Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Brent Crude Tops $100.00 Per Barrel for First Time Since May; Saudi Arabia Must Join Abraham Accords for Nuclear Deal; FDA Advisers Discussing Easing Restrictions on Seven Peptides; Global Markets Fall, Oil Rises as Violence Widens in the Middle East; Forum A.I. Tests Chatbots on Facts, Sources and Fairness; Omio Announces Plans to Acquire Rail Europe. Aired 4- 5p ET
Aired July 23, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:13]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Closing bell -- excuse me -- ringing on Wall Street. There is a
good way to start.
Look at the Dow. I am afraid it is not a good way to finish and we have been down all day and it is that consistency that is impressive. Bring
trading to an end, sir. And, well, come along. One and a two and a one, two, three, four. We are well and truly in the red, but just look at it.
Down 507 points. That's the way the day has gone.
Those are the markets and the main events. This explains what's going on. $100.00 oil is back. Crude prices are up as the Houthi rebels target Saudi
oil tankers.
President Trump is revealing his nuclear deal with Saudi comes with some major strings attached.
And Mark Zuckerberg is launching a new ad campaign aimed at changing people's negative opinions on artificial intelligence.
Together, live from New York, Thursday, July the 23rd. I am Richard Quest, and I indeed mean business.
Good evening.
$100.00 a barrel, energy markets are now pricing in renewed fighting in the Middle East after an oil tanker was apparently struck in the Red Sea.
Brent over $100.00, and that's the first time since May. The West Texas benchmark is lower. Even so, the price of U.S. crude returned to pre-crisis
ceasefire levels.
Yemen's Houthi rebels say they targeted two Saudi tankers. Satellite imagery appears to show one of them on fire.
Marco rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, says the Houthis were, in his words, suckered by Iran into attacking a key shipping lane, and Tehran will
pay for it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think I saw, you know, guys, I saw Araghchi, their Foreign Minister, who the other day, say something about
their policies, an eye for an eye. The President's policy is a head for an eye.
I mean, honestly, that's what it is going to be. I mean, they will pay a very heavy price for the things they are doing. They are already paying a
very heavy price.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Nic Robertson is in Jerusalem.
Good evening to you, Nic.
A slightly different question to begin with, which really is a head for an eye, but do the Houthis or the Iranians, their capacity of the U.S.
ratcheting up retaliation, aiming to stop them attacking in the first place? Will it work?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Not in the short term. An eye for an eye, that's exactly what the Iranians did today. The U.S.
overnight last night struck an Iranian border post on the Iraqi border. Two people were killed. Big explosion.
A few hours later, 30 miles away, the Iranians hit a Kuwaiti border post on the border with Iraq. That is an eye for an eye. It has a literal meaning
here. It is not figurative.
So when the Iranians say they are going to do something, they do it. When President Trump says he is going to do something, he has done it as well
and so both sides seem to be locked in to this cycle.
And the Houthis seem to be joining that cycle at potentially very high cost as well.
QUEST: Okay. So the Houthis join on the Red Sea side, and that is a major development in terms of a higher oil and energy prices. But how do we get
out of this? Where is the method to get out of this?
ROBERTSON: I think the method to get out of this at the moment is escalation. That's the reality of what we are seeing on the ground. We are
in a period of escalation. The Houthis are part of that. It is surprising that the Saudis haven't responded militarily yet to the Houthis.
President Trump said he will if they do it again and the reason I say escalation is the way out of it, because both sides are testing each
other's will.
President Trump -- and we heard it from Marco Rubio today, we are going to keep hitting them until they stop blowing up ships on the Strait of Hormuz,
and now you can add in the Red Sea along with that as well.
And the Iranians are saying, well, you hit us and we are going to hit you back. So really, that's where we are at. No one is now seriously talking
about how do we get out of this? The Iranians ability to withstand this pain, and President Trump figuring out ways in which he could try to put
more pain on them, to bring them to the table quicker, which is clearly what he wants to do from very simply at an Iranian perspective, all they
wanted to do was drive up the price of oil quickly, and haven't they just done that
[16:05:19]
QUEST: Now, Nic, I need you to stay with me. Please don't go away because I want to get your first answer. I want to get your perspective on our next
story, the nuclear agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in doubt after President Trump placed a condition.
He posted on Truth Social that its completion is subject to the Saudis joining the Abraham Accords and the Crown Prince of Saudi has said he is
apparently opposed to such a move to join, not in principle as such, but it is more practicalities about other issues.
