Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Trump Takes Question from Reporters at The White House; Trump: Some Oil Money to Go to the U.S., Some to Venezuela; Trump Hosts U.S. Oil Executives for Talks on Venezuela; I.C.E. Agent's Phone Captures Fatal Minneapolis Confrontation; Torres: Prediction Market Profiteering Has No Place In Government; United Kingdom Weighs Ban On X Over "Digital Undressing" Controversy. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired January 09, 2026 - 16:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: That's a crooked state, California is a crooked state. Many crooked states. We have
a very, very dishonest voting system.
The last time I won, '24, the one that just too place, I won because it was too big to rig. You couldn't rig it, it was too big. But I won the state of
Minnesota. It is a corrupt voting system with an incompetent governor, a very incompetent governor.
REPORTER: Mr. President --
TRUMP: And by the way, he is a very corrupt governor, too. Go ahead.
REPORTER: I have a question on Iran. But first, very quickly on Venezuela, how do you provide total security guarantees to these companies without
putting U.S. boots on the ground?
TRUMP: Well, we are going to work with the Venezuelan leaders and people, and we are going to have a very safe group. And they're going to also bring
over some security with them. You know, these are not babies.
These are people that drill oil in some pretty rough places. I could say a couple of those places make Venezuela look like a picnic. These are very --
these people around the table. These are tough people. They go into areas that you wouldn't want to go.
They go into areas that if they invited me, I'd say, "No thanks. I will see you back in Palm Beach." No. This is a tough group of people. They know how
to do it, but we are -- in addition to that, we will have very good security for them.
We are going to make sure that it is very, very good security. And I think the people of Venezuela are going to give you very good security. You know,
the people that -- I am not talking even leadership. The people of Venezuela are going wild over this.
They named a street after President Trump. What do you do? You attack a country in the name of a street. That's never happened before. Although I
heard that's also taking place in Iran. They named a street. The protesters --
I just hope, you know, just God bless them. I just hope the protesters in Iran are going to be safe, because that's a very dangerous place right now.
And again, I tell the Iranian leaders, you better not start shooting because we will start shooting, too.
With the glasses, sir. Go ahead please.
REPORTER: Mr. President, but on --
TRUMP: Hold it! Hold it! Hold it! Hold it.
Next to you. Yes, glasses. The gentleman with the glasses.
REPORTER: All right, thank you, Mr. President.
TRUMP: With those very big glasses, actually.
REPORTER: Yes. Ferrari, actually.
Mr. President, I have two questions. What do you want the European Union to do in Ukraine? The European leaders seem pretty divided on Ukraine and then
if you can reiterate this straight message that you have to the Iranian leader, to Khamenei, the message that you have.
TRUMP: You're talking about Iran.
REPORTER: Iran, what the first one is --
TRUMP: What do you Iran to do?
REPORTER: I'm sorry.
TRUMP: Where are you from?
REPORTER: Italy.
TRUMP: Oh! Nice place.
REPORTER: Yes.
TRUMP: Okay.
REPORTER The first question --
TRUMP: So what are you asking about Iran for?
REPORTER: Well, if you can answer about Europe and what you think the Europeans should do on Ukraine, and then a message.
TRUMP: Well, look, Europe has been doing so much for Ukraine, but it hasn't been enough and obviously that I would say that President Putin is not
afraid of Europe. He is afraid of the United States of America. It is led by me.
There is no fear of Europe. Europe has fallen behind, and Europe and J.D. said it very strongly, I don't know. He took a lot of heat, but I didn't
give him any heat.
Europe is a different place. Europe is changing. Europe has got to get its act together. I love Europe, I guess I came from Europe, essentially. I had
-- I have my roots are in Europe, but Europe is a different place. They have to get their act together.
Now, they've started to have a great NATO leader and they've gone up to five percent from two percent GDP. That's a big step.
But they have to be very careful with their immigration policy, and they have to be very because, you know, I will just say to be nice that there
are certain places in Europe that are very important that are no longer recognizable. I am being very nice. I am being very diplomatic when I say
that, they are not recognizable.
And they have to be careful on energy because they are putting windmills all over the place and losing a fortune. They are destroying their country,
they're destroying the beautiful landscapes, the beautiful everything. They're doing -- by the way, in case you people don't know, I am not much
of a windmill person.
I can proudly say, Doug, that we have not approved one windmill since I've been in office, and we are going to keep it that way. My goal is to not let
any windmill be built. They are losers. They lose money. They destroy your landscape. They kill your birds.
They're all made in China, and all you have to do is, you know, just about all of the windmills are made in China, the structures. All you have to do
is say to China, how many windmill areas do you have in China? So far, they are not able to find any.
They use coal and they use oil and gas and some nuclear, not much, but they don't have windmills. They make them and sell them to suckers like Europe
and suckers like the United States before.
They are the worst form of energy, the most expensive form of energy. And in eight years, they are rotted out, anyway.
Go take a look at Palm Springs, California, and take a look at what that looks like. It looks like a junkyard. A junkyard of steel.
