Will Trump Fire John Bolton Next?

After he nearly scuttled the historic talks with North Korea by hinting that Kim Jong Un could face a fate similar to former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, National Security Advisor John Bolton is being sidelined by President Trump ahead of the historic June 12 summit in Singapore, CNN reports.

Bolton

According to the report, several senior administration officials have lost their patience with Bolton and his hawkish approach to North Korea, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has pushed to limit Bolton’s role in the upcoming summit, saying it would be “counterproductive” for Bolton to attend certain Oval Office meetings.

Like Trump, Pompeo was reportedly livid following Bolton’s now-infamous Fox News Sunday interview, and in an angry confrontation Pompeo accused the moustached neo-con of trying to scuttle the talks for his own selfish reasons.

Pompeo told Trump it would be “counterproductive” to allow Bolton to attend the Oval Office meeting with visiting North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, two people familiar with the matter said, citing an escalating feud between the top diplomat and Bolton. The simmering tensions between two of the President’s top foreign policy advisers reached a boiling point after Bolton went on television last month and cited the Libya model when talking about North Korea abandoning its nuclear program — and in doing so, also raising the specter of Libya’s subsequent invasion and its leader’s brutal murder.

North Korea reacted furiously, lambasting Bolton in a statement. It revived long-held criticism from the regime, most notably in 2003 when North Korean state media described Bolton as “human scum and a bloodsucker” during the Bush administration.

But the remarks about Libya also infuriated Pompeo, who angrily confronted Bolton in a heated conversation at the White House.

While the White House has sought to play down rumors about tensions between Pompeo and Bolton, CNN says the Secretary of State has the backing of other high-ranking White House officials – including Vice President Mike Pence and Chief of Staff John Kelly. Both men have come to rely on Pompeo for his ability to cajole President Trump.

White House chief of staff John Kelly has remained in line with Pompeo, and has come to rely on his ability to guide the President, an official said. Kelly greeted Kim Jong Chol at the White House diplomatic entrance on Friday and escorted him to the Oval Office.

[…]

“Secretary Pompeo has always been the president’s lead on the North Korea summit,” the spokesman said, adding that Bolton “continues to coordinate and integrate the interagency process and provide the President with national security options.”

This wouldn’t be the first time that President Trump has pitted two of his senior officials against one another – a management strategy that Trump has become famous for. And even though Bolton has been sidelined when it comes to North Korea, the president still has faith in his national security advisor, CNN said.

Speaking from the south lawn of the White House on Friday, the president said he would temporarily set aside his push to exert “maximum pressure” on North Korea. But that doesn’t mean the White House won’t step up the pressure if Kim starts getting cold feet.

“I don’t even want to use the term ‘maximum pressure’ anymore because I don’t want to use that term because we’re getting along. You see the relationship. We’re getting along,” Trump told reporters after bidding farewell to his North Korean visitor, a former spy chief and currently the country’s chief nuclear negotiator. “So it’s not a question of maximum pressure. It’s staying essentially the way it is. At some point, hopefully, a deal — for the good of millions of people, a deal will be worked out.”

The administration insists that, for now, sanctions relief won’t come until North Korea takes firm steps toward abandoning its nuclear program.

[…]

Indeed, people familiar with the summit planning now say there is little expectation Trump will emerge from his meeting with Kim having secured the type of historic, detailed commitment on denuclearization that officials once said was a prerequisite for the talks.

Instead, Trump and his aides have suggested the most concrete product of the June 12 encounter could be a peace agreement formally ending the Korean War — a far cry from the commitment to immediate denuclearization that the administration once insisted would be required for Trump to come to the table.

However, administration officials have also cautioned that they won’t let North Korea off the hook from US sanctions until the process of denuclearization has started. For now, White House officials are saying all they can hope for at the June 12 summit is a broad declaration from Kim that he’s open to giving up his nukes. Such a declaration would give Pompeo and his allies in the White House enough momentum to continue pursuing a peaceful deescalation with North Korea.

