Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Fate Of U.S.-Iran Talks Unclear As Ceasefire Deadline Nears; Oil Prices Up As Strait Of Hormuz Traffic Returns To A Halt; U.S. Tariff Refund Process Kicks Off; FBI Chief Files $250M Defamation Suit Against The Atlantic; Hollywood Actors Sign Letter Against Paramount-WBD Deal; Apple Names John Ternus New CEO. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 20, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:15]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell is ringing on Wall Street. Thank you very much.
As you can see, Cohen & Steers is ringing the closing bell for us tonight. The markets were down. I mean, they are not huge losses over the course of
the session. That's the sort of the mood of the market. It is all oil. It is all related to what is happening in the Gulf. We will talk about it.
Oh, did I miss the gavel? Oh, I am so sorry. And one, and a two -- we've missed it. It is over. Trading has finished. Those are the markets, and
now, the news that you and I will be talking about is, of course, over the next hour.
Iran insists no plans for new talks. The U.S. President says he is unlikely to extend the ceasefire deadline.
The Trump administration begin rolling out plans to refund around $166 billion in tariffs. Oh, and they have to pay interest on it as well.
And thousands of actors and filmmakers have signed a letter opposing Paramount's takeover of CNN's parent WBD. I will speak to one of those who
signed the letter.
We are live in London. New week, Monday, April the 20th. I am Richard Quest and I mean business.
Good evening.
The uncertainty continues over whether there will or will not be further negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. All the while, the ceasefire that
currently is in place is nearing its expiration. Now, according to some people, Vice President J.D. Vance is expected to depart on Tuesday to go to
Pakistan, where the talks will take place.
They say a second round of talks is planned for Wednesday in Islamabad. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said no further discussions are planned.
President Trump says it is unlikely he would extend, excuse me, the ceasefire if no deal is reached.
Iran is vowing to retaliate after the U.S. seized an Iranian ship. American officials said the vessel was trying to get past its naval blockade.
CENTCOM has released these images of the operation. According to naval experts, the ship could eventually become property of the United States.
Iran is calling it maritime highway robbery.
Kevin Liptak is with me.
Kevin, for a scenario that was supposed to be heading towards peace and talks and ceasefire, et cetera, we seem to be going in the opposite
direction.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: It is certainly true that the optimism that you saw just on Friday, that this was all headed towards
some sort of negotiated settlement, seems to have evaporated over the weekend, in part due to what we saw occurring in the Strait of Hormuz, but
also because some of the President's own rhetoric about being close to a deal, saying that Iran had agreed to all of his conditions, saying that the
U.S. had won this war, had caused the Iranians to essentially get their backs up and say, wait a minute. There is no agreement. We haven't signed
on the dotted line yet, and in fact, we don't plan to go to a second round of talks.
Now, that hasn't deterred The White House from pressing ahead, even though the President is injecting all of this uncertainty into what the talks
might look like and when they might occur, he himself seems somewhat confused by the whole thing. He said that J.D. Vance was heading there this
morning. In fact, J.D. Vance pulled into The White House this morning. We saw him with our own eyes.
But as of now, American officials say he will be on a plane tomorrow morning, headed to Islamabad.
QUEST: Right, but here is really the issue. The underlying issues between the two sides. I mean, the President can bluster all he likes and the
Iranians can deny as much as they want, but the underlying issues of radioactive stuff, of how long enrichment, blah, blah, blah, all of this --
is there any movement towards each other?
LIPTAK: You know, you do hear, you know, some glimmers of proposals that could potentially be acceptable to all of the sides when it comes to the
question of whether or not Iran can enrich uranium, that's you know, at the heart of these disagreements, the U.S. has proposed this idea of a 20-year
moratorium. Iran has come back with a five-year moratorium, which the U.S. has rejected.
There was one proposal that I heard about earlier today where Iran would pause all enrichment for 10 years, and then the ensuing decade it would be
allowed to enrich to a very low level. It is not clear that the President has signed off on any of that.
[16:05:05]
In fact, he has said straightforwardly that Iran not be able to enrich at all. On the Iranian side, they're looking for sanctions relief. They are
looking for the U.S. to unfreeze some of its assets, which the President has also said is a red line. He said, I think -- I am paraphrasing here,
but that Iran would not be able to get any money in any capacity.
And I think for President Trump, the real red line that he has here is that he not agree to a deal that resembles the Obama era nuclear deal that he
withdrew from, unfreezing assets and allowing enrichment down the line are both things that that deal contained. And I think for him, that's very much
something he needs to avoid if he is to sort of avoid the political blowback inside the United States from Republican hardliners.
And so they are caught, I think, in some unmovable positions that at this point doesn't seem clear how they will reconcile all of that.
QUEST: Kevin, I am grateful that you're at The White House. Thank you.
This weekend's developments have reversed the selloff in energy. Now, remember, you saw a huge sell off 10 percent when the ceasefire was
announced. Today, Brent and WTI -- West Texas Intermediate -- are higher and this is the reason.