[16:05:10]
So we don't approve, and I've told my people, we will not approve windmills. Maybe we get forced to do something because some stupid person
in the Biden administration agreed to do something years ago. We will not approve any windmills in this country.
REPORTER: Mr. President, two questions, on Venezuela. Is it ultimately more important to you to establish stability there or democracy there?
TRUMP: Well, you're talking about maybe the same thing. I mean, you're talking about stability or democracy. I don't know. To me, it is almost the
same thing. We want stability, but we do want democracy. Ultimately, it will be democracy.
Peter --
PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I do have a policy question, President Trump, but I am having a hard time seeing here.
I see the American flag lapel pin. What is the other lapel pin?
TRUMP: Somebody gave me this. Do you know what that is? That's called a Happy Trump. And considering the fact that I am never happy, I am never
satisfied. I will never be satisfied until we make America great again, but we are getting pretty close.
I will tell you what, this is called a Happy Trump. Somebody gave it to me. I put it on.
DOOCY: Thank you, thank you. And the policy question, how much money are you thinking of giving people in Greenland to get them on board with a
possible U.S. takeover --
TRUMP: I am not talking about money for Greenland yet. I might talk about that. But right now, we are going to do something on Greenland, whether
they like it or not, because if we don't do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we are not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor,
okay.
I would -- I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way, but if we don't do it the easy way, we are going to do it the hard way.
And I am -- and by the way, I am a fan of Denmark, too, I have to tell you. And you know, they've been very nice to me. I am a big fan, but, you know,
the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn't mean that they own the land.
Sure. We had lots of boats go there also, but we need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers.
There are Chinese destroyers and bigger. There are Russian submarines all over the place. We are not going to have Russia or China occupy Greenland,
and that's what they are going to do if we don't.
So we are going to be doing something with Greenland, either the nice way or the more difficult way.
Please go ahead, ma'am.
REPORTER: Mr. President, why is it so important to you to own it when you have a military presence there, which you could expand to affect the
security?
TRUMP: Because when we own it, we defend it. You don't defend leases the same way. You have to own it. And, you know, with a nation, look at what
happened with Obama, with that horrible deal they made with Iran, it was a short-term deal. It was like a nine-year deal.
Countries can't make nine-year deals or even hundred-year deals. Countries have to have ownership and you defend ownership. You don't defend leases
and we will have to defend Greenland.
If we don't do it, China or Russia will, it is not going to happen. We are not going to have. And I like China, I like Russia, I love the people of
China. I love the people of Russia. I get along very well with President Putin, but I am very disappointed in him. I get along very well with
President Xi. I am going to go over to China in April, but I don't want them as a neighbor in Greenland. It is not going to happen.
And by the way, and NATO has got to understand that.
I am all for NATO. I saved NATO. If it weren't for me, you wouldn't have a NATO right now. But we are not going to allow Russia or China to occupy
Greenland, and that's what's going to happen if we don't.
Go ahead.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: On the economic report that came out today, Mr. President, one, can you respond to that? And two -
-
TRUMP: Yes, an amazing report. The amazing -- and the most amazing thing is government jobs are way down, and yet the employment came -- unemployment -
- or the employment numbers are very good.
We've gotten rid of tremendous numbers of federal jobs, government jobs. Nobody has ever seen anything like it and yet the employment numbers are
very good. They're really getting better.
But now we have all those people to work in the private sector for a lot more money. I think that's one of the very big things. The other thing is
that 5.4 percent and remember, this is after we had a shutdown and that shutdown had an impact because the concept of the shutdown, even though it
is before, people knew we were going to be shutting down, a lot of bad things happened.
And by the way, on January 30th, you may have another shutdown. We will see what happens. But, I think the numbers, Kaitlan, were really amazing.
Look, to think about 5.4 percent? Nobody thought that. They thought it was going to be two percent, and you know what it is? It is tariffs. And it is
also November 5th. We had a great election. A great, great election.
Our country was dead one-and-a-half years ago.
[16:10:10]
And now, we have the hottest country anywhere in the world and I hope you guys were impressed, 5.4 percent, and we haven't even really transitioned
yet. There is no reason it can't be much, much higher than that.
Yes.
COLLINS: First off, can you respond to the manufacturing?
TRUMP: Let's give CNN a chance. You know, they've been fighting so hard to get back into the mainstream.
COLLINS: Mr. President, you posted some numbers actually on Truth Social last night. People saying you posted the job data early when you're not
supposed to supposed to obviously share it till the next morning. Did you do that on purpose?
TRUMP: No, no. I don't know if they posted them. I said post them whenever you get a chance. I don't know. They gave me some numbers. I post -- when
people give me things, I post them.
But the numbers -- the numbers are amazing.
Yes, please?
REPORTER: How does the administration plan to distribute the money from the Venezuela oil sales? Is it -- obviously you say it is going to go into
these controlled accounts.
TRUMP: Yes.
REPORTER: Would it go back to Venezuela in a direct payment?
TRUMP: Yes.
REPORTER: And then I have a second question.