However, if Kim suddenly balks, Bolton could find another opening to reassert a more hawkish approach to dealing with the Hermit Kingdom. Unless, of course, Pompeo has had enough of his neo-con rival and convinces Trump to ditch him. For now, Bolton’s odds of sticking around remain high… if only for the next three weeks. According to PredictIt, the contract “Will John Bolton be National Security Advisor at end of day June 30?” is currently pricing in 91% odds.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2sxrS3G Tyler Durden

Meet the New Boss: Donald Trump, Who Wants To Tell You What You Can Buy and Sell

I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party claimed to be the party of free trade and free markets. So are you, if you can recall any year prior to 2016.

To be sure, the GOP’s commitment to laissez faire was always more aspirational than actual, but Republicans and high-profile conservatives aren’t even faking it anymore. When it comes to defending and promoting basic capitalist ideas such as free trade, allowing workers to move and employers to hire them freely, and ending subsidies that distort market forces while paying off politically connected interests, Trump-era Republicans and conservatives are all wet.

Over the weekend, the president displayed his ignorance about what matters in trade with this statement bemoaning all the cheap imports Americans have chosen to buy when given the opportunity.

As Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, the rare Republican who routinely voices disagreement with the president, countered, “I’m way down on trade with restaurants, grocery stores, malls, and movie theaters. I keep buying from them, but they never buy from me. I must be getting ripped off, right?”

Amash is a lonely voice on the right side of the aisle. Here’s Fox News’ Laura Ingraham weighing into the “Koch brothers” like some ThinkProgress intern with half-a-semester of Econ 101 under his belt (disclosure: David Koch is a trustee of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website, and we are the recipient of grants from the Charles Koch Institute). The brothers’ sin? A principled commitment to free trade that puts them sideways with President Trump. Here’s how Ingraham responded to reports with headlines such as “Kochs to Spend Millions Fighting Against Trump’s Trade-War Agenda.”

As The Washington Post‘s Catherine Rampell writes, Trump has been trying to “strong-arm the invisible hand” since before he officially took office (remember that air-conditioning plant in Indiana?). Reason‘s Ronald Bailey has reported on the president’s most-recent attack on basic laws of supply and demand, which involves forcing power utilities to buy energy from money-losing coal and nuclear-energy companies. That’s the very definition of cronyism, argues Bailey. Rampell notes that, too, while zeroing in on the bogus “national-security” motivation behind related “buy American” rhetoric and policy coming from the White House and tariffs that take aim at such deadly foreign enemies as Canada, the European Union, and Mexico. Then there’s the bully pulpit, which this president has weaponized against specific companies whenever he wants:

He urged National Football League teams to “fire or suspend” players who kneel during the national anthem, comments that at least one team owner admitted in a deposition affected his personnel policy.

He attacked Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line.

He publicly berates Amazon—whose chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, independently owns The Post—and has reportedly demanded that the Postal Service double prices on Amazon packages.

Rampell suggests that Trump’s willingness to break “a sacred data embargo” on jobs-report numbers also illustrates his willingness to game markets unfairly. Whether you buy that or not, there’s little doubt that the president’s constant attacks on the media and his own government’s analysis “has eroded confidence in the integrity of government data and fairness of financial markets.”

Of course, that erosion started long before Trump and will likely continue long after he’s moseyed to whatever pasture he ends up in. Indeed, if Salena Zito and Brad Todd, authors of The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping America Politics, are correct, Trump is an effect of such a breakdown in confidence and integrity, not a primary cause. As Zito recently told me, in many cases, the same folks who voted for Trump in 2016 had voted for Barack Obama because they had lost faith in the ability or willingness of more-conventional candidates to represent their concerns. What isn’t up for discussion is that Trump has changed the Republican Party position on trade:

Democrats’ new faith in the power of free markets may be situational, but there’s no reason to doubt that Republicans have definitively shifted on the matter. Even before Trump was elected, upwards of 85 percent of Republicans were saying that free trade had cost more jobs than it created. Add to that growing hostility to immigration among conservatives and GOP lawmakers who want to cut legal immigration in half while keeping tight caps on work visas for skilled and unskilled workers alike. Back in the days of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, such restrictions would have been seen for what they plainly are: sure-to-fail attempts by the government to dictate and control labor markets.