Originally, marine traffic flows had started to recover, but de facto we are now at a halt. The U.S. Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, says Americans
may feel the effects for some time to come.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: When do you think it is realistic for Americans to expect that gas will go back to under $3.00 a gallon?
CHRIS WRIGHT, U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY: I don't know. That could happen later this year. That might not happen until next year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: The problem is, well, look, "No, I think he is wrong on that. Totally wrong." If you're the Energy Secretary and a member of the Cabinet,
I guess that's not what you don't want to hear from the President. But the President did say that the Energy Secretary is wrong, and it won't be. It
will come down quicker -- Anna Cooban.
ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REPORTER: Yes, you've got this mixed messages. It is inconsistency and you've also got this back and forth
on the ceasefire, whether or not ships are going through. There was a flurry of them going through on Saturday. No oil tankers went through on
Sunday, which was one of the quietest days since the war started.
But I think what is interesting is that investors seem to be sort of seeing through this. And yes, oil is up today by five percent, but really it was
down by a whole lot more on Friday and stock markets, if you look at the S&P 500, if you look at the NASDAQ, they are down a bit today, but not by
as much as you would think given the seizure of the tanker.
QUEST: But is this just because of some optimism that might -- I mean, it is nice to have ambition and optimism based on peace. But it has also got
to be based on practicality and reality and that might not happen.
COOBAN: Well, for one thing, the stock market, it is also thinking about other things. It is thinking about A.I., you know, sort of results that we
are seeing this week.
QUEST: Sure.
COOBAN: But also, yes, you're right, this is about sentiment. It is about feeling, but when you look at the reality on the ground, that's when people
are really paying these prices.
Gas prices are still up by about 30 percent in the U.S. You've got jet fuel prices, baggage fees are being hiked by airlines. Some airlines are
canceling flights over the busy summer travel season.
So this is what people -- the measure of a crisis, Richard, I think, is what is actually happening to people on the ground. And right now, we are
still really not getting that relief.
QUEST: Okay. So, what does -- I hate asking this question because it is how long is a piece of string? Well, what does happen next?
COOBAN: I don't know, and it really is about what happens with these peace talks, how much progress is made with that. Time is of the essence. We talk
about a lot. The longer this goes on for, the more the crisis will extend; the more the crisis will actually move from Asia in terms of shortages over
to Europe and beyond.
QUEST: Right.
COOBAN: But something needs to happen quickly in order for that to be resolved.
QUEST: Okay. I am grateful. Anna Cooban who has got the story of that.
Now, you stay where you are. I go and talk about tariffs because refunds, they are coming to those people who managed to get or who paid a higher
tariff. Now remember, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump's tariffs were illegal. The law that he used was not made for that.
The emergency duties were struck down and the federal government is on the hook for a very large number one, two, three, four, five, six. You get the
idea -- $166 billion in refunds and interest on top of that as well, Even for the U.S. government, it is no small amount and it is a logistical
nightmare because it will happen over 60 to 90 days.
And here is the way it works: Only importers of record can file for the refund. So that's the big companies like Walmart and Costco. You and me, I
live in the U.S., so I paid the tariff at some point, not so.
[16:10:07]
So the importers must fill out what is called a CAPE Declaration. This is a fine body. CBP will make regular updates to this page -- the consolidated
administration -- oh, that's what CAPE stands for. Stop the Consolidated Administration and Processing -- well, that's what it stood for.
And the government says it will streamline the admission, submission and processing of refund requests.
Oliver Dunford is senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. He joins me from Palm Beach Gardens in Florida.
Just how much of a mess is this? Because I am actually quite surprised, Oliver, that they have at least put in place a bureaucracy to handle it.
Now, whether it turns out to be efficient and practical is another matter.
OLIVER DUNFORD, SENIOR ATTORNEY, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION: Yes. That's right.
The court has been holding the government's feet to the fire. It has been asking for updates regularly, and the government has been filing
declarations explaining how the process is going to work.
Obviously we can expect some bumps in the road, but as you said, at least the machinery is in place to get this going.
QUEST: Right. But then we end this with very tricky problem. I paid the tariff, ultimately, I am the consumer. I mean, yes, the importer might have
done and then Walmart paid it, but I paid the higher price that Walmart charged. Do I get anything back?
DUNFORD: Not from the government, as you said, only the importers of record can request and receive a refund from the government. There have been a few
lawsuits against Costco for example, by consumers who paid a higher price at the checkout, but directly from the government, consumers cannot get a
refund
QUEST: So if all these importers and their various subsidiaries and large companies are getting refunds, does this become de facto a windfall for
them? Because I hardly see them turning around to me and say, those oranges you bought, Mr. Quest, I owe you $0.15 back on them.
DUNFORD: I don't know how much it would be a windfall for individual companies. I do know that our clients were subjected to the higher costs of
the incoming goods. Obviously, their business slowed down. People stopped spending as much. Prices went up elsewhere.
So I don't think any of my clients viewed the -- or will view the refund in the future as a windfall.