TRUMP: Well, we want to make sure that Venezuela can survive. You know, Venezuela needs money. And we are going to make sure that they get money
and we are going to get money and the oil companies are going to make something for the work they do, and they are going to get back their money.
We are devising a formula, but it won't be so much of a formula. It is going to be what they need.
We are going to take care of what they need. There will be plenty left over. We are going to have a lot of money left over, and the money left
over is going to the United States of America, and the oil companies are going to be very happy.
Yes. Please?
REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President. Would the administration offer a backstop to these oil companies for like financial guarantees, some sort of
backstop if the country did destabilize again?
TRUMP: That's a very interesting question, using the word backstop. I haven't heard that word in a long time. That was at the Wharton School of
Finance I last heard. That's a good term. We ought to use it more often.
I hope I don't have to give a backstop. I am just -- look, these are very smart people, the smartest people there are -- not only in oil, in
business. These are the biggest companies in the world, sitting around this table.
They know the risks. I mean, there are risks. We are going to help them out. We are going to make it really easy. They are going to be there for a
long time. We are going to be there together for a long, long time. And they're going to be taking the oil, and they're going to be bringing oil
prices down.
They're going to make a lot of money. They're going to get their money back. They're going to be safe. The people of Venezuela are going to be big
beneficiaries and the United States of America is going to be a big beneficiary for what we've done.
And you know, one other thing I might say, it is also very big for National Security, because, again, just like Greenland, we can't have China or
Russia occupy Greenland. We can't have China or Russia occupy Venezuela, and if we didn't do what we did, China or Russia would have been in
Venezuela. I think I can -- where is Mr. Chevron? So let me ask you, they would have been there if we didn't do this. Do you agree with that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They certainly have a lot of economic interests in the country. There is absolutely no argument about that.
TRUMP: They were trying to be there. I mean, you know, we had Russia, I guess, sort of semi -- I call it a semi Russian ship yesterday that we took
over and Russia decided not to defend that ship against us. It is a big movement.
The ship was loaded up with oil and we took the oil and it came out of that port. But Russia would be there or China would be there, and we want them
to be there for a different reason. We want them -- do you people agree? In particular China, they need a lot of oil. Russia doesn't need so much, but
Russia was there anyway.
But I assume you agree that China would like to be doing a lot of business there by buying oil. And I want to just tell President Xi and President
Putin, but more so in this case, President Xi, because they do need a lot of oil, and we are open for business in the United States, and we are open
for business in Venezuela. Right?
Go ahead. Sure.
REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President --
TRUMP: I could take questions from these people all day long. You know, they are sitting here and generally they're very rich, very powerful, but
nobody gives a damn about them. It is a sad thing.
You have all that money, all of that power, and look at all these crazy questions. We could do this all day long and they wouldn't be satisfied.
REPORTER: Mr. President, I have a question on today's meeting, Mr. President.
TRUMP: We will take a few more though.
REPORTER: I have a question on today's meeting --
TRUMP: Let me ask you more importantly, do you have any questions from the biggest -- hold it! Do you have any questions for the biggest people on
earth? The biggest business people, the biggest companies anywhere on earth? Do you have any questions for these people?
No, no. Do you have a question for them?
REPORTER: Yes.
TRUMP: But have you learned from any companies in the room that they are committed to rebuilding the oil infrastructure in Venezuela? And for the
executives in the room, what do you need from the administration in order to invest?
TRUMP: That's a good question.
[16:15:10]
Do you want to go and answer that question? Exxon --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will refer you back to the statements I made before. There are a number of legal and commercial frameworks that would have to be
established, even understand what kind of returns that we would get on the investments.
So I think all the investments in the opportunity sets, I think everyone sitting around this table would have the opportunity and the knowhow, and
the capability to make the investments. The questions will ultimately be how durable are the protections from a financial standpoint? What do the
returns look like? What are the commercial arrangements? The legal frameworks?
All of those things have to be put in place in order to make a decision to understand what your return would be over the next several decades, that
these billion dollar investments would be made on.
TRUMP: You know, could I do this because we have, again, the biggest people on the planet earth around this table, biggest companies in the world. I'd
like to just ask them to introduce themselves. We will start from this end and go around to here.
And if you have anything to quickly say, we can do that, but do you want to just start right over here? These two guys -- we will leave them out
because they are with us. Please.
JOHN ADDISON, VITOL: Thank you, President Trump. John Addison at Vitol. We are here to ensure that you are going to be able to move all of this oil
all around the world at the best price possible so that the influence that you have over the Venezuelans will ensure that you get what you want.
TRUMP: Thank you.
ADDISON: Thank you.
TRUMP: Good point.
BRYAN SHEFFIELD, FORMENTERA: Thank you, Mr. President. Bryan Sheffield of Formentera.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Right, so now, they're doing the round table. The round robin of all the oil
executives who will basically now tell you just how magnificent the whole thing is.
It is difficult to know where to begin with what you've been hearing, listening to President Trump during this White House meeting with big oil
executives. They all committed themselves to going back in and the opportunities, but none of them put timelines, none of them said when, how,
how much.
