Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Interview with Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic; Scale of Trump's Trades Raises Concerns Over Potential for Corruption; Investing in Africa. Iran President: We Will Never Bow Our Head to Trump; WTO Chief: A.I. Boom Driving Global Trade Resilience; Tech Executives Brie Security Council Amid A.I. Safety Concerns. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 23, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:11]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": The closing bell is ringing on Wall Street. BNY Bank of New York Mellon is
ringing the closing bell and the market, as you can see, is down not only for the Dow, which is sharply lower, but more of steeper losses
over on the NASDAQ, which is off over one percent. Bring trading to close and a one and a two and a one, two, three, four.
Those are the markets, and these are the main events we are following.
Ukraine' President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is warning the U.N. that Russia's aggression won't stop at his country's borders. I will be speaking to
the Prime Minister of Croatia about that warning.
OpenAI chief executive, Sam Altman is urging world leaders at the U.N. to take extreme care when it comes to A.I. development.
And on this program tonight, the Director General of the WTO says trade friction could wipe seven percent of global GDP in the coming decades
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala will be with me.
We are live now in New York. Midweek, Wednesday, September the 23rd. I am Richard Quest and there is no bell, but I mean business.
We begin with a defiant message from Iran at the U.N. General Assembly that is now reverberating through global oil markets. Iran's President
Pezeshkian said Tehran will never bow its head to the U.S. He also denounced what he is calling bullying by President Trump, who threatened
Iran yesterday with possible annihilation.
The Iranian President vowed to block the Strait of Hormuz to any country that threatens Tehran, and that's had an immediate effect, as you can
see. Brent crude is up four percent, WTI up two percent. Brent now comfortably back over $103.00 a barrel.
On the sidelines of the General Assembly, the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, extended an extraordinary invitation to the Kremlin after
his meeting with the Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. The Secretary of State said Vladimir Putin has now been invited to attend the G20 this
December in Miami.
If Putin accepts, it will be the first time he has attended the summit in person since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Jim Sciutto is at
the United Nations. Let's reverse ourselves into that.
Let's start with that. Were you surprised that Rubio would -- I mean, I suppose he is entitled to as host, but invite Putin and then really
others have to decide if they're going to attend.
JIM SCIUTTO CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Listen, I often say that the most consistent feature of President
Trump's foreign policy is outreach to Putin and to Russia and some would say even accommodation, right? This will be the second time in a little
more than a year, including the Anchorage Summit that the U.S. President, will have welcomed Putin back into the fold since the full
scale invasion, right, four-and-a-half years ago.
But, you know, all of America's allies have exiled him. The U.S. has welcomed him back in from exile, and now twice, and by the way, Richard,
without getting really anything in return, right? I mean, Russia continues the war on Ukraine, arguably expanding it. And at the same
time, it is expanding a hybrid war on Europe. So it is not clear, Richard, what the outrage -- what they believe the outrage is
accomplishing.
QUEST: So how will European leaders, who are also members of the G20 react, do you think? I mean, they're not going to want to offend
President Trump, but they are also not going to want to sit down and be seen to sit down. I can't see Chancellor Merz wanting to sit down in the
same room as Vladimir Putin.
SCIUTTO: It is going to present them with a big challenge. You know, I just asked the Canadian Foreign Minister that very question: How do you
react to this? She said she was surprised, but she did go on to say it is taking place in the U.S., it is the U.S. prerogative to invite a
foreign leader, which is certainly true.
But remember, the G20 is meant to be a -- it is meant to be a club, right? And the other members of the club have a voice, and I doubt they
were consulted on this invitation.
QUEST: So just quickly wrap the day up for me on Iran. We've had President Trump yesterday. We had the Iranian President today talks
behind-the-scenes potentially perhaps. But are the two sides -- I mean, all I can see is the price of oil that's gone up over comfortably over
$100.00 a barrel again.
[16:05:10]
SCIUTTO: Yes. The market read of the diplomatic outreach is not positive. But I will say let's take the good with the bad.
QUEST: Right.
SCIUTTO: Trump threatens Iran, we will annihilate you. The Iranian president threatens the Strait of Hormuz et cetera. But both of them,
both leaders said they are open to diplomacy, and both leaders sent their people to talk to each other here in New York.
Marco Rubio said, no big breakthroughs, but at least that diplomatic channel is open. Where it leads, we don't know. It has certainly failed
before. The IRGC does not appear to be on board, but in the spirit of diplomacy here at the UNGA, perhaps we can call that that progress.