QUEST: The way in which the whole tariff thing was introduced and then we've now got this money coming back and it is not fully resolved, is it?
The whole -- there are still some legal issues to be undertaken in terms of this whole question.
DUNFORD: Yes, there is, but the court on Friday issued a great order and the way it works generally is when you import something, the government
will decide and predict how much you owe on tariffs and that is called liquidation, after which the importer has a certain amount of time to
challenge that amount. And what the court said Friday is, no matter when you imported and no matter whether your entry has been liquidated or not,
if you paid an IEEPA tariff, you're entitled to a refund.
QUEST: Is it your feeling that the tariff -- the new tariff regime is at least working? You may not -- importers may not like it, but everybody has
got used to it. They now know what the global tariff is. Everybody can adjust their business practice accordingly.
DUNFORD: Well, I do think now that the Supreme Court has resolved the IEEPA tariffs, I think that's largely true. One of the biggest problems wasn't
just the increase in prices, but it was the uncertainty because the President kept changing things.
Of course, he has found new authority, Section 122, and that's being challenged in court. But I think for the most part, yes, that's right. I
think the ground is now settled, people at least know what is coming.
QUEST: It is very difficult to know how these tariffs damaged or helped the U.S. trading position overall. If you look at the study from the Fed, if
you look at some of the Peterson Institute studies, it all suggests that it was more damaging than otherwise.
But we've also seen the economic show that the inflationary pass through wasn't anywhere near what we had expected or some people had forecast.
DUNFORD: No, I think that's right and nobody knows why exactly, but there is no question that small businesses were harmed, some went out of
business, a number of my clients had to cut staff and make other cuts. So there is no question people were hurt whether the effect on the global
economy is above my pay grade.
QUEST: Well, you end up getting a refund. I am grateful to you, sir. Thank you for joining us tonight to talk about that.
[16:15:10]
It is a fascinating story, and I am glad that I now know what CAPE stands for as well.
Sir Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister says he was not given critical information before he made then Lord Peter Mandelson, his ambassador to the
United States. Max Foster is with me after the break.
In a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: The British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer says he was unaware that Peter Mandelson, his former ambassador to the United States had failed
the security screening.
Sir Keir ended up dismissing Mandelson in September because of his connection to -- Mandelson's that is -- to Jeffrey Epstein.
The British government said on Thursday that the vetting office recommended against giving Mandelson security clearance. The Prime Minister apologized
to Parliament for the oversight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision and I apologize again to
the victims of the pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.
Let me be very clear, the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post.
Mr. Speaker, let me make a second point. If I had known before he took up his post that U.K. S.P. recommendation was that developed vetting clearance
should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Interesting there, Max Foster. But he is not resigning, the Foreign Secretary at the time, David Lammy, he didn't resign. The only person who
has been fired is Sir Olly Robbins, who was the government bureaucrat responsible. No, but he has resigned.
MAX FOSTER, CNN LONDON CORRESPONDENT: Lots of people have been fired. The head of communications, you know, the main advisor, you know, they've all
gone because of this and not him. And effectively, what he was doing today was saying there has been a massive system failure here because the Foreign
Office would normally just go through all the vetting themselves and then give their recommendation. He is saying, I should have been told that
Mandelson failed this top level of vetting.
[16:20:02]
I wasn't told. Olly Robbins, who ran the Foreign Office who has been fired has his say tomorrow. So then we see whether the two stories match.
QUEST: His say is, as I understand it from the British papers. Look, I wasn't allowed to tell anybody. I was given the results of the vetting, and
I either mitigate it or I don't give them the job, but I can't go and tell the P.M.
FOSTER: So that is what he is going to say and Starmer is saying, I accept that system was in place. I've changed that system. But there was a
separate note from Simon Case, who is the most senior member of the Civil Service, and that was an interchange between Starmer and him saying, we
need to do the vetting before you announce the appointment, make the appointment and Starmer is basically saying, but that's not the system.
So there is an argument also between the head of the Civil Service and the Prime Minister about what the system should be.
QUEST: Listening to Sir Keir just then, he is doing a very -- the politicians do it all the time when they are on the wrong side of an
argument. They self-flagellate themselves. They do --oh, no, it is my fault, I take responsibility. The worst thing that could ever possibly --
and you saw Sir Keir doing it then. It was my decision and I take it, but he is not.
FOSTER: He is not taking responsibility. He is saying it in words.
QUEST: He is making a lot of noise about it -- your thoughts?3
FOSTER: Yes. The background to this is if he says he is going to resign, is that a good idea just before a set of elections when there is no apparent
successor and no successor is going to want it before the elections, which are, according to all the polls, is going to be a disaster.
QUEST: Is it your view that this now gets put to bed?
FOSTER: I think if the story tomorrow from the head of the Foreign Office is different from what Starmer gave out today, then he is in trouble again.
QUEST: Max, thank you.