And they all expressed the reservation of needing security guarantees, financial guarantees. You just heard at the end, one of them saying that we
are going back in, but we need to know the legal framework, the backstop arrangements, the nitty-gritty practicalities, if you will.
And then we had a whole slew of questions concerning Venezuela and the relationship with the United States.
President Trump saying that he regards the current administration as an ally. He hopes to meet President Rodriguez, in the future, didn't say when
and the oil he now says Kristen Holmes, he now says the 30 million barrels a day, 30 million barrels, he says, has been given to the United States to
sell and he says some of the money will go back to Venezuela.
By the way, just before we get to hear you. He valued that oil at $4 billion. I hate to disagree with the President, but at the current price in
the market, it is near $1.7 billion to $1.6 billion.
So, you're more expert than me at going through all of this stuff when you listen to him on one of these rampages, what did -- what was most important
to you?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think most important to me was the fact that these oil executives committed to
nothing. Yes, they showed interest in what he was saying. They listened to him. They nodded along.
But as you noted, there was no actual guarantees of financial giving and donation, investing into the infrastructure. And instead you heard a lot of
caution. I mean, we heard from the ExxonMobil head there saying that Venezuela was un-investable at this point.
They were fairly shy in terms of actual commitment, particularly given the fact that President Trump started the meeting by saying that these
companies are going to invest $100 billion. I did not hear a single person say, we are going to commit this much, and we will be in there starting X,
Y, Z.
One of the things President Trump kept saying was this idea that they would have security guarantees. Richard, this is one of the most important things
to these various companies. How can they protect not only their workers, but also their equipment if they are to go back in here, which means, of
course, how are they going to protect their investment overall? And how can they protect themselves from another situation, like what we saw back in
2007, in which they were basically forced to pull out of Venezuela, or make these deals in which they lost a significant amount of money.
And so we didn't get answers on any of that, and President Trump seems to know that the security component of this is a huge component. He kept
saying the United States is going to give security guarantees, but it is still very unclear what that would look like in terms of protecting these
workers, these equipment and these companies.
[16:20:16]
At one point, he seemed to suggest that most of the people working for these oil companies would actually be Venezuelans because they have a high
unemployment rate. But again, there was no actual outline here for how much money each company is going to give, when they're going to come in, and
what this would look like for them.
QUEST: All right, can I -- one other thing I just want to pick up on. He says that the opposition leader, Machado, the winner of the Nobel Prize, is
going to visit The White House in the not too distant future. And he says, I mean, now the question is whether or not she is going to hand over her
Nobel Prize.
Some people -- he seems to think that that's one of the things she is coming there to do. It is a very, very strange business.
HOLMES: Well, the whole dynamic has been incredibly strange. I mean, one, the Nobel Peace Prize component of the entire relationship is somewhat
bizarre, just given the fact that President Trump had so deeply wanted to win the Nobel Peace Prize and it happens to have gone to this woman, the
leader of the opposition, who now is playing a big role in whatever the future of Venezuela is.
Regardless of whether or not she is actually put into power, now or ever, she is going to play a huge role over the next year. Plus, because she is
the leader of the opposition, you're going to see a lot of pressure from the opposition now that Rodriguez is Acting President as part of the Maduro
you know, infrastructure, so that's not going away.
And yet you have on top of all of that, this idea of the Nobel Peace Prize changing hands or not changing hands, it also just it complicates the
entire situation.
QUEST: I have never in my life heard somebody say publicly until today, nobody deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize more than me. But there we
are. Let's see. I am guessing that if she is clever, she will hand it over and she could be President within 24 hours.
Kristen, I am grateful to you. Thank you very much.
HOLMES: Thank you.
QUEST: Now, President Trump has said Venezuelan oil rightly belongs -- rightfully belongs to the United States. He is referring, of course, to
Hugo Chavez, Maduro's predecessor, who in 2007 seized and nationalized the assets of the foreign oil companies and gave them to the state oil
companies, or he ensured that the state oil company in Venezuela took more than 51 percent. That included ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips.
The oil companies then filed a huge number of lawsuits seeking tens of billions of dollars from the state oil company. Those legal proceedings are
ongoing as you can see from 2024, in the court of appeals, they are still arguing about the $8 billion that an arbitration tribunal awarded to
ConocoPhillips.
Since the energy assets were nationalized, the government has used energy profits for its military, the crumbling infrastructure, et cetera. The
whole thing has fallen apart.
Jorge Pinon previously served as an executive at BP, managing the company's supply and logistics in the Western Med. Now senior researcher at the
Energy Institute of University of Texas in Austin, joins me.
Sir, thank you for patiently waiting by.
When we listen to what the oil executives were saying, very tricky.
Yes. You don't want to disagree with the President. Yep. There are huge opportunities. Bonanza potential you don't want to miss out on, but it is a
long way off.