QUEST: Jim, I am grateful, sir. You will, of course, be presenting the brief from the United Nations in just two hours from now. Thank you.
Now, global trade tensions are also looming over this year's General Assembly. The head of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, is warning
the fallout could be very costly for the global economy.
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said at the Semafor Summit this week that global GDP could take seven percent of global GDP by 2050 if trade cooperation
fails and global exports could fall more than 18 percent according to the latest report. The Director General of the World Trade Organization
joins me now from the United Nations.
Director General, I hope you can hear me. Good to see you. Looking well, if I may say so, ma'am.
NGOZI OKONJU-IWEALA, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: Good to see you.
QUEST: And it is kind of you to give us time. Now, look this seven percent and these high numbers, these are alarming large numbers, but we
are now two or three years in to some very disruptive tariffs, and they don't seem to be going away.
So, are we learning to live with this environment?
OKONJU-IWEALA: Well let me say, Richard, that the seven percent refers to fragmentation. What I had actually stated was that if the world -- if
we fail at global cooperation on trade and the world fragments into two different trading blocs, that are not trading with each other, this
would really be bad for the world, and it could lead to that seven percent loss of global GDP by 2050, the longer term, which is a
significant loss for the global economy.
If we cooperate, however and we keep up the trade with each other, then we could actually add, we would have a positive effect on global GDP as
well. So that's what I was trying to say, that fragmenting into two trading blocs, so it is just beyond tariffs.
I mean, if tensions get really high and geopolitical tensions are such that we fragment and we don't cooperate, it could be costly for the
world.
QUEST: If we just take the United States and their current policy, the U.S. current policy, essentially, you've got to assume that for the next
two years that this regime of tariffs at a whim is going to be the norm and everybody just has to accommodate it. And in some cases, it will be
even worse, for example, with the case of Canada versus the U.S. Is that your sort of base case scenario?
OKONJU-IWEALA: Well, let me say there are two things I would like to say here. Of course, what we are hoping is that the talks between the U.S.
and China, for instance, will result in an agreement that will bring a detente such as they had before. That was a wonderful thing because it
avoided negative spillovers on the rest of the world, and we truly appreciate that in the trading system. We hope they can continue that
agreement.
The same with the other major trading blocs like the E.U. and China or the E.U. and the U.S. What we want is for some agreement to be in place,
such as the U.S. and China had reached. So, we are hoping for that. If we have that base case scenario, I think that will bring better
stability and predictability into world trade.
But I want to say one thing, Richard. What we had painted was a picture of fragmentation. I want to say that right now the trading system is
showing some resilience, you know, growth in trade. We've got the first quarter numbers for 2026 at 3.2 percent for merchandise trade and that
is actually against the 1.9 percent we had forecast.
And A.I. -- trading A.I. goods is driving this trade and bringing some amount of uplift to the system. And I also want to mention, if you
recall before that trade on WTO terms is still going on 72 percent of world's goods trade is going on WTO terms right now.
[16:10:06]
So there is some core of the system that is working. We shouldn't forget that.
QUEST: Right. Let's talk about the A.I. trade that you're talking about. It is a double edged sword in a sense, because it is good to have that
trade; certainly in electronics, chips and all of those things that are the backbone of A.I., But it is also arguably the bit that is the bubble
in the global economy. It is the bit that is in the bubble of the stock market. It is the bit that is attracting vast amounts of investment.
And I question to you, Director General, are you worried about the sustainability of that trade?
OKONJU-IWEALA: Yes, Richard, I will say we are worried. We are happy to see boosting trade numbers, but we are worried about two things. One is,
is this going to last? Will it be sustainable? And that's a question mark out there. The second is, is it inclusive? We find that the gains
are concentrated in East Asia and North America.
So most of the investment in A.I., of course, is concentrated in the U.S. --in North America and the trade, a lot of it is coming from East
Asia. So those two regions are the biggest beneficiaries in the world, and one thing we worry about A.I. is will it include the rest of the
world? Because if it is inclusive, the world will benefit tremendously. We actually even forecast that trade will go up by 40 percent by 2040 if
it is inclusive. If not, we can see a downside where inequality increases.
QUEST: I think you know the answer to that, Director General. We know that at the moment it is not inclusive.
OKONJU-IWEALA: Yes, we do. We do know it is not inclusive because the numbers are showing us -- they are showing us where the trade is going,
we know where the investment is going over 70 percent to North America, so we have the numbers.
But we hope that if this is sustained, if its impact spreads to other parts of the world, then it will be even more beneficial worldwide. But
if it stays concentrated, then you have parts of the world that are not really benefiting from it.