The nuclear deal has already been signed. It will provide Saudi with a civilian nuclear program already sparked criticism from Israel and scrutiny
on Capitol Hill.
We have with us, Nic in Jerusalem and Kevin is at The White House. We will get Kevin in a moment. What will the Saudis make of this? Because
yesterday, when this was announced, Abraham Accords wasn't mentioned. Now that it is, what -- you know, your initial thought on that part, Nic?
ROBERTSON: I've talked to a lot of Saudi diplomats over the past few years. They have been absolutely appalled at the way Israel has responded to
Hamas' brutal attack on October the 7th, twelve hundred Israelis were killed, 250 were taken, more than 250 were taken hostage. More than 70,000
Palestinians, many of them women, children and elderly have been killed in Gaza.
The Saudis say that the only way that they will have normalization with Israel is if Israel recognizes an irreversible path to a two-state solution
to recognition of a Palestinian state.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has indicated he is not going to do that. The Saudis and all the officials I talked to there, don't believe that they can
make normalization with Israel, with Prime Minister Netanyahu in office, this seems to be a barrier that has been put up that will preclude for now,
the Saudis being able to follow through with this new civil nuclear development program.
QUEST: Nic, I am grateful. Thank you. That's aside from there. But Kevin Liptak is at The White House.
I mean, how did it get this far that this -- I mean, this is not a bit of housekeeping coffee is being served. This is rather fundamental. How does
the U.S. announce that they are doing this nuclear deal and fail to mention, oh, by the way, the Abraham Accords, it is either it doesn't exist
or they are being disingenuous. Which is it?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. I mean, I think it is the latter. You know, this deal has been in the works really for decades.
You know, it has been an aspiration of the Saudis for many, many, many years. And the President actually signed off on it last week, I am told.
And they have been trying to figure out over the course of the day what exactly got in there to convince the President that he needed to add this
new condition.
I think the assumption from many was that perhaps he had taken a call from Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, although the White House
said earlier today that no, that those two men had not spoken. And so I did a digging on what had aired on Fox News in the two hours between when the
President announced this and when he added this new condition. And lo and behold, they were very critical and they were very critical, in particular,
of the fact that the Biden administration had been talking about a very similar deal, but with the Abraham Accords attached to it.
Of course, the prospects for that completely fell apart after October 7th. But between what the President was watching on Fox News this morning and
what "The Wall Street Journal" Editorial Board had in the paper this morning, which was very similar criticism, I think you add those all up,
and then you have the President coming out with these new conditions.
QUEST: All right. But Kevin, in adding this condition, whether it exists in the agreement or not, he has essentially scuppered the agreement. Yes, I
mean, there is no way that Mohammed Bin Salman is going to sign off on the Abraham Accords on the normalization without that pathway to citizenship
for the Palestinians. I think he has been warned by his own allies that that would cause uproar in his own country in a way that no one has ever
seen before and that's a prospect that I think chilled him to the bone.
And so this is not going to move forward, at least according to the current conditions that the President has set. Now, The White House also said today
that the President had not spoken with Mohammed Bin Salman, and so perhaps when the two of them get on the phone and he explains what exactly this
predicament is that the President's mind could be changed again.
But at least for now, this doesn't seem like it is going anywhere.
QUEST: Kevin is at The White House. Thank you, sir. Grateful.
Higher oil prices are looming over markets and Central Banks. We showed you $100.00 a barrel, and it was the -- this is how Europe did. Germany bore
the brunt.
[16:10:10]
I beg your pardon, it was Paris that bore the brunt, partly as a response to comments from the European Central Bank's President, Christine Lagarde.
The ECB held rates steady.
President Lagarde warned that the energy shock has yet to play out and that the bank is committed to holding the line on inflation, which would suggest
more interest rate hikes.
In the U.S., the yield on the ten-year Treasury hit its highest level in 10 months, top of mind when the Fed meets next week.
Adam Posen is the President of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, served on the Bank of England's MPC -- Monetary Policy.
Adam is with me.
Adam, now, the question here is now that's a tricky one, I will grant you. Now that oil is back over a hundred, when the Fed meets, it is very
difficult for Kevin Warsh to sort of say, ah, no, we don't need to because inflation will be coming down. That downward move we saw in inflation is
starting to look like it is going to be a temporary blip.
ADAM POSEN, PRESIDENT, PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS: Thanks for having me, Richard.