JORGE PINON, FORMER EXECUTIVE AT BP: Oh, it is a long way off. I mean, I don't know where to start. I can tell you that I worked in a number of
country entry strategy teams, and it is going to take the Exxons and the Conocos and the Shells and the BPs of the world at least nine months to a
year to put together a country entry strategy, much less a business plan.
Like they said, they need somehow assurance of return on the investments. They need to be sure that they have political continuity. What's going to
happen in the next three years when the administrations both in Washington and in Caracas change and new rules of the game are put on the table when
you already started your business?
So political continuity, political stability which they mentioned a couple of times. Trust me, when those guys walk out of that room, it is very
important for them.
QUEST: I've got in front of me the latest, the most recent proceedings. It goes back to December of 2024 in the United States Courts of Appeal. The
only reason I am referring to this is the expropriation of the oil companies' assets back in 2007 and beyond, billions of dollars were awarded
in arbitration.
[16:25:13]
I am assuming, once bitten, twice shy. They haven't -- and I assume that the U.S. is going to try and use oil revenues to simply pay the oil
companies back from what they -- I mean, this thing is still ongoing.
PINON: But he told he told the Conoco guy that he is not going to get his money back. So neither Exxon or Conoco are going to be rewarded by
collecting back all of the money that they are owed by Venezuela from the 2007 appropriation of their assets. So I understood, Richard, that that's
off the table.
So they're going in already, even though he said that they were already discounted in their financials with all of the 2007.
QUEST: Right.
PINON: Not being part of these negotiations.
QUEST: So on this other -- where the money goes -- now, the 30 million, by the way, he valued the 30 million barrels at $4 billion. It is near $1.8
billion, but he said that money is going to the united states. And he then went on and said some of it, some of it will go to Venezuela. This is
starting to sound like 18th Century plunder. We will take what we need, we will get -- or what we want. We will give you back what we think you need
and it is all ours anyway.
PINON: If they were smart, they will take those tankers tomorrow and put them into our Strategic Petroleum Reserves in the salt caverns, salt
infrastructure that we have in Louisiana and Texas and store it there again as part of the U.S. Strategic Reserves.
And if they want to sell it, they ought to wait two or three years, in which I will guarantee that the price of oil is going to be higher than
$60.00 a barrel. So I think it will be silly, shortsighted if they sell that today, when they could store it. There is space in the caverns in
Louisiana and Texas and then sell that barrels in two or three years from now.
QUEST: I am grateful to you, Jorge. Do me a favor, agree to come back in the future when, as these deals come forward and give us the honest
assessment of whether they make sense or not. I am grateful to you for tonight.
Thank you, sir, for joining us.
PINON: Pleasure.
QUEST: It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. An unknown user on a Polymarket site made $400,000.00 by betting when and if Maduro was going to fall. Now, a
congressman is introducing a bill to prevent U.S. government insiders from similar bets.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:30:52]
QUEST: Hello. I'm Richard Quest. There is more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment.
We'll hear from a Democratic lawmaker looking to reign in prediction markets after a mysterious trader cashed on Maduro's capture. And X is
making changes to its A.I. chatbot after the British government threatened to ban it in making lewd images.
Only after the headlines, because here at CNN, the news always comes first.
Oil company executives largely did not commit to investing in Venezuelan oil. During the White House meeting with more than a dozen of them, Exxon
called the current situation uninvestable. And the Chevron officials detailed current operations, rather than plans to scale them up.
Officials in Oregon are investigating a shooting of a married couple by border patrol agents. The federal authorities accused them of being linked
to the notorious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, and say they tried to run over agents who had pulled them over. Both (INAUDIBLE) taken to hospital,
their condition is not clear at the moment.
U.S. economy added 50,000 jobs in December. On the low side, jobs growth was revised lower in previous months. The data shows that 2025 marks the
weakest year of job growth since the pandemic. On the other hand, unemployment rate did dip to 4.4 percent.
We have obtained new video of the deadly confrontation in Minnesota between the dead woman and the ICE agent. And the video was captured by the agent's
own cell phone. It allows us to see the final tense moments from the agent's perspective, for the first time.
Renee Good, who was 37 years old, was killed on Wednesday, shot. You'll find this video disturbing for sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RENEE NICOLE GOOD, FATALLY SHOT BY ICE AGENT: That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you.
BECCA GOOD, WIFE OF RENEE GOOD: Hey, show your face pretty boy. Show your face.
GOOD: I'm not mad --
B. GOOD: That's OK. We don't change our plates every morning, just so you know. It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That's
fine. You are citizen.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE). You want to come at us? You want to come at us?
B. GOOD: I said, go get yourself some lunch. big boy. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get out of the car. Out of the car. Get out of the fucking car. Get out of the car.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE).
JONATHAN ROSS, ICE AGENT: Whoa!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fucking bitch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: John Miller is with me. John, take it from here, please.
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, Richard, every time we look at one of these video tapes, we see what we
see, and we draw our conclusions from that. We did that with the first tape, then we got a second tape from further away, but from a different
angle.
This tape gives us more information. So, from one video to another, we are putting together pieces of the puzzle. But this tape has some meaning,
because it appears as the agent gets to the front of the car, and the car backs up, and then, moves forward, that the car does strike the agent.