QUEST: It is good to see you, ma'am. Thank you for taking time to talk to us. Next time we will face-to-face in the same room at the same
place. Thank you. Good to talk to you.
OKONJU-IWEALA: Thank you. Good to see you, Richard.
QUEST: Now, U.S. borrowing just hit the costs -- the highest level in nearly 20 years. The yield on the benchmark 10-year rose to 5.1 percent
following a new business survey showed activity expanding this month at the fastest rate since 2021.
David Goldman is in New York. David, why -- I see you've got a nice sort of -- you've got the yield curve there. I mean, you have got the yield
curve.
Actually, it is quite a tight curve if you think about it essentially from 4.9 to 5.4. That's quite a tight yield range, but why is the long
end rising.
DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, well, I mean we saw this. It was below five percent of the benchmark 10-year earlier this
morning. And now, we just hit the highest in 19 years; also, a huge, huge gain in the two-year. This is now at the highest since 2024
foreshadowing, we will get back to this, why is it higher over here?
Well, there are three main reasons, Richard. The first is the economy. We just had a huge PMI number 58.4. That is the highest since July of
2021. That means the economy is growing faster than we thought. Look at GDP now, the Atlanta Fed forecast for how fast the U.S. economy is
growing. 5.1 percent annualized rate right now. That is astounding, and this is reason number one.
But number two, what comes with fast growth? Inflation. And we have oil prices -- big, big contributor to that rising above $100.00 a barrel
again after falling below $100.00 a barrel yesterday. That is fueling higher rates because if inflation -- yes go ahead.
QUEST: Yes, yes, well, that is interesting. I want to go back to that first bit. You've got a PMI and you've got a GDP strong number, in a
sense, the U.S. economy is roaring ahead. But on the back of what? Is it on the back of A.I., A.I. investment, A.I. spending?
GOLDMAN: It is. I mean, remember how much A.I. spending there is. Theres $1 trillion worth of A.I. spending. Let's see if I can get all of these
in.
QUEST: Yes, you'll get it there.
GOLDMAN: There we go.
[16:15:10]
One trillion dollars' worth of A.I. spending.
QUEST: No, no, no!
GOLDMAN: -- according to JPMorgan.
QUEST: One trillion, yes, yes!
GOLDMAN: We did it!
QUEST: How sustainable is this? I mean, because if all of this is true, then we certainly would be looking at further rate hikes because not
only do you have demand inflation and you've got supply inflation.
GOLDMAN: Yes, well, that's what the market thinks, too, 69 percent chance according to the CME Fed Watch tool today; it was just at 55
percent yesterday.
So yes, the market believes that we are going to have to get a rate hike faster economy, faster inflation that adds to rate hike and what happens
when the fed hikes rates, we get higher bond yields. The one that tracks that is the two-year bond yield and we are seeing that surge today.
We know, however that this really affects consumers. Obviously, mortgages and auto loans tied to this credit card rates tied to fed
rate.
QUEST: Is there any risk that the two and the 10 invert?
GOLDMAN: Well, they are getting very close, Richard. So this is something that we really need to watch. As you said at the beginning,
this is a flattening curve for sure.
QUEST: Interesting. Well, there we are. Gosh, don't invite David and myself to a dinner party. We will end up talking about inverted yield
curves.
GOLDMAN: Yes, that's right.
QUEST: Oh.
GOLDMAN: The best.
QUEST: Good to see you, David. Thank you.
GOLDMAN: You, too.
QUEST: Now, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight is the best way you can come to and be unashamedly geeky about economic issues.
When we return, a federal judge is hearing a challenge to The White House ban that affects CNN and two other news outlets, MS NOW and
POLITICO discuss that and the state of press freedom in America.
In a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Executives of the top A.I. firms OpenAI, Anthropic and Hugging Face have been at the U.N. Security Council briefing officials following
recent flurry of warnings about the technology's potential to advance beyond human control.
Now, some tech leaders, including the OpenAI CEO say the growth of A.I. should slow down. A company spokesman says Sam Altman wants the U.N.
Security Council to establish standards for measuring these models' capabilities and to review safeguards that A.I. companies are putting in
place.
Regulating A.I. is also a huge priority for world leaders at this year's assembly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER STUBB, FINNISH PRESIDENT: Artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology in the history of mankind.
Humans can and should be in the driver's seat.
ANDY BURNHAM, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: A.I. will also be a source of disruption to the way we live and work, a multiplier of risk.
We've all heard the warnings which we must heed.