Which is of a piece with the way Trump and the contemporary GOP see their role not as facilitators of free and open markets, but as technocrats who get to decide more and more of what goes on in the economy. It wasn’t a good look when Democrats used to talk about the need for tighter and tighter regulation and more “consensus” on who gets to make what or hire whom. And it sure as hell isn’t any prettier when it’s Donald Trump, ostensibly flanked by gone-missing party leaders Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, barking out orders.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2sI2Qyc
via IFTTT

Buchanan: “Boehner’s Right! …It’s Trump’s Party Now”

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“There is no Republican Party. There’s a Trump party,” John Boehner told a Mackinac, Michigan, gathering of the GOP faithful last week. “The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere.”

Ex-Speaker Boehner should probably re-check the old party’s pulse, for the Bush-Boehner GOP may not just be napping. It could be comatose.

Consider. That GOP was dedicated to free trade, open borders, amnesty and using U.S. power to punish aggressors and “end tyranny in our world.” That GOP set out to create a new world order where dictatorships were threatened with “regime change,” and democratic capitalism was the new order of the ages.

Yet, Donald Trump captured the Republican nomination and won the presidency — by saying goodbye to all that.

How probable is it that a future GOP presidential candidate will revive the Bush-Boehner agenda the party rejected in 2016, run on it, win, and impose it on the party and nation?

Bush-Boehner Republicanism appears to be as dead today as was Harding-Coolidge Republicanism after 1933. And if Trumpism is not the future of the GOP, it is hard to see what a promising GOP agenda might look like.

A brief history:

In seven elections starting in 1992, Republicans won the presidency three times, but the popular vote only once, in 2004, when George W. was still basking in his “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.

What fractured and overwhelmed the Bush-Boehner Republican Party?

First, demography. The mass immigration of Third World peoples that began with the 1965 immigration act, and the decline in the birth rate of native-born Americans, began to swamp the Nixon-Reagan New Majority.

Second, the collapse of the Soviet Empire and USSR removed the party’s great unifying cause from Eisenhower to Bush I — the Cold War.

After the Red Army went home, “America First” had a new appeal!

Third, faithful to the free trade cult in which they were raised, Republicans championed NAFTA, the WTO, and MFN for China.

Historians will look back in amazement at how America’s free trade zealots gave away the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen, as they quoted approvingly 18th- and 19th-century scribblers whose ideas had done so much to bring down their own country, Great Britain.

Between 1997 and 2017, the EU ran up, at America’s expense, trade surpluses in goods in excess of $2 trillion, while we also picked up the bill for Europe’s defense.

Between 1992 and 2016, China was allowed to run $4 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense, converting herself into the world’s first manufacturing power and denuding America of tens of thousands of factories and millions of manufacturing jobs.

In Trump’s first year, China’s trade surplus with the United States hit $375 billion. From January to March of this year, our trade deficit with China was running at close to the same astronomical rate.

“Trade deficits do not matter,” we hear from the economists.

They might explain that to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

And perhaps someone can explain the wisdom of handing 4 percent of our GDP each year to an adversary nation, as U.S. admirals talk tough about confronting that adversary nation over islets and reefs in the South China Sea.

Why are we enriching and empowering so exorbitantly those whom we are told we may have to fight?

Fourth, under Bush II and Obama, the U.S. intervened massively in the Near and Middle East — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen. And the forces that pushed up into those conflicts, and so disillusioned the nation that it elected Barack Obama, are back, pushing for a new war, on Iran. They may get this war, too.