Allow me to bring to your attention the breaking news. There has been a deadly shooting at Mexico's Teotihuacan Pyramids. The country's Security
Cabinet says a man fired shots at the popular archeological site. A Canadian woman was killed, and then he took his own life.
The Mexican President says authorities from federal, state and local agencies are responding.
Gabriela Frias is with us from Mexico City.
Good evening, Gabriela.
Well, what facts do we know?
GABRIELA FRIAS, CNN ESPANOL ANCHOR: Richard, good afternoon. That's pretty much what we know so far. This is information confirmed by the Mexican
authorities and even by President Claudia Sheinbaum.
Mexican authorities, the Security Cabinet of Mexico took to X, as well as the President, and they both gave exactly the details that you just shared.
It was a shooting at Mexico's Teotihuacan Pyramids that has left at least, at least one person dead, several people were injured. This is according to
Mexico Security Cabinet.
A man fired shots at this popular archeological site, killing a Canadian woman before taking his own life. An unspecified number of people were
wounded and are receiving medical attention.
CNN has reached out to the Canadian Foreign Ministry for comment. Authorities say they have seized a firearm, a bladed weapon and a live
cartridge at the site.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says authorities from federal, state and local agencies are responding to the matter. She said on X: "What
happened today in Teotihuacan deeply hurts us. I express my most sincere solidarity with the people affected and their families. We are in contact
with the Canadian Embassy," she wrote on X.
Richard, just to give context of this, the Teotihuacan site is one of the most famous ruins in Mexico. A one-day trip to Teotihuacan is one of the
most classic things to do when traveling to Mexico City. It is located 50 kilometers northeast of Mexico City. It became one of the largest nation
cities in the Americas, but we are still waiting for more details from the authorities in regards to this tragic event -- Richard.
QUEST: And when you've got more details, please come back to us to report. I am grateful for you this evening. Thank you. Travelers going through some
European airports are waiting up to three hours at border checks. That's according to the Council of Airports International.
Now, it is because the E.U.'s new electronic entry system, which became fully operational this month. All right, it requires biometric data like
fingerprints from non-E.U. nationals. Greece has already eased the requirements for British passport holders.
With me is "The Independent's" travel correspondent, who always pays his way, Simon Calder is with me.
Simon, I want to -- before we blast the scheme for how it is working or not, for the last three years they have been putting these machines in
every -- you get off the plane, you walk down towards Immigration and there is a bank of machines waiting to be used, which are now going to start. How
does it work?
[16:25:10]
SIMON CALDER, TRAVEL CORRESPONDENT, "THE INDEPENDENT": Okay, so the very straightforward thing, and this is working, for instance, really well at
Palma de Mallorca, one of the key holiday islands in the Mediterranean. So you come along with your passport, if you happen to be lucky enough to be
Irish, then you're just straight through, like all E.U. passport holders.
But U.K. said no, we want to be subject to this, we are going to leave the European Union. So you come along, you've put your passport in, it will say
ah, Richard, you haven't registered your fingerprints yet. Please put your four fingers from your right hand on this reader. That will work. They'll
then take a facial biometric of you, that goes into a central database and every subsequent crossing of a Schengen area frontier, they'll say, oh,
Richard, you're back. Weve got your fingerprints. We will just have your face.
QUEST: No, but hang on a second. After you've done that machine, you then have to go.
CALDER: Of course.
QUEST: To a man or a woman in a booth.
CALDER: Almost always. Yes. Once you've registered, you might think, well, that's great. I will just go through the e-gates. I will follow all of
these E.U. passport holders, in some limited cases you can, but mostly you can't because there are 29 different countries involved in this, and each
one has its own way of doing things.
QUEST: Right, Lisbon and I love Lisbon as a city, but it is a disaster at the airport at the moment.
CALDER: It certainly is.
QUEST: One of the worst.
CALDER: Yes. I mean, the -- I've kind of got a league table running the Canary Islands of Lanzarote and Tenerife South, they are very much there.
Lisbon has been perennially awful and also to Milan Airports and those crucially, there has been a couple of flights going from Milan Linate and
Milan Bergamo to Manchester, in which a large number of passengers simply haven't made the plane because the queues are so long.
QUEST: Right, now, let's pull the strands together of all of this. Why is the E.U. creating this extremely complex system when the U.K. has a system
where eight, nine countries or however many it is all just no registration, dunk your passport down straight through the machine. Singapore has exactly
the same system. Dubai has the same system. Many -- Australia has a pretty straightforward system.
CALDER: Yes, the Schengen area decided, and actually the U.K. was part of the decision making process over a decade ago. They simply want to keep
tabs and in European terms, that means we need to be absolutely sure that this is, Richard Quest, who is going through our gates. We need to check
with his facial biometric, with his passport. We've got his fingerprints on file.
They just want to have what they call the most secure digital border scheme in the world. Other parts of the world are not so fussy. For example, I
just came back from Tirana. A marvelous airport where it took five seconds to get through because there are a big sign saying, are you European? Are
you British? Are you American? Just come through here, pop your passport down. We will check that it is you and we will let you through.