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): Let's not wait for the consequences to come raining down on A.I. We must act now to
protect our children and our young people.
ANTONIO GUTERRES, UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL: The danger is not technology. The danger is technology without accountability, capability
without oversight, decision making without transparency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Clare is with me. Clare, look, we could sail an ocean with the hot air that we've just heard. But I don't know what you do about it
all. Even listening to what Sam Altman was saying. I mean, he is the one doing the stuff. The government leaders are the one who have the duty of
regulation. Everybody is thrashing around saying something must be done, but I don't know what.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH WRITER: It is a little bit like that meme where all three Spider-Mans are pointing at each other. It is like everybody
wants something to do -- somebody to do something about the A.I. risks here. We heard that from these A.I. leaders -- from OpenAI CEO, Sam
Altman; Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei; as well as Hugging Face CEO, Clement Delangue -- they are calling on global leaders to work together
to come up with some sort of global, collaborative way of reining in this technology, and they framed it in these really stark terms.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman calling this a crossroads. Take a listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM ALTMAN, CEO, OPENAI: We are at a crossroads. One path leads to a world where power is concentrated, decisions are opaque and people feel
that the most important technology of their lifetime is something being done to them.
The other path leads to a world where A.I. works for people, because people through democratic institutions help decide how it should develop
and guide it; where scientific progress improves real lives, where more people can participate in the future, and where this technology
continues to give individuals and communities greater power to live life as they choose
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DUFFY: Now, Richard, what I think is interesting about that is I would think most people feel like we are kind of in scenario one there where
most regular people don't have control of where this is all going, but these leaders did offer a few concrete examples. Dario Amodei said
global leaders should start small in terms of this collaboration, but should look at coming up with common safety standards, safety
guardrails, incident reporting that is similar across all of these countries, secure channels among these countries for communications
about risk when these technologies go wrong, and also a ban on significant risks, things like using A.I. for biological weapons.
QUEST: I thought the last one was a bit of a no brainer, but, you know, I was just flying back to the States over the last few hours and I was
reading and much taken by comments made by Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex.
He gave a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative. Have a listen to what he said, because it was quite stark. He is not talking about the big
stuff. He is talking about the individual stuff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: New companionship products were built at scale, they say, to solve the loneliness epidemic which they created and
put into the hands of children before anyone had established whether they were safe.
And when harm follows, the companies distance themselves from responsibility for the systems they built; blaming parents and children
for lack of control, find you, hook you, exploit you, break and then blame you; pretend to fix you and use you more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Is that fair?
DUFFY: Well, Richard, I do think that is fair in many respects. That is sort of what we've seen happen with these tech companies is they don't
think enough proactively about the potential harms from their technology.
And when we step back a little bit, I do think that there is a choice that regulators have to make at this point, both on an individual
country scale, but also globally. Do you think about and do you address these big picture hypothetical extinction sort of risks or these more
individual risks where we are already seeing claims that these technologies are harming people?
And how do you sort of judge where you're going to focus your attention? Is it those big but hypothetical risks, or is it where we are already
seeing this technology impact people's lives in terms of their jobs, in terms of their children, in terms of their schooling? And I think that
is, you know, as I've talked to people in this industry, there are some concerns that there is too much focus on those big picture hypothetical
risks and not enough on where this technology may already be doing damage.
[16:25:13]
QUEST: Clare, I suppose it is the old thing, can we walk and chew gum at the same time? I am grateful. Thank you, Clare Duffy, joining me.
The emergency hearing onto The White House's power to ban three news organizations from covering the President is finished and the judge
hasn't yet ruled. CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO, they both have been -- all three have been asking for their access to The White House to be
restored, arguing that President Trump's ban is unconstitutional.
The news outlets call the move a blatant violation of the First Amendment. The Justice Department defended the ban, citing National
Security concerns.
Joey Jackson joins me now.
They did even more than that, the Justice Department, didn't they? They tried to ex post facto claim that they were having due process by
handing out letters after they made the decision. Look, this is all very strange and weird, but what is interesting is that the judge has not
ruled just immediately. Do we know when we might expect to get a ruling?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Richard, good to be with you. I think we will get a decision virtually immediately and remember, this is
not going to be a decision on the merits, well, sort of not a decision on the merits. This is a decision whether to pretty much stay, right,
that is reverse this particular ban, while the case proceeds. This is what is called an injunction.
What does that mean in English? It means a judge has to make a decision as to whether or not to afford emergency relief, to put things as they
were while the case proceeds, and in order for you to get that injunction to stay, reverse, put things as they were, you have to
establish in CNN's case number one, that you're likely to succeed on the merits as the case proceeds. I believe they will do that.