Yet, given the anti-interventionist and anti-war stance of Trump’s winning campaign, and of the Bernie Sanders campaign, U.S. involvement in Middle East wars seems less America’s future than it does her past.

After his 16 months in office, it appears as though the Trump presidency, no matter how brief, is going to be a watershed moment in U.S. and world history, and in the future of the GOP.

The world is changing. NATO and the EU are showing their age. Nationalism, populism and tribalism are pervasive on the Old Continent. And America’s willingness to bear the burden of Europe’s defense, as they ride virtually free, is visibly waning.

It is hard to see why or how Republicans are ever again going to be the Bush-Boehner party that preceded the rise of Trump.

What would be the argument for returning to a repudiated platform?

Trump not only defeated 16 Bush Republicans, he presented an agenda on immigration, border security, amnesty, intervention abroad, the Middle East, NAFTA, free trade, Putin and Russia that was a rejection of what the Bush-Boehner Party had stood for and what its presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012, John McCain and Mitt Romney, had run on.

If the Republican Party is “napping,” let it slumber on, undisturbed, for its time has come and gone. We are in a new world now.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Lnw50I Tyler Durden

Italian Bonds, Banks Are Blowing Out Again

Following newly-minted prime minister Giuseppe Conte’s first speech, which did nothing to appease Brussels’ hopes for normalization, Italian bond yields, spreads, and bank stocks are showing notable signs of stress once again.

Just when you thought it was safe… Conte used the speech to the Senate on Tuesday to promise “a new wind of change” based on a program of fiscal expansion drawn up by the euroskeptic Five Star Movement and League that risks breaching European Union budget rules; reiterating the government’s radical policy program, including a “citizen’s income,” (UBI), and tax cuts.

“Eliminating the difference in the economic growth between Italy and the European Union is one of our objectives, which must be pursued within a framework of financial stability and market trust,” said Conte, flanked by Five Star leader Luigi Di Maio and League chief Matteo Salvini. Conte was confident about his government’s “negotiating power,” because Italy’s interests match Europe’s.

As we detailed earlier, defending populism as “the ruling class listening to the people,” Conte promised the citizen’s income for the poor and the jobless, a two-tiered flat tax, and a boost in health spending — while also promising to reduce the public debt “by making our wealth grow, not through austerity measures.”

Conte also vowed “revolutionary measures” to overhaul the tax system, to review bankruptcy laws, crack down on big companies “hiding their wealth in artificial havens” and cut the perks of politicians.

Sending Italian bond yields and risk, relative to Bunds, surging…

And as goes bonds, so go Italian banks…

“Some may have hoped for some watering down after the market moves we saw last week,” said Jan von Gerich, chief strategist at Nordea Bank AB. “But Conte talks about revolutionary measures.”

And broadly speaking, European bank stocks are suffering…

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2syGnUJ Tyler Durden

To Appease Trump, China Offers To Buy $70BN In Farm And Energy Goods

The Wall Street Journal gave the market some good news amid rising concerns about Italy and trade wars, when it reported that in an attempt to appease Trump, over the weekend Beijing had offered to buy US farm and energy products in a trade package worth an estimated $70 billion.

The team of Chinese envoys – led by Vice Premier Liu He, President Xi Jinping’s top economic official – offered a US team headed by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross a package that involved Chinese companies buying more US soybeans, corn, natural gas, crude oil and coal among other agricultural and energy products. Stocks briefly rallied on the news, but the gains then quickly faded as the market realized this was nothing more (or less) than prior such gambits offered by China.

China’s voluntary proposal comes as president Trump pushes China to commit to reduce the $375 billion US merchandise-trade deficit with China by $200 billion, and while the $70 billion package would help move the US toward that goal, it would be rather insufficient.

Ross

Also diluting the Chinese offer, Liu explained that the package would be void if Washington proceeded with plans to impose tariffs on $50 billion in China-made products.