And I say, appears, the phone goes down before the car makes contact. But you do hear a sound that is mixed right in before you hear the sound of the
shots in the background of that noise. Was that the car striking the agent? Does that bear out the claims of the agent and DHS that he was hit by the
car? All of that is completely separate from the tactics involved, why he had his gun out, why they were doing this stop, and what the intent was.
QUEST: And to just to pick up on that, you know, I'm being very careful here, and of course, we are all trying to sort of parse it as much as we
can. There is nothing that I can see that suggests she was attempting to ram the car at him. She turns the wheel. She is obviously looking to drive
away. Her entire demeanor is one of, I'm driving off.
Now, I'll grant you, she get -- she catches him a glancing blow on the way, but there is nothing to suggest that this was an attempt to hit him.
[16:35:09]
MILLER: No, and I think, any reasonable person who looks at all of these videos will come to the likely conclusion that her motive was to get off
the X. I need to get away. This guy is trying to pull me out of the car.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Yes.
MILLER: I'm probably going to be arrested. Let me get out of here. Not let me run over an agent.
But that's our point of view from the outside. Her point of view from the inside is, let me get out of here, if we could put ourselves in her head
for a minute. But the agent has his own tunnel view, which is, once the car backs up, he takes his weapon out, and once that car moves forward and hits
him, to put ourselves in his mind, he may not realize the wheels are turned slightly to the right.
I mean, from the video, you see, we see the car coming towards him, and all we can see is the car and the driver. At that point, he may be focused on
the target -- on the idea that this car is about to run me over or drag my partner. Even at that, I mean, there is some high-risk shooting there, in
that his partner is literally two feet from where he is aiming at the driver of the car. But --
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: John --
MILLER: It -- it's just another piece of information, another angle of what happened.
QUEST: All right. With many years of law enforcement experience, what -- does what occur to you? Or does it come to you that they mishandled the
entire situation to such an extent that this was able to happen. That, you know, whether -- I mean, we wrote about deescalation, this, that, and the
other.
It's hard to see once this trip, pardon the phrase, a train had left the station, it was inevitable that something bad was going to happen. That's
the bit that I need your experience on.
MILLER: Well, I have had the misfortune of being called to the scenes of numerous officer-involved shootings both in New York City and Los Angeles,
and participating in the Initial investigations and the facts.
And you know what you learn over time, especially with those involving cars and car stops is, when you place yourself in the path of a vehicle in front
of that vehicle, and you draw a weapon, at the same time, you start to lose a lot of options, where you are leaving the decisions about what's going to
occur next to the driver of that car, from a tactical sense.
Had he had more distance? This wouldn't have been an option. Had his gun not been drawn, he what he would likely be more focused on getting out of
the way.
All of that is about agency, policy, training, and tactics. The criminal side is just going to look at what was his perception about whether the
next moment was going to bring serious bodily injury or death to himself or his partner. That's what they are going to base whether or not there is a
prosecution here or not on.
QUEST: Sir, thank you. I'm grateful.
MILLER: Thanks, Richard.
QUEST: As you and I continue our nightly chat over the world, X, Twitter, I still find it difficult. X is making a change to it's A.I. chatbot after
the British government threatened to ban it because it made lewd images, in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:41:00]
QUEST: A New York congressman told me he is fighting corruption, as he takes aim at trading on so-called prediction markets.
Congressman Ritchie Torres said he was concerned, particularly after an unknown trader made over $400,000 by betting on the fall of Nicolas Maduro.
The trader's account was created on Polymarket only last month and started buying contracts that would pay out if Maduro was removed from power. Those
wages were worth around $34,000 before the U.S. operation, and then, of course, soared in value.
Insider stock trading, options, a variety of things, those are clearly illegal in regulated markets. But that does not apply to prediction
markets, where you are basically betting on the prediction of a particular event.
Polymarket did not respond to our request for comment. The congressman told me, policymakers should not face perverse incentives.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. RITCHIE TORRES (D-NY): It's nothing short of shocking that prediction markets have become a cesspool of insider trading, and I was particularly
alarmed by reports that an anonymous trader who placed a bet on the capture of Nicolas Maduro pocketed $400,000. And there is a concern that, that
anonymous trader could have been a government insider.
You know, imagine for a moment, if you are a member of the Trump administration and you placed a bet predicting the capture of Nicolas
Maduro, if you are both a government insider and a participant in the prediction market, you now have a perverse incentive to advocate for policy
decisions that will personally benefit you.
That kind of prediction market profiteering has no place in the ranks of the federal government.
QUEST: Do you think that it has merely been a loophole, because these prediction markets are new, and nobody ever really thought about it?
Because just about every other regulated market, you know, you'll have handcuffs and be clapped in irons if you trade on insider information.
TORRES: Look, I think I have a simple common-sense concept. You know, we should hold prediction markets to the same standard to which we hold every
other market. By what logic should insider trading be prohibited in the stock market, but then, permitted in prediction markets? We should prohibit
it everywhere. And the logical place to start is the federal government.