QUEST: Didn't you and I go to Tirana?
CALDER: We did, in March 1989. I think you were three, I was seven at the time.
QUEST: And the best, the best reason for this little story. We were both journalists at another organization, but the Albanians were playing England
--
CALDER: In the World Cup.
QUEST: In the World Cup and the Albanians had to let for -- these were in the days of our nostalgia, they had to let foreigners in.
CALDER: We did, and we went in as members of the Crawley Town Football Supporters Club, and we did, yes.
QUEST: So back to -- the U.S. now I think global entry, which is a registration scheme. It is a frequent traveler scheme is world beating --
world beating, but now, they have got a mobile passport, which is similar - - which is sort of worse in a sense, because you have to do all of this on a machine and then go to see someone.
CALDER: Yes, we are -- actually the U.S. is getting really quite close in many cases to the optimum, which is that you have registered if you're a
foreign visitor, you've got your ESTA -- Electronic System for Travel Authorization and you just breeze up to the camera and its already clocked.
The facial recognition is now so good that I've been through the U.S. border where they say, we don't want to see your passport. We know who you
are, we know what you're doing.
QUEST: And the machines, the facial recognition, if you walk slowly towards it, it is so good, it will have recognize you.
Simon, it is great to see you.
CALDER: Thank you very much. I can't wait to go back to Albania with you.
QUEST: I am looking forward to that and looking forward to hearing your reports over the course of over the summer, because I am sure you're going
to be telling us about how it is. Is it going to be bad?
CALDER: It all depends. Greece has just gone -- if you're British, we are not going to do any of that biometric stuff, in you come. Brussels has not
yet formulated a response.
QUEST: I am grateful to you. Thank you.
Now, some Hollywood stars are protesting against Paramount's merger with our own Warner Bros Discovery. They've signed an open letter opposing the
deal.
Jodie Sweeten signed the letter, there she is. Jodie will tell me why she is against the merger.
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
[16:30:25]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:29]
QUEST: The FBI Director Kash Patel, has filed a $250 million defamation suit against The Atlantic magazine. It's over a story The Atlantic
published on Friday, alleging excessive drinking by the director.
The FBI director disputes the claim, and The Atlantic calls the lawsuit meritless and stands by its reporting.
Brian Stelter is with me. There is history here, though, Brian. We have to put this in context, and the context is the man has a reputation, and
during his confirmation process, heavy drinking was one of the issues.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: You are talking about a guy who, you know, a couple months ago during the Olympics, was in the locker room
with Team USA, after that incredible victory, where he was chugging beers with members of the team.
So, you have a video like that that's getting used against him now by progressives and others who want to see Kash Patel booted from the FBI
director position.
At the same time, though, you have MAGA media rallying to his defense and saying, how could The Atlantic publish a story without a single on the
record source?
There is a lot of that kind of back and forth. Now, you see in social media, in the court of public opinion, where Patel's job is very much the
question.
Donald Trump, a well-known teetotaler, is he going to tolerate this Atlantic story? Is he going to tolerate all this noise? Well, over the
weekend, Patel went on Fox News, seemingly trying to talk to Trump directly, and vowing to sue The Atlantic. And that's exactly what he did
this morning, filing this suit alleging defamation.
[16:35:00]
As you know, Richard, these defamation cases, they are very hard for plaintiffs to prove.
QUEST: True.
STELTER: The bar is set very high in the U.S. for any public figure alleging defamation. But Patel is going to try, because maybe that's the
only thing he can do in this situation, in order to hold on to his job as FBI director.
QUEST: Right. But let's look at it from Kash Patel's point of view. If it's untrue, then, it's a pretty damning accusation. You know, even more so
because of the history of supposedly Patel's drinking. It is a serious matter if it's untrue.
STELTER: And not only that. This article focuses on allegations of excessive drinking.
QUEST: Right.
STELTER: In order to make the case that he is not able to be responsible and in charge of the FBI 24/7, as FBI -- as every FBI director has to be.
The article has quite a few anecdotes. Although, CNN has not corroborated those specific antidotes. And the reporter says she talked to more than two
dozen sources. So, in the legal process now, it's going to be a matter of whether Patel can prove that The Atlantic knew these stories or these
allegations were false.
That's going to be very hard, frankly, for Patel's legal team to prove. But oftentimes we have seen President Trump file lawsuits not to win, but just
to muddy the waters, to muddy public attitudes. And this might be another case like that, where Patel is learning from his boss, doing the same thing
as Trump, by filing a lawsuit that's more of a P.R. messaging vehicle. Richard.
QUEST: Brian, I'm grateful. Thank you, sir.
STELTER: There is growing opposition in Hollywood to Paramount's takeover of Warner Brothers Discovery, our parent company. 4,000 people, 4,000
including actors, writers, and directors, have signed an open letter opposing the deal.
It argues that further consolidation in Hollywood reduces the opportunities for filmmakers, raises costs, eliminates jobs and gives audience less to
see.
