this could get resolved still remains very much in the air.
QUEST: We'll take a break, and thank you, Priscilla. You can look at your screen. Have a quick look. Anything there that we should know about?
[16:40:01]
ALVAREZ: It's a tight timeline.
QUEST: Looking forward to talking more as this actually happens. Thank you. Priscilla Alvarez joining me from Washington.
It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight from New York. A very busy hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:43:19]
QUEST: Hamas's military wing is claiming it's lost contact with the militants, who are holding the last living American hostage. The Israeli
soldier Edan Alexander has dual citizenship and he had been at the center of the latest negotiations.
We're now told Hamas is studying Israel's first ceasefire proposal since the war resumed last month.
CNN's Jeremy Diamond reports from Tel Aviv.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Hamas's armed wing is claiming to have lost contact with the militants holding the Israeli
soldier Edan Alexander hostage in the Gaza Strip. They say they lost contact with those militants after an Israeli bombardment on the location
where Alexander was being held.
Now CNN cannot independently verify this claim made by the Al-Qassam Brigades. We have reached out to the Israeli military, as well as to the
Hostages and Missing Families Forum for comment on this matter. The Al- Qassam Brigades spokesman says that they are still trying to reach those militants, but have not been able to so far, effectively suggesting that
those militants as well as Alexander, could very well be dead or gravely injured.
Now, it is also important to note that the Al-Qassam Brigades has previously lied about the fate of at least one hostage. Last November, the
Al-Qassam Brigades released images of the body of what they said was a deceased Israeli female hostage. Her family was actually able to identify
her based on a tattoo on her arm, and that hostage was the Israeli soldier Daniella Gilboa, who was released by Hamas during the second ceasefire
agreement earlier this year.
[16:45:05]
She later said through her family that she had been forced to stage her death in those images that were later released and led her family to
believe that she had died. So it's important to note that because we simply do not know the veracity of this Hamas claim, but certainly it is
consequential and it comes at this critical moment when we are seeing some progress, or at least some momentum towards reaching a deal between Israel
and Hamas over another ceasefire agreement.
And Edan Alexander has been central to all of those proposals. In this latest Israeli proposal, which Hamas, we are told, is indeed studying,
reviewing and considering, Edan Alexander would be the first of 10 living hostages to be released in exchange for a 45-day truce and hundreds of
Palestinian prisoners being released from Israeli jails. We do not know whether this proposal will actually become a reality.
There is certainly a sense of optimism, a sense of progress, but it's also very clear that many gaps still remain. One of those is that this proposal
calls for Hamas to disarm, which is something that a senior Hamas official told us they are simply not willing to do. So again, it's clear there are
still many gaps. A lot still needs to be done for this proposal to become a reality. But certainly there are very, very active discussions right now
about another ceasefire in Gaza that could see the release of at least some of the 59 hostages still being held in the Gaza Strip.
Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: This is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. We'll be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Traditional dim sum noodle houses and bubble tea shops are at the heart of New York's Chinatown. Merchants in Manhattan say they're already
feeling the impact of tariffs, as the trade war between the two countries escalates. Sellers tell Ryan Young they're bracing for things to get even
worse.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RYAN YOUNG, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): New York City's Chinatown is home to a vibrant Asian community and culture. Many shop
owners in the popular tourist destination sell Chinese-made goods, goods that are being impacted by the U.S. tariffs on China, which U.S. President
Donald Trump raised to 145 percent last week.
[16:50:02]
Shops like this one rely almost entirely on inexpensive imports from China.
GEORGE MA, MAMA GROUP OWNER: I think, especially in Chinatown, you know, like our shops will be a little bit in very trouble because 90 percent, 95
percent is from China.
YOUNG: Mama Group sells trinkets, incense, lucky cats, and shirts with labels reading "Made in China." George Ma worries that the rising tensions
between the U.S. and China could severely disrupt his business, which relies heavily on spending from tourists. He says his customers will
ultimately bear the burden of higher prices from tariffs.
MA: China pays some or supplier pays some, we pay some, or, you know, everything come to the -- finally we come to the customer.
YOUNG: Many U.S. companies stockpiled ahead of the Trump tariffs, which has led to a surge in U.S. imports from China. But some companies now are
hitting pause on Chinese imports in hopes of lower tariffs in the future.
Ma says his supplier is already trying to get shipments delivered before May 2nd, but he worries there will be a halt if their trade issues
continue. The fate of his store will follow U.S.-China trade regulations, which remain a pressing issue for Trump.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We lost with China over the Biden years trillions of dollars on trade. Trillions of dollars. And he let
them fleece us, and we can't do that anymore. And you know what? I don't blame China at all. I don't blame President Xi. I like him. He likes me.