You know, elected officials are not elected to profit from elected office. We are elected to serve the people, and there should be a categorical
prohibition against insider trading in government.
QUEST: But your bill as written is quite tight in its definitions and its restrictions, as opposed to a more general banning or criminal -- creating
a criminal offense for prediction markets. Why did you decide to go so tightly on this?
TORRES: Well, look, I recognize that prediction markets is a brave new world that requires comprehensive regulation. But it seems to me the
simplest place to start is insider trading within the federal government, because when government officials are betting on their own decisions, it
not only corrupts the market, it corrupts the government.
And so, I see it fundamentally as an anti-corruption piece of legislation.
QUEST: Can I ask you, it's a more of a moral, ethical question. The real problem. I agree your law will stop it, but the real issue would be why we
are employing people who think it's OK to do that.
TORRES: Look, I agree with you. There is no -- you know, we need to ensure that the right people are serving in government, but we also have to put
laws in place that bring out the best in people.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Right. Yes.
TORRES: And right now, the prediction markets create a perverse incentive to govern, not for the people, but to govern for profit.
QUEST: Finally, can I just ask, wherever we look at the moment, there does seem to be an increase in what one might say, less scrupulous activity.
Whether it's cyber, whether it's Bitcoin. It seems to be a new culture, arguably led from the top, but that it's OK if you can get away with it.
(CROSSTALK)
TORRES: Yes.
[16:45:08]
QUEST: Nice work, if you can get it. Fill your boots if you can.
TORRES: We live in a brave new world of new technology. And with new technology comes not only new ways of doing good, but also new ways of
doing harm, and that's why we desperately need regulation. You know, the prediction markets have been unregulated for too long, and Congress needs
to take a stand against insider trading.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: That's exactly what Congressman Rich Torres aims to do.
Elon Musk's A.I. chatbot Grok is responding to an outcry over its ability to create suggestive deep fakes. I asked Grok if its use had been
restricted, said yes, citing widespread backlash and regulatory pressure over misuse.
For example, deep fakes and sexualized images. Grok's ability to digitally undress people has caused a global outcry. The British government is now
threatening to ban it. The E.U. is demanding answers, and some Senate Democrats want X and Grok pulled from app stores.
Hadas Gold is with us. How did all this start? What's it all about?
HADAS GOLD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And yes. Well, Richard, to be clear, the restriction that you talked about means that if you have -- if you don't
pay for X premium, then, you can't tag Grok and have it change an image, but you can still ask Grok to change an image in its, you know, more
private chat.
Now, Grok and X have always been more permissive when it comes to explicit content on their platforms. But this trend started right around Christmas,
when people started tagging Grok and responding, sometimes in threads to other images of other people and saying, hey, put them in a bikini, put
them in something else. Take off their clothes.
But most disturbingly, other than these non-consensual images, usually of women, is that in some cases, these images appear to include children. So,
digitally undressing children.
Now, obviously, that has caused huge global outcry. There is a lot of questions about legal liabilities. Now, X, and xAI, and Elon Musk, they
have said that they are working to remove this content. They say that they are permanently suspending accounts and working with local governments and
law enforcement as necessary.
Now, I have reporting from a source familiar with the situation at xAI that actually in the weeks leading up to this latest controversy, there was a
meeting at xAI, where Elon Musk was there, and he expressed frustrations at some of these internal guardrails that Grok had -- especially, Grok's image
generation.
And then, right around that time, three key members of xAI's already small safety team left the company, including the head of product safety. And
that's the type of person that would work to prevent this type of thing from happening.
As you noted, there is been a huge global backlash. We have, I think, almost a dozen countries, including the European Union, who have said that
they have launched investigations into this. As you noted, the U.K. had -- there is even been discussion in U.K. of banning X.
And in fact, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, his spokesperson, came out and said, even in light of this recent change on X that only premium
subscribers can ask Grok to alter an image. And I should say, there has been a decrease in the number of times that Grok is changing its, you know,
digitally undressing.
The spokesperson for Keir Starmer said it's not a solution, and they said that it simply turns an A.I. feature that allows the creator of unlawful
images into a premium service. Richard.
QUEST: Hadas, I'm grateful. Thank you.
President Trump posted a barrage of policy proposals this week on Truth Social. And, of course, for business, it's got to keep up with it, which
lesser. Boston consultant is with me and advises some of these companies will discuss it after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:51:06]
QUEST: U.S. job market was weaker than expected last month. The economy added 50,000 jobs, little less than expected.
President Trump posted some of the jobs data, whilst it was still under embargo. The image he shared on Thursday on Truth Social mapped information
in the report. It was one of the many momentous posts this week from the president.
On Saturday, of course, the U.S. captured Maduro. Wednesday, Donald Trump took aim at defense companies, also vowing to stop private equity from
buying single family homes.
Thursday, ordered his representative to buy $200 billion in mortgage bonds to lower interest rates. Now, the markets may look beyond the whiplash.