I think on the data, you're absolutely right that it was a temporary blip. And I think it was a temporary blip even before the surge in oil prices.
We saw today, there was job claims data in the U.S. and they came in much lower. It might have been some seasonality, but all the data suggests that
we've got a tight labor market and we don't have very tight monetary policy.
But apropos of what you're saying, will Kevin -- excuse me, Chair Warsh be able to withstand calls for a hike? I think he can, because he is just
going to say, look, the data is uncertain. The oil goes up, oil goes down. Inflation expectations are low.
So I think they are going to drag this out for a few months.
QUEST: Do you believe that at these rates, Adam, that at these levels of oil prices, we are looking at higher inflation and more importantly, not
headline, but second round?
POSEN: I think if you compare the euro area and the dollar zone, meaning the U.S., I think they are different. I think in the euro area you're going
to have higher headline, but not necessarily higher core.
I think in the U.S., given where we are on labor markets, monetary policy, given the ongoing effect of tariffs and the threats around that, given the
anti-migration, I think you are seeing a rise in core. So I actually think it is different on different sides of the Atlantic.
QUEST: And yet of course, the ECB seems more willing to move than the Fed.
At the end of the day with oil at these levels and tariffs and uncertainty, it is a miracle that the markets aren't falling over.
POSEN: Yes, I agree. I think as you've talked about with other guests recently, the fact is, if you're not in A.I. and A.I.-adjacent business or
you're not a company where a Trump Cabinet family member has a stake, your stocks have not been doing all that well the last couple of years.
So in a sense the markets have already stayed flat if not fallen over. So - - and I would attribute that to the uncertainty we've had between the foreign policy and the trade policy and the eroding rule of law under this
U.S. administration.
QUEST: On the Mag Seven and A.I., I am going to ask you this because it is slightly different. You come at this from a sort of a policymaker's point
of view rather than a tech analyst and I think it is interesting to hear the policy makers side of it.
On this Mag Seven and the prospect of higher A.I. and productivity gains. How long do you think we have before we can reasonably say, oi, where are
these gains you've been promising us? And we do have history here because we can go back to Greenspan in the 1990s and the noughties.
You can look at his irrational exuberance, which eventually he said was going -- you know, did become rational on the basis of internet
productivity gains.
POSEN: No, you're absolutely right. That's the parallel and I think Chair Warsh is trying very hard to say this is a parallel time. The task force he
set up to talk about A.I. seems to be primed with members who are likely to say the gains are real and spectacular. I think there is less doubt about
it and more, as you said, about the timing.
And I think we are a good two or three years away from the inflation effects of the productivity gains, essentially, as we saw with the internet
in the late 90s, you can get the technology, you start using it, and that's good for growth and it is good for profits, but until you reorganize your
businesses, you don't get the decline in inflation.
[16:15:10]
And I think we are a couple of years away from that.
QUEST: Finally, I just need to throw one other thing. You're doing good service tonight, sir, across many different subjects.
POSEN: Thank you.
QUEST: Andy Burnham, look, every day at 6:00 A.M., he comes out with -- London Time, he comes out with today with something to do with one tax or
another that's being removed or pubs. That it was pubs and the business rate, and they say, they are fully costed. But you've looked at fully
costing. Are you worried that the U.K. is about to embark on a bit of fiscal incontinence?
POSEN: Yes I am. I mean, I think what Prime Minister Burnham had said in the run up to this was he would use flexibility in the fiscal rules to do
public investment and that isn't cutting taxes for pubs and restaurants even as much as I love them.
As various people have written the Tax Code in the U.K. is horribly complicated and unequal. There is a lot of room for him to raise taxes on
other things to cut -- to pay for the taxes he is talking about, but he hasn't done it yet.
QUEST: I think, sir, your sterling service deserves a drink in the pub next time we meet. Thank you, sir, for joining us and I will make it a double.
Thank you.
Now, controversial peptide treatments are gaining popularity in the United States. The FDA is discussing easing restrictions. Is this a wise move?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Two years ago, no one had even heard of peptides, and now they're everywhere. Peptides being popular with influencers and some doctors.
Apparently, they can be used for everything from muscle recovery to wound care.
And in the United States, certain peptides lack the approval of the FDA That's the main regulator and can be therefore tough to get.
So this could be about to change. A group that advises the Food and Drug Administration is meeting to review seven specific peptides to discuss
whether compounding pharmacies, these are sort of off label and they make things that should be allowed to dispense them.