Jodie Sweetin is one of the actors who signed the letter. Her career goes back to the T.V. sitcom, "Full House".
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JODIE SWEETIN, ACTRESS: Hello. No, this isn't Mario's. Why would you want a pizza with pineapple?
How rude.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: That was. Jodie Sweetin, as Stephanie in "Full House". She joins me now.
How rude, indeed, when you look at this merger.
Look, I mean, I'm on dodgy ground here talking about a merger of my own company, but let's -- what is it you fundamentally feel is wrong with this
deal?
SWEETIN: Well, you know, the problem with this merger is that it is not only going to affect those of us that work in the television industry, in
the movie industry. It's also going to affect consumers across the board. It's going to affect consumers of news, of media. You are going to have
less choices.
You know, all of these things that this the merger, which is basically, you know, creating a monopoly, an active monopoly, in the media landscape.
QUEST: But would you have been as opposed if Netflix -- if the Netflix deal, had won instead?
SWEETIN: I think that, you know, I think, yes. I -- maybe not as upset, because maybe they might handle things differently. But honestly, I really
-- I don't think that the merger is going to serve anyone, any of our best interests. Because, regardless if it's Netflix, if it's Warner Brother
Discovery, if it's Paramount, once you start taking away options and different voices, and you start eliminating, you know, material from
libraries, you start making paywalls harder to get licensed information or news out to people.
And I just think that we are really seeing what happens when power is concentrated more and more and more at the top, and it's going to give all
of us less of an option for the kind of media that we consume.
QUEST: Yes, and I -- you know, it's interesting, the way you put it, power concentrated at the top. I would add to that. And the cost of entry for
competitors is very high indeed.
So, it's not as if somebody can just --
SWEETIN: Yes.
QUEST: Yes, of course, they can have the startup. And yes, that startup might, might, might fly. But by and large, the cost of --
(CROSSTALK)
SWEETIN: Right.
QUEST: The cost of entry is very large.
SWEETIN: Absolutely, and that's -- in that -- and that is kind of the point, right? If you create an environment where people are unable to even
enter the market, whether they are small or medium or even bigger size company, you know, when you create the behemoth of this one entity, it
really shuts the market out for other people, for other viewpoints, for you can start really closing down information that you don't want to get out
there. And I think we have seen with this administration that that's something that they are absolutely willing to do.
[16:40:02]
You know, whether it's, you know, going after Kimmel or CBS or CNN, you know, I think we have cause to be concerned about this huge merger. And,
you know, what we are really trying to make people understand is that this is not done yet. It is not a done deal.
You can still be fighting this, and really the biggest and most important place to fight it is a state attorney general level.
QUEST: Right.
SWEETIN: The federal government might not be able to do as much right now or not want to, but our state attorney general has hold an extreme amount
of power in cases like this. And not only, you know, California, New York, Georgia, places where media is made, you know, we really like -- this is, I
just think that people are not going to understand what is fully done.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: And I just -- right. They said to have 4,000. So, there was certain safety in numbers. But even so, did you have a moment of thinking, oh, hang
on, is David Ellison somebody in his office? Have they put the -- have they put the names on this letter into a database that will spew it out when my
contract or when my name comes up for a casting role?
SWEETIN: I mean, you know what? Honestly, I would rather -- I would rather not have any work and be able to put my head on the pillow at night and
know that I stood up for what I believe to be right, and what I believe to be right for a large portion of the population, if not all of us, whether
they agree or not.
QUEST: Right.
SWEETIN: You know, I have no problem standing up against this administration, against people like David Ellison. You know, if it gets me
blacklisted, if I never work again, then, I, at least know that I did something that is making an impact. And, you know, the committee for the
First Amendment, that Jane Fonda is --
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Yes. What a wonderful work.
SWEETIN: -- heading and really pushing towards this is incredible.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Wonderful.
SWEETIN: And I think that -- yes, I just think that we are -- we are really going to have to pay attention to what is happening to our media landscape,
because we are -- we are losing it as we speak.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Can I -- can I just ask you, what would -- what is -- this is a -- what is the mood, do you think in the filmmaking industry at the moment?
Because at one level, there is an enormous amount more work than there ever was before, because from the streamers.
And not only that, those streamers are creating high quality product, spending fortunes in terms of. production values and standards.
So, it's a betwixt in between.
(CROSSTALK)
SWEETIN: True. Well, true. But also, post-merger, we have seen the amount of television, the amount of movie releases, those have actually all gone
down. We are actually lessening the amount of media that's being released. We are lessening the different voices, the different stories that we are
able to tell because people -- there is an element of fear, and I think there are a lot of people who don't want the backlash, or who are afraid of
speaking out.
But I also know that there are at least about 4,000 of us that are not afraid to speak out, and that will continue to stand for what we believe
in.
QUEST: I look forward to meeting you and buying a cup of coffee, discussing this as we -- as we move forward.
SWEETIN: Absolutely.
QUEST: Grateful future (INAUDIBLE).
I need to bring some "BREAKING NEWS" to your attention.