YOUNG: But the people who don't like it at all are the ones trying to run a business in Chinatown.
Ryan Young, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: Now, as you heard earlier in the program, the trade wars damaged the United States's reputation in Canada. It's also boosting the profile of one
homegrown superhero. It's Captain Canuck who burst onto the comic book scene decades ago. His fight for truth, justice, and the Canadian way today
seems extremely relevant as Paula Newton reports from Ottawa.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAPTAIN CANUCK, CANADIAN SUPERHERO: Happy Canada Day, folks.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, Canuck, get moving. There's a holiday crowd out there and we have less than three minutes.
NEWTON (voice-over): Canada's comic book superhero Captain Canuck is back, and this time he's taking on U.S. President Donald Trump.
In this 50th anniversary issue, Captain Canuck fights to protect Canada's independence from the U.S. Canuck's co-creator Richard Comely says he
wanted to bring the maple leaf covered hero back after Trump said he wanted Canada to become the 51st U.S. state and started his trade war with allied
countries.
RICHARD COMELY, CO-CREATOR, CAPTAIN CANUCK: All of a sudden Trump gets into office and he starts talking about annexation and tariffs. And yes, all of
a sudden, Canadians are looking to Captain Canuck as a symbol. And it's basically, to them, Captain Canuck symbolizes independence. No, thank you.
We have our own -- we have our own symbols.
NEWTON: Since 1975, Captain Canuck has been a symbol of Canadian strength, with story lines about fighting off foreign powers and groups who tried to
take over Canada.
COMELY: Never, never in any of those stories was it America that was going to be taking over Canada.
NEWTON: Captain Canuck has been popular in Canada for years, with a countless number of comic books, spinoffs, and even a Web series. Comely
says he has received lots of new interest in the character since political tensions began to rise between the U.S. and Canada.
COMELY: So in a sense, we have Mr. Trump to thank for a bit of resurgence.
NEWTON: Paula Newton, CNN, Ottawa.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: Mea culpa, my fault. Captain Canuck. Not Canuck. Please forgive me. I can feel the maple syrup being poured all over me. Tarred and feathered
and sent out into the big tundra. Anyway, you get the idea.
Wall Street down. The Dow Jones lost 155 points. It's hard to tell why. The sort of went funny in the middle of the day. No obvious reason other than
just ran out of steam. But it is the blue chips that were the worst of the session. The S&P as well. And the Nasdaq finished lower. The Dow 30.
Goldman is near the top after riding high on reporting record revenue last quarter. I still love the whole business of the CEO of Goldman trying to
doing a whole earnings call without mentioning the word tariffs once.
We're having a bet here. Can we get through one edition of QUEST MEANS BUSINESS without using the word tariffs? I'm not even going to try.
Walmart, Home Depot, Nike, all down, and Boeing, not surprisingly off the lowest point bearing in mind what we know about China halting deliveries of
Boeing jets.
[16:55:00]
We'll take a "Profitable Moment" after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment."
What I'm going to talk about now gives me absolutely no pleasure. When people go on holiday, they go away to enjoy themselves. They go to relax.
They go to experience new cultures, different people, you name it. All sorts of reasons people go on holiday. But now we are going to start seeing
the effects of the United States' isolationist and protectionist shift.
People don't go on holiday to worry about getting into the country. They don't worry, go on holiday to a place where they might have their phones
seized, or have an immigration officer or a customs officer demand you open the phone so that they can see what your social media posts are all about.
People don't want to go on holiday where the news is about foreigners being detained, questioned and then deported for whatever reason.
And that's why the Skift report that we talked about tonight is so worrying. Canadian visitors down 36 percent, the U.K. down 25 percent,
Germany down 20 percent. So on and so forth and onwards. It's never ending. And the comments I'm not going to the United States because I'm worried I
might get arrested.
What I think is going to happen here is I think once the summer rush is over and people have taken the tickets that they've already booked, I think
you're likely to see a very sharp downturn. Why would you spend money willingly going somewhere for a holiday when there are so many other
destinations where you might not have the same anxiety or problems and worries?
Again, I say it gives me absolutely no pleasure to talk about this having been here for so many years and I've covered travel. But the reality is
what's happening here is on a par that we're going to see tourism arrivals drop quite dramatically.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead I hope it's profitable.
END