Previously, such panels have been made up of mostly academics and researchers. This one includes several people who promote, prescribe or
produce peptides.
Dr. Jonathan Reiner is the Professor of Medicine at George Washington University and our medical analyst.
[16:20:10]
Now let's deal this in two first.
First of all, whether or not peptides should be deregulated to make them more available, we can deal with the question of what the panel is doing in
just a second, but do you think there is valid cause for saying no, they are overregulated. Let's make it a bit easier to have them.
DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: No, these are drugs. So the wellness community and the longevity community argue that these are
essential aides now to allow people to live longer and healthier lives. But these are real drugs. And most of them are injectable.
You know, we have in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration, whose entire purpose is to ensure that the drugs that Americans use are
both safe and effective.
None of the agents -- none of the seven peptides under review today by this Advisory Committee have sufficient clinical trial data to prove that they
are safe and effective. And the first of these peptides to undergo a vote today, which split eight to six in favor of allowing compounding pharmacies
to make it, has had clinical studies with a total of 30 humans.
So these drugs are largely devoid of data. So why would we make it easier for people to take them?
QUEST: Now, you just said about the numbers on the panel that voted and the panel has been made up of mostly academics, but now apparently several
people who promote or prescribe peptides. But isn't it a bit simplistic for us to say, well, those people on the panel who like peptides are going to
vote for them? Or do you think that's exactly what has happened here?
REINER: Well, in fact, that's exactly what happened today.
The panel split eight to six with four essentially being the seven new members who were added last month by Health Secretary RFK, Jr. and the six
no's were the academics and researchers on the panel. So that so that's exactly the split.
QUEST: So one final question, which just got to me. Last week or two weeks ago, we had, Pete Hegseth and, you know, let's take testosterone if you're
over 30 and you know the story and people know it. Now, you've got this peptides business.
From your long experience, doesn't this always end up in 15 years' time with a whole raft of cases of people who have been injured, harmed,
diseases, you know, things that should not have been done, but because they were done in a hurry and everybody then starts holding inquiries in 20
years' time about who knew what, why, when and why it was done.
REINER: Look, this Health Secretary has criticized vaccines incorrectly for suggesting that they haven't been trialed in randomized, placebo controlled
clinical trials. Now, he is advocating that these completely untested drugs be made widely available.
Look, I am a simple doctor. I think that if I am going to prescribe a drug that is going to be injected or ingested by a patient, I should know
exactly what is in it. I should know exactly what large numbers of patients in clinical trials have encountered, what benefits have accrued, and what
side effects they've had.
And until you can show me that for these agents, why would I give that to a patient? Now, it may be that some of these peptides are really good and
offer clear benefits. I am all for that. Let's just see the data before we allow people to inject themselves with them.
QUEST: Doctor, I am very grateful for you. Thank you very much, sir. You can see the next patient. Thank you.
Now Mark Zuckerberg is trying to change people's minds about artificial intelligence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOICE OVER: Some people will have you believe A.I. will make us less connected, that it is going to leave us behind. We couldn't disagree more.
Call us optimists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: This is the video he posted on Facebook. He is pushing back against A.I.'s critics. The video's narrator says Zuckerberg's Meta is optimistic
about A.I.'s future. Public opinion of A.I. soured with people fearing job losses and damage to humanity's ability to think creatively.
Meta has released an updated version of its Muse, Spark A.I. and called the A.I. model, called Muse Image. Anna is with me, Anna Stewart.
You know, at one level, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta are perfectly entitled to put out whatever advert they like to try and turn the tide of opinion, but
I wonder whether they need to, because at the end of the day, we are all using A.I.
[16:25:10]
ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: We are all using A.I., but it is how you're using it, I suppose, there has been some criticism with Meta that they are
essentially forcing their 3.5 billion users, or however many it is to use A.I. because they simply put it in the search function, they put it in the
DM function of WhatsApp or Instagram, so maybe it is not much of a choice.
Interestingly for Meta, they're much more consumer focused, aren't they? Compared to some of the rival companies out there which are looking for the
high paying enterprise customer?
Meta is very much looking for the public, so it needs the public on side. And a video like this. Richard, were you emotionally manipulated? The
little girl with a butterfly on her hand? It was a beautiful thing.
This is the optimistic look on A.I. Of course, there are plenty of concerns and risks about it as well. Well, touted as well.