You have to establish that the balancing of all the equities and of all the factors establishes that this was unlawful and unconstitutional. And
you have to establish that it is in the public interest for it to do so.
Last point, Richard, that is that you have to establish irreparable harm - all of these legal terms and that basically means that we are being
harmed as a result of not being afforded this access. Well, how? How is because you have viewers and inquiring minds want to know and to the
extent that you're not there and able to report with regard to what is happening nationally, that is certainly harm and it is irreparable.
You've damaged me today, we can't make up for it tomorrow if you're excluding me today.
So that's important ad I think they will proceed and prevail on all of the above.
QUEST: What about this interesting argument about security that the Justice Department has just thrown in at the last bit, that there are
parts of The White House that are, you know, secure -- and the press -- and there is legal precedent for saying that the President can restrict
access of certain people to certain parts of The White House.
I mean, it is a bit of a long shot, but dot, dot, dot -- Joey.
JACKSON: So what happens, Richard, is that facts matter and when you start tweeting things out, talking about fake news and the reality is,
is that they criticized me and they're just terrible in what they're saying and then oh, you consult your lawyers and 24 hours later, you
say, oh, national security. I think it is a factual issue.
Number one, on the merits, I don't understand how national security even has a basis here. The news organizations have a right to report what is
happening in the world. Are munitions low because of a war? Yes, they are. So we are going to report that. Hey, what about this bunker that
you're creating and all about -- White House says national security? No, no, it is the People's House. We have an obligation to report that.
And so, number one, I don't think National Security is implicated. Number two, I think that National Security seems so convenient when
clearly it appeared to me and anybody else who was looking that you don't like what is being reported, you don't like the views, you don't
like what is being said, so as a result of that, you say, get out of here.
Facts matter, and I think that's a prior inconsistent statement. Today, you say it is a National Security, but yesterday you really said what it
really was, you don't like CNN.
QUEST: Ultimately, let's just scope it out, so say you get the Temporary Restraining Order, the thing then goes on to -- carries on, you then
have to decide if you're going to have a -- how long before you would ever have a hearing on the merits of the actual case, do you think?
JACKSON: So, there is a couple of ways to answer that. The one way is, who cares, in the event that you are CNN and you get everything restored
because a judge has essentially said that I think you are going to succeed on the merits.
I do think that there is a First Amendment, if the judge rules this way, which I think the judge will, the law is pretty clear here. Usually in
law, we are in these gray areas, we don't know, it could be this, it could be that. I mean, this couldn't be clearer that you don't like my
viewpoint. So as long as you get the relief that you're requesting, which is get me back into The White House, well, you know, when they
ultimately have a ruling on the merits, I don't really care because I am back. It will be up to the government to push the issue.
Another point, Richard, and that's this. it is not only about First Amendment, it is about the manner in which this happened. There is
another constitutional right that is in the Fifth Amendment. It is called due process. If I am going to take something from you, then you
have to afford me some process, that is give me notice of what I am doing wrong and an opportunity to be heard and then, you'll make a
decision right before the courts as to whether or not you've done it properly, and if you do, okay, I am excluded; if you don't, I am not.
That wasn't done either.
So this is a blatant violation of the Constitution in many regards and I suspect that the judge in hearing the merits, and again, I am trying to
be as objective as I can, but in being objective, Richard, I have to talk about the law and the law says that the First Amendment, you have a
right to say what you need to say, do what you need to do. And to the extent that you may not like that, that's your problem.
But we have a right to debate, to air our views as long as they're not fighting words or words that are going to cause imminent danger or
anything else. The press has its right. It has its protections. I do not see the government prevailing with respect to them being in court this
afternoon on this hearing. I think the rights will be restored with the quickness.
QUEST: And we will find out in the hours ahead. Joey, I am grateful. Joey Jackson joining me.
It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight, live from New York. President Zelenskyy has defended Ukraine's strikes. The president on Russian oil
factors. I will talk about that in a moment, coming up with the Croatian Prime Minister.
[16:31:31]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. There's a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment. I'll be talking to the Croatian prime minister, who
recently spoke at the United Nations. And the finances of President Trump are coming under scrutiny after recent disclosures. We'll get to
it all after the news. This is CNN and here on this network the news comes first.
With the world watching, Iran's president has called President Trump a bully and vowed that his nation would never bow or bend at the knee.