Business has to adapt.
Rich Lesser is with me, the global chair of Boston Consulting, which advises companies.
Rich, the amount of stuff that's coming CEO's ways is very difficult to manage.
RICH LESSER, GLOBAL CHAIR, BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP: Well, first, Happy New Year, Richard. It's a pleasure to see you.
Yes and no. I mean, I think one of the things most business leaders have realized is that this president communicates frequently on many topics. And
your job as a CEO is to pay very close attention, to be close to what's happening in the environment, but also not to overreact.
To have a clear sense of where you are trying to take your business, to understand how the government can impact it, and try to have positive
influence on that, but not to get caught up in the day to day. And I've heard a lot of business leaders say, it's not that they don't pay
attention. They do, but they try to keep their eye on the ball about where they are trying to take their business, because otherwise it can become,
you know, overwhelming.
QUEST: The problem, of course, is you don't know what's going to suddenly come to bite you, in that sense. You don't know from the massive stuff
that's being talked about, what might actually turn into a real policy.
LESSER: Yes, but that's part of the reason not to react to every single post, to try to understand them.
QUEST: Right.
LESSER: Obviously, I mean, one of the things we have been talking about for a year is every company needs to build political muscle right now. Every
company needs to be closer to what's happening on the ground, not just in Washington, but around the world, and to understand implications.
But you also, as a CEO, have to be a steadying force on your team and not let them go into gyrations because of something they have heard and
something they have read. You need to try to keep the eye on the ball. And then -- and then, if it seems like it's going to be real, you see where you
can influence it. If not, you deal with it.
QUEST: This idea that you've just been saying about building political muscle is fascinating because of the variety of areas. You know, I always
remember hearing Satya Nadella, saying -- I interviewed him once, and he said -- he said, look, I thought the job would be this, and I thought it
would be that, and maybe political this, and maybe economic. But it's all of it, and it's all of it at the same time.
And, you know, any CEO -- look, you saw the oil company CEOs today, just that you saw them sitting in the White House. How do you tell the
president, who is basically saying, come and invest, go and invest, you know. Well, yes, but sir -- but sir, but sir --
It's a fascinating dynamic for the sea (PH) -- for people in top positions at the moment.
LESSER: Yes. What I've talked to so many CEOs who describe how different the job feels than, you know, years ago --
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Yes.
LESSER: When actually many business leaders -- I remember when I was early in my own CEO tenure, business leaders are coming, I try to stay away from
Washington, I try to stay away from Brussels. Yes, I try to keep regulation down, but otherwise, I just want to worry about my own business.
And that is not the way they feel now. They realize they need to engage, they realize they need to be paying closer attention. They need policy
teams looking at the kind of implications you described.
[16:55:03]
But then -- but then, they also can't walk away from all the things they do to keep their team focused on priorities, driving both short-term agendas.
It's a much more challenging mission than I think many CEOs years ago, you know, thought it would be when you're dealing with governments.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Right. All right. So, now, let's take that and give me the comparison. Because looking at your report, this idea, and what you've been
talking about, this idea of A.I., but a return to productivity, a return to profitability, a return to focus, is that becoming very challenging for
them?
LESSER: Yes. Well, yes, but often in a very exciting way, like, let's not - - for many CEOs, they see the opportunities in A.I. and yes, some of its direct productivity in operations, in marketing and sales.
Some of it is better innovation in, you know, pharmaceutical research, in energy technologies. Some of it is deeper customer relationships, really
being able to treat each customer as an individual.
I think, CEOs are still viewing A.I. as the number one priority despite all of the headlines on the political front. It's not just doing pilots. It's
not interesting experiments. It's how to drive A.I. value at scale. We are just as a quick preview of a report that we are issuing next week. 72
percent of CEOs now say guiding this -- the A.I. mission is their priority, not their technology team's priority.
That's up from 50 percent a year ago. That's what it changed in one year. That's a big deal.
QUEST: I assume you'll be up the mountain along with the rest of us.
LESSER: I knew that.
QUEST: Looking forward to seeing you there. Don't slip and break something. I'll see you out there. Thank you. Rich Lesser, joining us.
LESSER: Thank you very much. Take care, Richard.
QUEST: "PROFITABLE MOMENT" coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "PROFITABLE MOMENT", the core question on Greenland. Why does the U.S. want it when it already has bases and there are treaties that
say you can build and do what you like.
Today, we found out why. The president answered it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Because when we own it, we defend it. You don't defend leases the same way. You have to own it. And,
you know, with a nation, look at what happened with Obama, with that horrible deal they made with Iran. It was a short-term deal. It was like a
nine-year deal. Countries can't make nine-year deals, or even 100-year deals. Countries have to have ownership. And you defend ownership. You
don't defend leases.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[17:00:02]
QUEST: And that is why Europe needs to be so concerned, because the president means what he says. He wants to own it and anything else isn't
going to suffice.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I am Richard Quest in New York.
Whatever you are up to in the hours ahead, what a week. Have a rest. Have a good weekend, because I hope that it's profitable.
END