QUEST: Yes, but here is where I get a bit weird about it all. I don't think it is going to make any difference. A public relations company. This is
coming down the path at a phenomenal rate and whatever issues we have got, we are not dealing with in other venues of job losses and safety, security
and all that sort of stuff, whether we like A.I. or not, I don't know. It matters.
STEWART: I think it will matter to Meta given they are literally targeting the consumer. They need the consumer on board and they frankly have lost
quite a lot of face with a failure of Muse A.I. This was the image generation tool they launched earlier this month and pulled it within three
days of launching it, because there was such a public outcry.
Meta needs people to want and trust using its A.I. They have already lost a lot of trust when it comes to social media platforms, particularly with
younger users, people concerned about what it is doing to people's brains.
People want to opt into A.I. They want to use it for specific reasons. Perhaps you want to use it for your gym workouts, Richard, or you might
want to use it for your wardrobe, or you may want to use it for work.
But do you want it to be integrated into your social media, into how you communicate with people, into your photos, into your photos of your
children, of your family members? That is the concern and this is where Meta is trying desperately to change the story and good luck to them, I
think at this stage.
They have had some success. I mean, Meta Ray-Bans, for instance, in terms of the hardware of A.I., very successful. Muse A.I., not so much.
QUEST: Anna, I am so grateful. Thank you very much.
Anna Stewart in London.
As we continue tonight, violence in the Middle East escalates and the ripple effects in the global markets. Interesting. You see these green. I
think -- oh good! Things have gone up and then you realize we are talking about oil. We are not talking about stocks and shares or anything like
that. It is oil over $100.00 a barrel. Ian Bremmer is going to be with me after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:30:56]
QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest.
There's a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight. Ian Bremmer is with me shortly. He believes the U.S. is stuck in an Iran quagmire. But the
question is, how do they get out of it? And by plane, train or automobile, the most efficient way to travel across Europe with the CEO of the booking
app Omio. Before that, of course, this is CNN and on this network, the news always comes first.
U.S. House lawmakers have voted again today to limit President Donald Trump's ability to wage war on Iran. Four Republicans voted with the
Democrats to require congressional approval for further military action. The resolution doesn't legally compel an end to the war. A similar measure
failed to pass in the Senate.
The U.S. Justice Department has announced it's dropping the subpoenas it issued against "New York Times" -- four "New York Times" journalists who
reported about security concerns of the new Air Force One. The paper had reported that President Trump left the NATO summit in Turkey on the old
plane because the new Qatari-gifted 747 800 lacked the necessary security upgrades.
Protesters in India now want the education minister to resign. Young demonstrators have taken to the street for weeks, partly over a leaked exam
paper scandal. The prime minister, Narendra Modi, has now commented on the issue for the first time, promising, in his words, swift and stringent
punishment for those involved.
Our top story, renewed fighting in the Middle East and the global markets. The Nasdaq has fared the worst, off more than 2 percent. Brent crude is now
over $100 a barrel for the first time since May. And perhaps most important, the violence has escalated in recent days and shows no sign of
slowing down with the Houthis.
Ian is with me. Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group and GZERO Media.
Ian, do you expect further escalation because containment now is becoming almost impossible?
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: I certainly don't expect the ceasefire to come back anytime soon. The Iranians want control over the
strait. They want leverage. They want money. The Americans are not prepared to provide it to them. And as long as that is true, Iran has the capacity
to continue to disrupt traffic and to threaten both American military assets and Gulf state critical infrastructure across the region.
They can also do that through their proxies, the Houthis, in the Red Sea, in the Bab al-Mandab Strait. All of that implies greater disruption,
irrespective of whether we see further escalation or not.
QUEST: Right. But we can -- awful to say, we can bumble along at a low grade of missile attacks here and there and every couple of days, this,
that and the other. All things could get a great deal worse which way do you see it going?
BREMMER: Well, I'm not so sure that bumbling is such a great outcome, because you do have stockpiles that are already diminished. You do have a
lot more protectionist policies in place. You have fiscal balances that are more constrained. You have inflation that is at higher rates than you're
comfortable with. So bumbling along is a problem.
I think bumbling is more likely than significant escalation. One of the reasons the Iranians continue to hit back is because they believe
correctly, in my view, that the Americans are not credible when they say that they're going to destroy all of Iran's critical infrastructure, the or
else your civilization will be destroyed, or else we'll take the oil, or else well attack Kharg Island and control it, or else we're going to put 20
percent tolls in place.