[16:35:07]
President Masoud Pezeshkian told the U.N. General Assembly that the world cannot allow war to replace dialogue and diplomacy. And he accused
the United States and Israel of waging a war of terrorism on Iran.
The Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, is set to begin his first U.S. state visit since 2017. President Xi and President Trump will hold closed door
meetings on Thursday, followed by a black tie dinner. The debate over A.I. dangers and regulations is expected to be a key issue in their
discussions.
The British prime minister, Andy Burnham, says the U.K. will work hard to solve a disagreement with the United States over the Chagos Islands.
The prime minister discussed the dispute on Tuesday with President Donald Trump at the U.N.. Mr. Trump opposes a U.K. plan to cede
sovereignty of the island to Mauritius. The Indian Ocean territory is home to an important joint U.S. military base.
Russia's war in Ukraine has been a major focus at this year's U.N. General Assembly, and its impact on global energy markets is taking on a
new urgency. President Zelenskyy of Ukraine addressed the United Nations General Assembly today, and as he did so, the gathering a short time
ago, he urged countries to limit trade with Russia and defended Ukraine's strikes on Russian energy sites.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: If a nation wants peace, it must work on strong weapons. Ukraine is doing exactly that. And this is
why, for the first time in Russia's history, we now hear that its pride, its oil industry, is running off fumes. But oil itself is not Ukraine's
target, not our target, not gasoline or diesel, not factories or ports. As such, our target is Russia's ability to finance this war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: The Croatian prime minister, Andrej Plenkovic, addressed the general assembly yesterday. When he spoke, he condemned Russia's war in
Ukraine and called for a just and lasting peace. The prime minister is with me now.
Prime Minister, it is always good to see you, sir. I'm very grateful. And, you know, you and I have talked about this now many times over the
last few years. And I'm not sure much has changed other than the fighting continues. The Russian drones hit Kyiv and now Ukraine is
striking further into Russia.
What happens next, Prime Minister?
ANDREJ PLENKOVIC, CROATIAN PRIME MINISTER: Hello, Richard. Great to be again with you this time from New York. You have summarized exactly the
content of our discussions over the past years on this topic and what we have seen in the meantime, that Russia has relentlessly continued with
the brutal aggression against Ukraine for four and a half years.
And what we have also seen that Ukraine, in the meantime, not only has regained its old strength, but has managed to enjoy a very strong
support of the international community, first of all, to endure this aggression, secondly, to build up its powerful military, especially the
new technological advancements that have enabled it to cause damage deep in the Russian territory.
What President Zelenskyy today said at the UNGA was very clear. He's targeting the ability of Russia to continue financing the war. And the
easiest way to do it, and the most practical, is to challenge its capacity to produce oil and gas.
QUEST: Right.
PLENKOVIC: So this is what we have seen is something that could have been expected after years of suffering for Ukraine and Ukrainian people.
QUEST: The Ukraine is going to need more money. We saw some new numbers, in the tens of billions there. There will be a bulking reluctance by
European countries to have to stump up large sums, billions of euros. So soon after the last lot. Are you confident that the E.U. will stick
together in terms of providing the financing?
PLENKOVIC: I think we have had this debate actually last year when there were still obstacles, especially by one country at a time, but the
majority of us found legal ways, first of all, to allow the European Union's budget a headroom in order to resort to basically 90 billion of
loans, which were 60 billion intended for strengthening the Ukrainian defense and 30 billion for running of the country.
[16:40:20]
We understand that the war takes its toll. It consumes very quickly the weapons and the ammunition and the defense systems. But at the same
time, what we have said very often is that we are here to support Ukraine because we are actually protecting the international law.
QUEST: Right.
PLENKOVIC: That was the main point of my speech yesterday, especially for smaller and medium sized countries. If we are going to ignore or to
simply put aside international law, the whole international system and our security and existence is in question. That's why Ukraine is so
important as a model of where the world is going in the future.
QUEST: Prime Minister, for the last couple of minutes, I want to talk about your own country if I may.
PLENKOVIC: Please do.
QUEST: We're coming to the -- we're coming to the end of what was a busy summer. I mean, the heat across Europe, and I was across in many places
across Europe, the heat was just blistering. But Croatia did still manage a very good tourism season. But you must be concerned not only at
the climate change, but also at how you're going to manage the tourism industry in your country in the years ahead.
PLENKOVIC: Well, it has been another record season, according to the data that we have for the first eight months. Croatia more or less
reached the stage where we have around 22 million tourists a year and around 110 million overnights, with above 15.78 billion euros of income.
This is what we get from our tourism sector, which is very important for the continuous growth of the Croatian economy.