Apple, the company, has announced that John Ternus will be the company's next chief executive. Tim Cook stepping down.
Mr. Ternus is currently the SVP of hardware engineering.
Now, my gut is -- my gut says that that's a very tedious sounding title that carries an enormous amount of power.
Tim Cook, who will be stepping down as CEO, will become Apple's executive chairman. The transition will take place on September the 1st.
And Brian Stelter is with me, and I have to -- I mean, regardless, Brian, of the end of an era nature, which we can get into at some point.
(CROSSTALK)
STELTER: Yes.
QUEST: The smoothness, the elegance by which this has been done, compared, to say, the Disney Bob Iger, shambles, or the -- you know, just -- or even
our own companies had a few shambles in our time.
But this is -- this is grande elegante.
STELTER: Right. Apple wants to get this right. It's one of the most important moves in the company's, you know, look, so far, this century,
right?
You know, Tim Cook, very seamlessly, took over for Steve Jobs. Now, you have John Ternus taking over.
And if you look to the press in recent months, the trade press about Apple, Ternus' name was being signaled. He was in line. It was clear that he was
likely to be tapped. But didn't know it was going to come today, but we knew this might happen at some point soon.
[16:45:02]
And it comes as, you know, Richard, at a time when there is been an investor narrative, a media narrative, fairly or unfairly, about Apple
falling behind. They are falling behind in A.I., leaning too heavily on those incredible iPhone sales year after year.
Bloomberg recently quoted sources saying, John Ternus knows he needs bolder products and a strong approach to A.I.
So, today, Cook, in a statement calling him a brilliant engineer and thinker, someone focused on every possible way we can make things better,
bolder, more meaningful, and more beautiful. He is the perfect person for the job.
So far, though, Apple shock stock down just a little bit in afterhours trading. Maybe that just signifies people expected some new CEO relatively
soon.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Right.
STELTER: And they expected John Ternus for the job. But that's the news so far. Richard.
QUEST: Brian, I'm grateful. Brian Stelter, our chief media.
There Lance Ulanoff is with me, editor-at-large at TechRadar.
And look, Lance, you know, this whole thing has gone full circle. I remember, of course, when Tim took over, it was Steve Jobs passed.
LANCE ULANOFF, EDITOR-AT-LARGE AT TECHRADAR: Yes.
QUEST: And we had those first two or three years, was Tim to the job. You know, he didn't have a polo sweater. He didn't look like that. He wasn't as
cool. And was he up to the job. And again, and again and again, that was the question that was -- well, clearly, was -- I mean, it took, it's the
most valuable company in the world.
And now, we are asking the same questions, who (INAUDIBLE) as they say?
ULANOFF: Yes. I mean, look, I think, Ternus is certainly up for the job. We -- look, we have been talking about John Ternus taking over for, I don't
know, the last, like year. They have been Inklings around it, you know, Cook, they were internal -- you know, we knew that there were certainly
internal talks about the succession plan, but Cook was basically the outlook was like, I'm sticking around as long as I can do this. You know,
he wanted to stick around. He just went through Apple's 50th anniversary, where he gave so many interviews.
But, you know, at the big kickoff at Grand Central, the people who were there was Tim Cook, John Ternus, and the head of Global Marketing, those
were the like the three heads of states who were there.
Cook took the stage briefly, didn't say anything. And at the most recent, biggest product launch they have had in a while, which was the MacBook Neo,
there wasn't even Tim Cook in the video.
So, I think, there were all these signs. But as far as Ternus being up for the job, he understands Apple, he is obviously a really hardware guy.
Apple's last like five or six years have been all about services. Massive business makes a lot of money. Tim Cook's done the right thing, but it
doesn't feel innovative. It doesn't feel exciting.
So, maybe it's time for a little excitement, hardware excitement under John Ternus.
QUEST: Does it matter name recognition to the general public? And I mean, well, I'd rather the challenger. You are not moving. You are not budging.
You are not budging on this.
I'll tell you what about because, because companies rely on cachet, they rely on call, in this particular case, and to a certain extent, does it, do
you need to have somebody who is no. You are still going to say no.
ULANOFF: I'm go, go. I'm glad -- I'm glad you -- I'm glad you said that, because you are right. It does rely and cool. But you know what's cool? You
know what has the cachet? Apple. That's been the thing. That's the reason why Tim Cook was able to step in in 2011 and the company didn't implode
because it had been baked into the company. The company that built the iPod and the iPhone and the iPad.
You know, it had that. It had that from going back, you know, decades, and I think that it's intrinsic to the company, and not necessarily the
leadership.
And I will say that Tim Cook, over the years, be kind of went from who's Tim Cook to? Oh my gosh, it's Tim Cook. Come here, let me have a selfie.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Exactly. Exactly. Exactly, now.
I just wonder one other thing about this, this whole business. How would you grade Cook's tenure?
ULANOFF: B plus to A. I think that --
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: I thought you weren't marking my homework.