[16:35:05]
That was a 24-hour announcement and then backed off by Trump just a week ago. So I think that the unwillingness of the United States to credibly go
towards all-out war and the Iranians as well, on the one hand, it keeps a constraint, keeps a lid on how bad this can get, but also makes it much
more likely that we continue to have disruptions.
QUEST: Right. But then why did the Iranians start attacking the ships two weeks ago?
BREMMER: Why did they do that?
QUEST: Yes.
BREMMER: They did it because their understanding of the memorandum that was signed by the U.S. and by Iran was that they would have control over the
strait. There would be free access, but the Iranians would have control. And instead, 75 percent of the ships that went through were either going
through the Omani side of the strait that the Iranians don't control, the middle of the strait, which is comparatively easy to pass, but had some
mines in it, or they were going through dark without their transponders on.
And the Iranians said, we're not having any of that. That's not the control that we thought we were given in the memorandum. So we're going to start
shooting at these ships, which they did. In other words, the Americans and the Iranians came away from the memorandum with different understandings of
what the memorandum actually agreed to.
QUEST: How bad -- and that's my word. How bad is American diplomacy at the moment in terms of the execution of negotiations into credible agreements?
And the reason I ask is you've got Witkoff and Kushner doing the negotiations. We've had repeated examples, maybe with the only exception of
Gaza, where the agreements are -- Vance as well, of course, did the negotiations on this one, where it falls apart because there isn't that
cadre of seasoned diplomats doing the negotiation?
BREMMER: Look, Richard, I accept that that is a challenge. But I think a bigger challenge is that President Trump is unwilling to hear that things
are not going the way he wants them to go. So when he's briefed, his people are telling him the Iranians have capitulated. The Iranians are really
scared of you, sir. They're giving everything we want. This is a hugely successful deal. You're so smart, you're so strong.
They do that in part because Trump doesn't want to hear criticism, and in part because if they say things are going badly, other advisers will
undermine the ones that are saying they're going badly and say, no, no, no, this is going much better than you think, sir. And that's a problem. The
emperor has no clothes, and the advisers are saying, you've got clothes, sir. That makes it a lot harder to have a successful negotiation.
QUEST: In the end, I mean, besides the -- I mean, the seriousness of the whole issue, we have oil back at $100. Eventually that will transmit itself
into higher interest rates. But, Ian, the problem, of course, is as long as Mag 7 and A.I. keeps markets ebullient, the ability of the markets to
temper these actions becomes much more limited.
BREMMER: Sure. But there is political pushback in the U.S.. This war is very unpopular. President Trump won twice on the back of saying no new
wars. He's now wasted almost six months being distracted massively by a war that most Americans think is failing. The affordability issue, Trump is
more and more underwater on it. The markets are doing very, very well. But the average American does not feel like they are benefiting from it and
they do not feel like their possibilities economically are going so well.
And so as a consequence, the Republicans are likely to lose midterm elections. And I was just in Washington, and I met with a lot of
Republicans in the House and Senate, and they told me, they said that they don't think that Trump cares.
QUEST: All right.
BREMMER: They think that Trump sees the midterms as their problem.
QUEST: OK.
BREMMER: The Republicans' problem, not his problem.
QUEST: So, Ian, I've got one more question, though. Bearing in mind all of that, why -- look, many believe and have written about that, and you have
as well of course, that has been the failure of the Republicans in the Senate or in Congress to hold the president and to do their constitutional
duty is the way the argument goes.
At what point do you believe that the smell of defeat forces those same Republicans in Congress to hold, to do their constitutional duty arguably?
BREMMER: Oh, no, I don't see that. And we can't just blame the Republicans for that. I mean, the inadequacy of Congress to take hold of war powers
that they get to determine, the American president does not.
[16:40:07]
They weren't interested in doing that under Obama, under Biden, under Trump and his first administration. This is hardly new, and it's hardly news. So
that's not going to change.
QUEST: Ian, I'm grateful. Thank you, sir. Always good to see you. Thank you.
BREMMER: Good to see you, Richard.
QUEST: A growing number of people now use A.I. to get their news. Can it be trusted? Chief executive of a company that's putting A.I.'s answers to the
test will be with me after the break.
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Good evening to you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: If you ask a chatbot about the U.S. midterm elections, one company warns the answers will almost certainly be flawed. Forum A.I. evaluates and
grades how A.I. models handle high stakes topics. It says many responses are marred by false claims or political bias, or questionable sources. For
instance, it claims Anthropic's Claude misattributed quotes to a dead congressman and that Grok said U.S. assessments found no effective Iranian
navy, air force or advanced air defenses remained operational. Now, we tried to recreate those outputs and found both errors had now been fixed.