WSJ also points out that US officials are skeptical of the offer for several reasons, including the fact that the US likely wouldn’t be able to ramp up agricultural production quickly enough. As of last week, the White House said it would move ahead with tariffs and sanctions restricting China’s access to US technology and the US market while punishing Beijing for its purportedly unfair trading practices. If accepted, the offer would benefit the farm-belt states that voted heavily for Trump during the election.

China also offered to get state-owned companies to buy more US natural gas, though that could also be subject to production difficulties. 

“Nothing has firmed up yet,” one official said. “It would require additional rounds of discussions between the two sides.”

It’s unclear whether the Trump administration will take the offer seriously, although judging by the market reaction, the early answer is no.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Hnyje2 Tyler Durden

Brazil Central Bank Intervenes In FX Market After Real Routed To 2 Year Lows

With the Brazilian economy unexpectedly keeling over in the past two weeks, following the trucker strike protesting surging gas prices which has effectively paralyzed the nation, coupled with an oil-worker strike which has led to a sharp drop in state revenues, and last week resulted in the resignation of Petrobras CEO Pedro Parente, the country’s currency has been in freefall in recent weeks, plunging from 3.55 to 3.75 since May 10, amid concerns of a sharp economic slowdown.

And moments ago, the Brazilian central bank became the latest Emerging Market whose central bank was forced to intervene in the FX market amid relentless dollar strength, as the USDBRL spiked above 3.80, the highest level since March 2016, when Emerging Markets were crashing following the Chinese devaluation.

  • BRAZIL’S BCB RAISES INTERVENTION IN FX AS BRL BREACHES 3.80/USD
  • BRAZIL TO AUCTION UP TO 30,000 FX SWAPS JUNE 5

As Bloomberg explains, the Brazil central bank announced a new auction of up to 30,000 FX swaps 12:20pm-12:30pm, with results 12:40pm, local time; this means another 1.5BN on top of the usual 750MM.

The intervention managed to halt the BRL’s descent, and after sliding just below 3.80, the USDBRL is back down to 3.77

While it is unlikely that this latest intervention will be able to sustain the selling, especially if Brazil’s economy is indeed on the back foot, recall what BofA’s Michael Hartnett said when he showed that of all emerging market “turmoil” indicators, the Brazilian Real crossing 4.00 against the USD is by far the most accurate.

 

We are almost there again.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xJueS6 Tyler Durden

Miss America Scraps Swimusit Competition: “Women Will No Longer Be Judged On Appearance”

In the latest effort to signal as much virtue as possible, the Miss America beauty contest is scrapping its swimsuit and evening-gown section and will no longer be judged on physical appearance. Contestants will instead be asked to demonstrate their “passion, intelligence and overall understanding of the job of Miss America.”

“We are no longer a pageant,” Gretchen Carlson, the first former Miss America to be named chair of the Board of Trustees of the Miss America Organization, said on “GMA.” “We are a competition.”

“I could have never expected what would happen when I sued my former employer at Fox News for sexual harassment 22 months ago, but look what has happened,” she said.

“Thousands of women have been inspired to know that they can stand up and speak up and their voices will be heard.”

Carlson added, “If I’ve been a beacon of hope to any woman in that process, it has been worth it.”

As GMA reports, The Miss America organization courted controversy earlier this year when internal emails were released from the group’s former CEO Sam Haskell. In the leaked emails, Haskell, who later resigned, and others were insulting the appearance, intellect and personal lives of former pageant winners, including Carlson.

Carlson went to add that :

“We’ve heard from a lot of young women who say, ‘We’d love to be a part of your program but we don’t want to be out there in high heels and a swimsuit,’ so guess what, you don’t have to do that anymore,”

We wonder how long it will before the contestants will be wearing a full burka to avoid any potential judgment.

“Who doesn’t want to be empowered, learn leadership skills and pay for college and be able to show the world who you are as a person from the inside of your soul.”