And we have been growing for 22 quarters in a row. This year I expect that our growth will be around 2.3 percent, 2.4 percent, which is, I
think, still the double of the European Union and the Eurozone. But you are right, the climate change and the drought has impacted a lot our
security, security in terms of wildfires. Croatia has a very strong Canadair planes and air tractors. We are actually exporting this
capability to other countries in the Mediterranean, but we have had some wildfires where unfortunately we had human casualties.
This hasn't happened in a long time, and we are increasing the sort of homeland security concept of integrating everyone and fighting it
together. So once more, I would like to thank our firemen for doing an incredible job over this season, the entire fire season, as we call it.
And yesterday, in that respect, one of their vice chairs was with me visiting the New York Fire Department and commemorating their work for
the 9/11.
QUEST: Right. We will talk more. Again, I'm grateful, Prime Minister. Next time, as I always say, next time in Croatia. Thank you, sir.
PLENKOVIC: You're more than welcome. We'll be looking for you again.
QUEST: Thank you.
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, the president and the portfolio. New figures reveal a staggering amount of stock trades made on behalf of President
Trump. They include tens of million dollars in sales. Now, serious questions of conflicts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:17]
QUEST: And that was Melania Trump, the U.S. first lady, ringing the Opening Bell today on Wall Street. She then spoke at an event in New
York on the global economic power of women. Meanwhile, the finances of her husband, President Donald Trump, are coming under close scrutiny.
There are concerns being raised about the potential for corruption, given the staggering number of trades made in his name.
In July alone, the president's team made more than a thousand trades, including such as SpaceX, which do business with the federal government.
Mr. Trump's financial managers have made more than 28,000 trades so far during his second term, according to Bloomberg analysis. Former
President Joe Biden made a total of 13 stock trades whilst in office and Barack Obama made zero.
Alison Murray is with me. She's been crunching the numbers for us.
Now, all right. I'm just going to put it there. What is so wrong if the president doesn't know the nature of the trades and they're all reported
ex post facto. Now I agree this is not as good as a blind trust. A true blind trust that we'd have seen in previous years. But the president is
a very wealthy man. He has -- you know where I'm going with this. He's got lots of resources. So what's wrong?
ALLISON MORROW, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR WRITER: I mean, according to the White House, there's nothing wrong because all of these trades were done
not by Trump himself. It's important to know he's not, you know, on his phone using the Robinhood app and trading individual stocks. These are
being done by money managers, third parties. And the White House is insistent the president has no idea what's being traded when. And
neither does anyone in his family. It's all being done with computer algorithms and sophisticated technology. So there's no way that there
could be a conflict of interest.
Now, if you trust that, then that's totally fine. But historically, the president has been held to a much higher standard. That's why, as you
noted earlier, Barack Obama and Joe Biden barely made any trades and really only had mutual funds and index stocks and index funds because of
the appearance, the concern of a conflict of interest because of all the information, market moving information a president is privy to.
QUEST: I guess really that's it. Because it's what we used to say in Britain, a nod-nod, wink-wink. You know what where we're going. And if
you look at the country, the nature of the companies that are being involved.
And, Allison, all right, I'll say it. And if you look at what we know elsewhere from where his family has had relationships with those
companies that have done business with the government, the question is whether he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt in this.
MORROW: Right. And if you look at the scale of it, I mean, this level of trading, this turnover, 1100 trades in one month is so staggering. Most
hedge funds don't do 1100 trades in one month. And you know, I think that it's asking a lot of the American people to assume that the
president is not enriching himself in office, given his net worth has jumped from $4 billion in 2024. You know, nothing to turn your nose up
at. And then now he's worth $7 billion, according to Forbes. So that's a huge, staggering jump in the span of, what, 18 months?
QUEST: And we'll get the numbers at some point. Remember, we got the president's increased wealth and particularly as it relates to crypto,
we'll get that as well. Interesting stuff. Thank you, Allison Morrow, joining us with that story.
MORROW: Thanks.
QUEST: Thank you.
The head of Africa's export-import, Exim Bank, says trade tensions are highlighting the need for Africa to produce what it needs for itself.
[16:50:04]
In a moment, Zain Asher has been talking to the -- to George Elombi.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: The head of the WTO, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, told me about how trade tensions are threatening the global economy. Now, the chairman of
Afreximbank sees these challenges as a wake-up call. George Elombi told Zain Asher the President Trump's tariff war is motivating Africa to be
self-reliant.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GEORGE ELOMBI, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN, AFREXIMBANK: What the increasing tariffs, the increasing unilateralism in trade and in other aspects of
international cooperation has demonstrated to us is that we have to begin to build our own internal capacities and perhaps you already have
seen some of the African industries growing to meet domestic demand and also to meet external demand. And that's only happening because more and
more, the African side is beginning to understand that unless it produces for itself and for the rest of the world, it could be destroyed
at any time.