Campbell Brown is the co-founder of Forum A.I., former CNN correspondent, VP of News Partnerships at Meta and probably one of the world's leading
experts in terms of social media news and the search for sort of for verifiable information.
But, Campbell, good to see you, ma'am. Thank you for taking time. The issue is we all know it's flawed in some shape or form, but there's a difference
between, if you like, miscreant forms and malcontent, that is easily done and that which is just incompetently inefficient.
CAMPBELL BROWN, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, FORUM A.I.: That's true, Richard, but we're going to a world now where you can see where A.I. replaces social
media is the way where lots of people are getting their news and information. It's becoming the new funnel through which all information
flows. And if you're the average person using it and you're, you know, trying to figure out how to cook a chicken, and you're asking ChatGPT,
maybe that's not such a big deal.
But when it comes to high stakes topics, when it comes to things like geopolitics, elections, mental health questions, any health questions,
financial analysis, or, you know, questions around how to invest, those are extremely high stakes topics for most people.
[16:45:13]
And there needs to be a vast improvement from where we are today. And these are hard areas, in fairness to the companies, to improve upon but we -- you
know, we think the measurement and making it public and transparent is essential.
QUEST: So what would you like them to do? What are you aiming for in that? Because as you say, it's extremely complicated and it's very difficult and
detailed. So what do you want them doing?
BROWN: Well, I think independent testing is a critical piece of the puzzle that we're missing right now. It's what my company does. We'd like to see
the ecosystem around independent testing of A.I. systems grow. And that the companies are much more transparent and willing to have people evaluate how
they perform on many of these topics so that they can improve. And if you think about it, I mean, enterprise is spending millions and millions of
dollars on A.I. with these companies to deploy it at scale in their businesses.
And there is going to be a demand. There is a demand for accuracy and reliability in these tools. The problem is, you know, if you're the CEO of
these companies, the board of these companies, you really do need to ask yourself, who is testing the A.I. you're spending all this money on? Who's
evaluating it for you? And if the answer to that question is the company that's selling it to you, then you have a serious problem.
And I think whether you're building your own system internally to evaluate how A.I. performs, or you're using an outside company or a vendor, they're
nonprofits, I think eventually where we end up, Richard, is this is going to be an area where government regulation is going to come into play. We
already see that happening, certainly around security, but on any high stakes information, anything that really matters, anything that puts, you
know, your company in a position of liability, you have to have some kind of independent measure to rely on, to feel any confidence about deploying
any further.
QUEST: I realize that this sort of, this is a slightly depressing thought, but ultimately, because it will be expensive and difficult, and is it going
to take an accident? Is it going to take a calamity? Is it going to take something going badly wrong before those involved actually prepared to do
something about it?
BROWN: I don't think so. I think actually incentives are aligned, and I do think these companies want to improve.
QUEST: Right.
BROWN: They're in a race against one another. The competition is very intense. And so they do want to improve overall. They want to be the best
at whether it's just basic information for the average person or enterprise needs. But right now where they're leaning in primarily on the testing and
areas of improvement are things like coding and math. It's easier to do because those are more yes or no questions.
When it comes to areas that require real judgment, and those are the harder topics like geopolitics or health questions, where there is nuance and
complexity involved, you're going to need experts, genuine experts who have real world experience involved in that process. It's only been recently
that the big A.I. labs are bringing in people with the level of expertise they've needed to be able to perform those kind of tests around or
evaluation around these particular areas.
QUEST: Right.
BROWN: And I think at the end of the day, though, you still can't have the companies grading their own homework. Anything that matters, you know,
we're talking about building our entire, you know, civic ecosystem on top of this technology and having these companies grade their own homework and
put out their own evaluations about how they're performing is it isn't going to be enough. And I do think it's a, you know, on companies and an
ecosystem of independent evaluation to grow and bring some accountability to the process.
QUEST: I'm grateful. We'll talk more. Thank you for joining us tonight. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Campbell, good to see you again. Thank
you.
BROWN: Good to see you, Richard.