Carlson – who was crowned Miss America in 1989 and has more recently been an outspoken advocate for victims of sexual harassment and a champion of the #MeToo movement – went on:

“It’s going to be what comes out of [the candidates’] mouths that we’re interested in, when they talk about their social-impact initiatives.”

How long before high-school football are decide not by the score but by the color of the uniforms and average GPA?

Why not avoid crowning a winner in ‘Miss America’ altogether and gives everyone a trophy – surely that would be the most ‘equal’ opportunity way to run the so-called beauty contest?

Is Miss America about to morph into a spelling bee?

One final question – Does this mean that beauty-judgment-free “Miss America” will compete against the rest-of-the-world in the Miss Universe beauty pageant? (And how long before Trump’s former Miss Universe pageant is ‘boycotted-threat’-ed into following America’s lead?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2JaCMqg Tyler Durden

Stossel Confronts Politicians About Corruption Allegations: New at Reason

An apartment developer paid millions for prime real estate in Edgewater, New Jersey, with a beautiful view of Manhattan. Nearly 2,000 apartments would be built. The developer also offered to build public parks, parking, a ferry terminal, and a pier, all at no cost to taxpayers.

But Edgewater’s mayor, Michael McPartland, and city council said: No, you may not build!

That’s not that unusual. Local officials often keep new developments out.

But in this case, they also voted to seize the developer’s land using eminent domain. John Stossel asks: Why would they do that?

Click here for full text and downloadable versions.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel, his independent production company, Stossel Productions, and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2sJaF6q
via IFTTT

Will San Franciscans Vote to Ban Flavored Vaping?

Voters in San Francisco will go to the polls on Tuesday to decide whether the city should ban flavored nicotine products, including vaping fluids.

The ban on flavored tobacco and vaping products is being presented as a necessary measure designed to improve public health and as a way to keep nicotine away from children. But if Proposition E is approved by voters, it could make it more difficult for smokers to kick their tobacco habit. By prohibiting relatively safer and more attractive options, San Francisco could create a set of incentives that leaves nicotine-addicted residents sucking on the cancer sticks.

San Francisco’s proposed ban is the most high profile example yet, but it’s merely part of an ongoing trend of cities across California taking steps to prohibit flavored nicotine products from being sold to anyone regardless of age. Sonoma, Berkeley, and Manhattan Beach have passed ordinances banning the sale of flavored tobacco products and some flavored vaping fluids. Similar bans have been passed but not yet implemented in Beverley Hills, Palo Alto, San Mateo, and elsewhere.

As I wrote in April, there cities are moving in exactly the wrong direction, as a growing body of scientific and medical evidence demonstrates that vaping helps smokers quit.

In January, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued an advisory opinion to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showing that e-cigarettes could be life-savers. “E-cigarette aerosol contains fewer numbers and lower levels of most toxicants than smoke from combustible tobacco cigarettes does,” wrote University of Washington toxicologist David Eaton, who authored the report. “Laboratory tests of e-cigarette ingredients, in vitro toxicological tests, and short-term human studies suggest that e-cigarettes are likely to be far less harmful than combustible tobacco cigarettes.”

A victory for Prop E would be a big loss for public health, says Michelle Minton, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank in Washington, D.C.

“They are using the specter of big tobacco targeting children to convince voters to institute stricter regulations that will make e-cigarettes harder to get, more expensive, and less attractive than actual cigarettes,” Minton writes.

In San Francisco, backers of the ban have claimed opposition comes from Big Tobacco and have disregarded the many small businesses that could be forced to close or move if Prop E passes. Tobacco companies have “shrewdly allowed local shop owners to serve as the sympathetic face of the campaign, arguing that local pols looking to beat up on Big Tobacco are actually putting mom and pop out of business,” the San Francisco Chronicle claims in its editorial advocating for a “yes” vote on Prop E.

It’s true that big tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds have spent more than $11 million opposing Prop E. But that doesn’t begin to compare to the more than $75 million the California Department of Health has spent on a new anti-vaping campaign—funded by taxpayers—that’s been hitting California TVs since January.