ULANOFF: Look, from a -- from a business standpoint, he has grown this company in ways that I don't even think Steve Jobs could have imagined. But
the fastest growing part of the business, as I said before, is services. There have been some, you know, Apple Watch, the focus on health. Really,
really exciting, innovative, probably one of his signature moves.
Vision Pro, A.I., I think that that's where we see some stumbles.
[16:50:02]
And the A.I. is really kind of hung around, like is not the most important technological innovation.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Right.
ULANOFF: And Tim Cook hasn't quite solved it for Apple.
QUEST: Now, Lance, I want to finish this on a more personal note with Cook, of course. He came out in 2014 in an -- in an article as gay. And it was --
I mean, everybody knew. So, it wasn't, I mean, anybody who knew, knew. But it was considered a major moment just because a, he said it. B, he made out
how important he was. And then, he left-- and then, he left it alone and got on with what he was supposed to do, which was run apple. He didn't sort
of wear, wear it on his sleeve on a daily basis.
(CROSSTALK)
ULANOFF: Right.
QUEST: And I think, you know, that is something that he advanced the LGBT agenda in the corporate world quite considering.
ULANOFF: Yes. Look, I think it was a really important moment for business, for the tech industry, for leadership. I think it's, you know, I think Tim
Cook's sort of casual openness, like you said, people knew, but it wasn't something that people were like, so what? And then, he said it because, I
think he felt that it maybe would help other people. That was fantastic.
I think that in recent years, there have been some questions about, you know, where Tim Cook has stood as far as support of diverse communities
because of his closeness, seeming closeness to the Trump administration. But for the first time, you notice, he answered that question in recent
weeks about why he talks to them. And I've always said this to people.
If you look at Apple, they have kept their DEI, and I think that's because of Tim Cook, you know, a red line that he is going to continue to have that
as part of the company.
QUEST: Yes, yes. And I'll tell you something, it's very easy for everybody else to criticize when you cozy up to the administration or whatever, but
you don't have the responsibility of hundreds of thousands of jobs and families and incomes and things.
Lance, grateful that you are with me tonight. Thank you for coming on so quickly. It just what we needed to hear tonight.
ULANOFF: That was quite --
QUEST: Thank you.
We'll have more on Tim Cook's departure from Apple, and the new chapter after this. What a busy day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Breaking news, Apple's announced. John Ternus will be the next chief executive. He is currently the senior vice president, the SVP of hardware
engineering.
[16:55:03]
Tim Cook becomes Apple's executive chairman. The transition takes place on September the 1st.
Well, Clare Duffy, when you woke up and had your cornflakes this morning, you weren't waiting -- you weren't expecting that., were you?
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: No, Richard. I mean, we have sort of known this was coming at some point over the next few years, but I don't think
that we knew that it was happening today. This is sort of a surprise. But, Richard, look, we know the company has been facing these questions about
the future of its leadership. Apple, over the past few years has had a number of significant stumbles. You had the Vision Pro headset, this V.R.
headset that they said was going to be the future of computing. It is still a very niche product that most consumers are not using.
The company is also largely seen as being behind on A.I., and no one can say that Tim Cook hasn't done an incredible job as this company's CEO. He
has built Apple's global supply chain, overseen its rise to a $4 trillion valuation. It's gotten into other fields like entertainment and digital
health.
However, there are many watchers of the company, analysts, investors, who say the company really needs new tech innovation. That is behind -- been
slow in tech innovation.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Right.
DUFFY: And so, I think that's why we have seen John Ternus, the V.P. of engineering, be chosen to take on this new role and oversee this next phase
of Apple's growth.
QUEST: Right, now. Now, this is when it gets tricky, Clare. Tim is obviously going on his own terms, and he's decided to go now, but it has a
feeling of the time is right, rather than, oh no, please stay. Do you know what I mean?
DUFFY: I think that's right. I mean, I think, you know, look, Apple has been thinking certainly about the succession plan for some time. John
Ternus is a long-time employee. He is widely respected at the company. And so, I think it does make sense for Tim Cook to step away at a time when
things at the company are fairly good. Things are rolling on. This isn't going to be a major disruption.
Last year, there were a number of other C-suite changes at Apple. It perhaps would have been more disrupted to have this change at the very top
last year.
And I mean, look, there is lots of pressure on Tim Cook over the past few months to deal with Trump's tariffs in terms of, you know, the scrutiny in
terms of his relationship with the president. So, maybe this also takes some pressure off of him at a time when that sort of aspect of what the
company is dealing with is not going away anytime soon.
QUEST: I'm grateful. Thank you, Clare Duffy.
We will have a "PROFITABLE MOMENT" after the break. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Good evening.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "PROFITABLE MOMENT", I want to talk about passports and then, the mess at the borders in Europe this year. I just want to have the
government minister or the bureaucrats or the immigration officials, whoever is in charge, and I wanted to stand in the immigration hall and
look at the thousands of people queueing up.
[17:00:10]
And I just want to say can you really be proud of that? Efficiency and efficacy are not mutually exclusive.
END