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: And a key part of that is obviously made in Africa, which, of course, the bank has really championed.
ELOMBI: There we go. Clearly. Clearly.
ASHER: Talk to us about how your sort of financing the aggregation, distribution and sort of cross-border mobilization of made in Africa
products specifically.
ELOMBI: Yes, you're right in that initially we thought, as at my investiture and perhaps up to two years ago, that it was just all about
you going to the factory line in Africa, as elsewhere, you produce, you manufacture, and then the product is out there. We now realize that the
more you go up the chain, the more the value seems to escape you.
ASHER: A lot of African economies, as you know, are burdened by debt. There's high borrowing costs. They face liquidity constraints as well.
How does Afreximbank step in without contributing to the high cost and obviously resourced collateralized loans that contribute to some of the
constraints that some of these economies are already facing?
ELOMBI: Even the rating agencies, even the rating agencies, which were supposed to be a little more level headed, cold-blooded, do some very
serious analysis, are victims to that. So the load that risk perception, perception, not reality, but the load all of that into the analysis of
the African environment. And then that begins to increase the cost. And when we borrow at a high cost, we then unable to deal with the
development, it sucks into the actual level of investment that you have left, of resources you have left for the investments. That's where we
see the risk, and that's where we see the narrative has to change.
ASHER: You have Afreximbank essentially launching a $1 billion Pan- African film fund.
ELOMBI: That's right.
ASHER: You know, it's an interesting investment because obviously, I mean, I'm from Nigeria, the home of Nollywood.
ELOMBI: That's right.
ASHER: And culture and being able to export African culture is so important. It's so important not just to combat stereotypes, but really
when it comes to narrative, African storytelling, identity, our own history. You talk about some of the things, some of the perceptions that
people have of Africa that contributes to Africa being kept where it's at. And obviously narrative is hugely important.
However, that $1 billion Pan-African film fund comes at a time when the continent is clearly dealing with other issues, whether it's high energy
costs, whether it's food scarcity.
ELOMBI: Food, infrastructure, of course, yes. That's right.
ASHER: Infrastructure issues. So how do you justify that kind of investment given what's happening economically at the continent right
now?
[16:55:06]
ELOMBI: This is the reality. We found out five years ago that we were financing large corporates in the country, sometimes middle sized,
sometimes the states themselves directly. The government. Large projects. But the more we did two, the less we had outreach to the
young. And we then had to think about a program to reach out to the young. We then started what we call a Creative African Nexus, CANEX,
which you must have heard of.
CANEX is going to have a big feast in Nigeria this November, November 5 to 7, and we're inviting the world to eat. But you can't have to go
there and see what the African young people can do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: That's the chief executive. A quick look at the markets, need to bring you to that of course. We had a down day on the Dow and a down day
on -- all three major indices were lower. And if you look at the Dow 30 we're a bit of smidgen of green at the top. Half the line at the top was
there. Salesforce, strong-ish but not brilliant. Boeing again similarly. But it's a lot that they were way overweighed by some significant losses
of Amazon, Alphabet, McDonald's. Broader economic concerns, which are now weighing on investors.
We will take a "Profitable Moment" after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment," I've been doing this quite a while, and you get to see how policy shift changes. People come
together, they agree, they find common ground. They disagree. They finally decide to put together a policy. And that's what's happening
with A.I. at the moment.
On the one level, you have the Sam Altmans and the Darios who are all doing the very big picture at the United Nations and the world leaders
saying something must be done, and then trying to find common ground that you can do. So very difficult when the president of the United
States is at odds with everybody else. And then you have people like the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry. He was -- I was really taken with what he
said about A.I.. It finds you, hooks you, exploits you, breaks you, and then blames you, pretends to fix you and use you more.
So there you have both sides of the A.I. debate, the macro and the micro. And the question is, can policy-makers come together to find any
form of solution for some form of regulation, whether it be existential to society or individual to humanity. And I think the problem is going
to be, of course, the United States. Will President Trump sign up to any of these things? Because if he doesn't and the U.S. won't, then it's
going to be questionable about whether it's any good or where any of it is going to end up.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest. Glad to be back in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I forgot
the bell, I hope it's profitable.
END