And the Prop E advocates basically ignore the fact that the ban on flavored nicotine products will do real damage to real businesses in San Francisco. Dozens of business owners protested the proposed ban outside of city hall in April.

“We just legalized marijuana. Now you want to ban menthol cigarettes?” Shawn Richard, one of those protesters, told a local TV station. “I mean come on. For real? That doesn’t make any sense.”

Only in California, Shawn.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2Jm2JiZ
via IFTTT

David Koch Stepping Down From All Business, Political Activities

Billionaire industrialist, donor, activist and conservative icon David Koch, 78, will step down from his roles at Koch Industries and other Koch-affiliated organizations due to health reasons, according to an internal memo obtained by CNBC Tuesday.

He will also be leaving his roles as executive positions at Koch Chemical Technology group as well as his role as chairman of the board for the Americans for Prosperity Foundation – the charity associated with the Koch brothers’ primary political organization. He will become director emeritus at Koch industries. 

David’s brother Charles Koch broke the news Koch Industries employees in the memo, saying that his brother’s health had continued to deteriorate and that he is “deeply saddened” by his brother’s retirement. 

“David has always been a fighter and is dealing with this challenge in the same way,” reads the memo. “His guidance and loyalty, especially in our most troubled times, has been unwavering.”

David Koch also received well wishes from a top executive within their political sphere:

“Due to health reasons, David Koch will be resigning from the board of Americans for Prosperity Foundation,” Mark Holden, co-chairman of the Koch-backed Seminar Network, said. “We greatly appreciate his vital role on the board and all that he has done to help us build a strong foundation for our future success. We wish him and his family well.”

Koch was diagnosed with prostate cancer more than two decades ago. Over the years, he and his family foundation, along with other recipients of Koch philanthropic support, have donated millions to battling cancer and several other causes. He is a board member of the Prostate Cancer Foundation. –CNBC

Koch was diagnosed with prostate cancer over two decades ago, while he and his family foundation have donated millions to battling cancer and other causes. David is a board member of the Prostate Cancer Foundation. 

The announcement comes a day after the Koch-backed political network unveiled a multimillion-dollar, multi-year campaign against President Donald Trump’s tariffs. The campaign will include media buys, activist education, grass-roots mobilization, lobbying and policy analysis.

The network has also recently pivoted from focusing their efforts on supporting candidates to legislative initiatives, including protecting recipients of the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA, and cutting back on government spending. –CNBC

The Koch political network has raised eyebrows of late for reaching out to Democrats on various issues. Last week, American for Prosperity took out a digital ad thanking Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) for co-sponsoring a bill to deregulate mid-sized banks. 

Read Charles Koch’s memo to employees here:

To: All employees
From: Charles Koch
Subject: David Koch’s retirement

In October 2016, David announced that, “Over the summer I was hospitalized and I am now suffering from declining health …” Unfortunately, these issues have not been resolved and his health has continued to deteriorate. As a result, he is unable to be involved in business and other organizational activities. Because of this, David will be retiring from his responsibilities at Koch and other organizations.

We are deeply saddened by this, as we miss David’s insightful questions and his many contributions to Koch Industries. He was instrumental in building our Chemical Technology Group 1,000-fold from a single-product business. His guidance and loyalty, especially in our most troubled times, has been unwavering. David has never wanted anything for himself that he hasn’t earned, as his sole desire has always been to contribute. In recognition of his irreplaceable role in building Koch Industries, we are naming him Director Emeritus.

My thoughts of David will always be overflowing with the experiences, challenges, laughter and love of our life together. David epitomizes the requirements for a lasting and beneficial partnership – one with shared vision and values, and complementary capabilities leading to a mutually beneficial relationship.

David has always been a fighter and is dealing with this challenge in the same way. Please respect his situation in your contacts with him.

Charles Koch

via RSS https://ift.tt/2HmSzwn Tyler Durden