QUEST: There's an app that combines all possible options for travel across Europe. The chief executive of Omio is with me next and hopefully will
correct me because I've always said Omio, but somebody said it might be Omio or Omio. Whatever it is, we'll get it right and we'll tell you the
best way to travel because it's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:18]
QUEST: OK, so you're going from A to B, you've decided to brave the challenges. And we've had all sorts of problems this year, weather delays,
strikes, price of fuel. Now travel app Omio, Omio, we'll find out, aims to make life a little easier. Recently announcing that it's buying the ticket
service Rail Europe, which will expand its network even further. Goodness knows, if you've ever tried to book a rail ticket in Europe, the -- it's
just about, I mean, life is too short, frankly.
Well, we decided to try it out Omio's new idea, and we've chosen some of the most popular one. We chose Paris to Rome. Now, if you take a look here,
you can see Transavia. That's the Paris one. There you go. It's actually cheaper, but it is more pricey than the bus, so -- but you can then compare
how long it's going to take. And you get an idea of how to do it. So you've always got to remember in all of these, are you comparing apples and
oranges or that.
Then you've got, for example, this one is Prague to Berlin. Now in Prague to Berlin, here we go, Prague to Berlin, you've got -- we know the cheapest
again is lot at 248. But the second cheapest is there. And then you've got the quickest arguably here and you're constantly making decisions. For
example, $100 less than a flight and only half an hour longer. Finally, Venice to Monaco, well arguably, if you're going to Monaco, you've got so
much money, you don't really need to worry about it too much.
But here it is the bus. The bus is by far the cheapest and only slightly slower than the train. The Flexi bus, $60, and there you can see the time
here. One is seven hours. So it works out better overall.
Naren Shaam is the chief executive of Omio. He joins me now from Berlin.
We've given it a good showing there as to how it all operates because this is now really crucial, isn't it? On those journeys, four to eight hours,
you do have to compare whether or not it's bus, rail or train or air. Sorry.
NAREN SHAAM, CEO AND FOUNDER, OMIO: Richard, thanks for having me. I think the fundamental thesis behind the company is to bring transport into a
single product where you have two clicks to buy anywhere in the world you go, whether you're doing Tokyo to Kyoto or as you compared Monaco to Venice
to Monaco. There's the fundamental thesis inventory sources, operators that don't talk to each other and consumers are looking for a simple way to
consume travel so that they can actually enjoy the destination they go to.
And that's what we try and do is bring all of this. And in corridors less than about five hours, which is around, you know, 400 kilometers of travel,
it starts to become very competitive between the modes of transport.
[16:55:08]
So having all the options in one place makes it very easy, especially for foreigners who come to Europe. And as you said, it's a very complicated
train network here across the continent.
QUEST: Buying a rail ticket in Europe, well, first of all, pricing it and then buying it can be quite an ordeal. But it has to be the future to be
able to, to use the posh language, to do intermodal type of cross platform of different types of transport like this.
SHAAM: Absolutely. So the -- so our -- like in a world where, you know, you just spoke about oil and war and everything, it's refreshing to reflect on
something that's actually very positive for sustainability, for the atmosphere. The amount of investment going in rail around the world is
quite high from, you know, European government's investing, you know, Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi and UAE investing.
QUEST: Right.
SHAAM: India investing a lot in rail. But those are complex networks. A lot -- trains run between locations, you know, every half hour to 20 minutes
sometimes. There's a lot of different fares, class systems, cancellation, luggage policies, seating reservation systems. So bringing that experience
into a seamless two-click app is exactly what we try and do is break down the complexity so the customer can think. Most times customers, many
customers don't know the distances in geography. Is Milan to Zurich, you know, a flight or faster by train?
QUEST: Good question.
SHAAM: So these questions is what we're trying to answer.
QUEST: And we look forward to talking to you again because I do need to hear your views on the new European Entry System, but that'll have to wait
for another day when we can talk about, we can chew over that one.
Sir, thank you. I'm grateful to you because that is our program tonight. That is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. We will have a "Profitable Moment" after the
break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment." You can only test the patience of the markets for so long. And that's essentially what's been happening in terms
of the oil and energy markets. Well, eventually, of course, once the Houthis decided to get into the battle in the Red Sea, the markets were
going to throw oil over $100 a barrel, which means any inflationary lowering that we might have seen is going to be reversed. And essentially,
the affordability crisis is going to continue for the foreseeable future.
And remember one crucial point. We are in the middle of the summer now. You have the winter heating season coming up after the summer. So the portends
for lower prices are simply not good. And that puts the United States in an extremely difficult position.
It also means that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for this Thursday night. I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up to the in the hours ahead,
whether rail or train, air, bus, I hope it's profitable. And please, you and I, let's make sure we meet tomorrow.
END
