'You saved my life:' Freed hostage Edan Alexander thanks Trump in emotional phone call
The phone conversation, which took place while Alexander was recovering at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, came just days after his dramatic release from Gaza, where he was held hostage for over 580 days following his abduction by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023.HAMAS CAPTIVITY SURVIVORS APPEAL TO NETANYAHU, TRUMP AFTER EDAN ALEXANDER'S RELEASE
President Trump greeted Edan with a bit of humor and humility, saying "I'm very nervous talking to you, Edan, because you're a much bigger celebrity than I am."
Trump also expressed American solidarity and the administration's commitment to bringing all hostages home while on the call.
"You're an American, and we love you," Trump told Alexander. "We're going to take good care of you. And your parents are incredible. I saw your mother. She was pushing me around a little bit—putting a lot of pressure on me."
"Like a good mom!" exclaimed Edan's mother in the background.
The heartfelt exchange was posted online by the official White House account and has quickly gone viral, drawing praise from across the political spectrum for its display of humanity and international unity.
Alexander's release came amid intensified U.S. diplomatic pressure and quiet negotiations, coordinated in part by senior envoys Steve Witkoff and Adam Boehler.
Trump had previously signaled his determination to secure the freedom of American citizens held abroad and made Alexander's case a top priority.
The Alexander family issued a statement thanking President Trump directly, along with the negotiation team and the Israeli Defense Forces, calling the outcome "a miracle rooted in strength, diplomacy, and prayer."
Edan Alexander's homecoming has reignited calls to bring home the remaining hostages still held in Gaza.
A coalition of 65 former hostages recently signed a letter urging both President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "build on this breakthrough" and intensify efforts for a comprehensive agreement to ensure every hostage's safe return.
Prime Minister Netanyahu acknowledged the success of this combined effort, stating, "This was achieved thanks to our military pressure and the diplomatic pressure applied by President Trump. This is a winning combination."
The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said president is 'worse than anyone in our history'
Claim: In early July 2025, former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said Trump was "worse than anyone in our history." Rating: In early July 2025, a rumor spread that Ty Cobb, a lawyer and former member of the White House legal team during the first administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, said Trump was "worse than anyone in our history." For example, a post on Facebook shared the alleged quote (archived): The post, which included a photograph of Cobb, read in part: [Trump} (sic) is worse than anyone in our history in my experience and opinion. As people seem to have forgotten, I was very critical of Biden and despite knowing him and his family well, I spent 4 years writing about his cognitive decline and weak foreign policy. He had competent advisors though including very decent men as AG and head of the FBI. While you could fairly question their effectiveness you couldn't doubt their character. Trump has real contempt for the country, appoints wholly unqualified people to key positions and just kicked 12 million people off Medicaid, eliminated child food support and killed worldwide healthcare efforts monitoring pandemic producing diseases including Ebola (among countless other dangerous things). Other Facebook posts relayed Cobb's supposed quote, and it also appeared on X and Reddit. The rumor seemingly first appeared in a July 5, 2025, post (archived). Indeed, Cobb confirmed the quote was correctly attributed. "I didn't realize it was being so widely circulated," he said in an email. Cobb added he had written these words in response to an acquaintance's private post on Facebook. While Cobb asked Snopes not to publish the exchange to respect the person's privacy, Snopes was able to see the original comment and verified that the text internet users reproduced and shared matched what Cobb wrote almost word for word — except for the first word. In his original comment, Cobb had written "He," referring to Trump, as the president had been one of the topics of the exchange. "Former White House Attorney Ty Cobb: 'Big Lie Has Been Good Only for Trump.'" NBC News, 14 Jul. 2022,
New York Post
35 minutes ago
- New York Post
Blame New York Democrats — not Washington — for new state budget crisis
The federal tax and spending changes signed by President Donald Trump on July 4 will have significant implications for New York. The most immediate: to reveal Albany's short-sighted fiscal decisions and long-ignored abuses — something criticisms of the changes conceal. The state spending deal reached in May by Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative Democrats hiked outlays by 9.3%, three times faster than inflation. A big part of that growth was in Medicaid, the joint state-federal program ostensibly for the poor and disabled whose enrollment has roughly tripled since 2000. Today it and related programs cover a majority of New York City residents. In the last budget, Hochul and the Legislature hiked Medicaid spending by $6.2 billion (16%). That helped the state juice more federal money from the program, but it also painted a bulls-eye for DC fiscal hawks concerned about the $36 trillion national debt. Federal aid and borrowing aside, New York state government this year will spend $18 billion more than it would have if it had kept pace with the consumer price index since 2018. This profligacy was built on assumptions that New York's tax receipts would keep going up. That's more of a gamble than ever, because the state is more reliant than ever on a relatively small group of high earners who pay significantly higher state income-tax rates — and could pay no state income tax if they moved to a growing number of places outside New York. And it requires ignoring the signs of tax-base erosion that New York has already suffered since its 2021 tax hikes made the top combined state-local income-tax rates in New York City the nation's highest. Albany's bet that the good times would continue culminated in rosy revenue forecasts issued in February. But those outlooks stopped being worth the paper they were written on in April, after Trump's tariffs doused markets in uncertainty. Albany nonetheless marched ahead. The state's lethargic Republicans, fearful of upsetting various special interests, didn't much rock the boat. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The first dose of reality came in June, after state budget officials slashed their economic growth forecasts. They estimated that tax receipts will be about $4 billion, starting next year, lower than previously expected. That, along with newly agreed-upon spending increases, means Hochul must address a $7 billion mismatch between revenues and faster-growing expenses in the budget she presents in January (a gap that gets wider each year). While turbulence in federal trade policy jostled markets, that overreliance on volatile tax receipts meant the state was facing a fiscal crunch even before Congress acted. This was the first of two bad bets by Albany. The second was that Congress would keep ignoring the bloat and distortions in New York's health-care apparatus. As the Empire Center's Bill Hammond has diligently chronicled, New York for a decade used a little-known provision in the Affordable Care Act to get federal taxpayers to pick up virtually the entire cost of a no-premium health-care system known as the Essential Plan. Originally created in part to cover immigrants who were ineligible for Medicaid, it now covers about 1.4 million New Yorkers, many of whom are well above the traditional Medicaid eligibility level. The eligibility threshold is so high that one health-care union appears to have jettisoned some of its lower-paid members from their union health coverage to sign up on the taxpayer-funded Essential Plan instead. The federal rules were so generous that the state wound up accumulating almost $10 billion in Essential Plan reserves because Washington sent Albany more than it could spend. Congress, under both parties, failed to do anything about it. Albany officials ultimately used a portion of the windfall to boost payment rates, subsidizing other parts of the health-care system. The GOP bill has cut off some, but not all, of that federal money. That will force the state to consider long-prevented reforms that address the high cost of both care and insurance coverage in the Empire State. New York in many respects is getting off easy: Its generation-long scam of taxing hospitals and health-care providers, then overpaying them to compensate and pulling down extra federal Medicaid cash in the process, will largely continue. Calls for a special legislative session, and demands for higher taxes, are inevitable. But the reasonably good health of the state's reserve funds (which Hochul has diligently guarded) means there's no real need for immediate action. Instead, Hochul needs to start making the case for the overdue structural reforms that would help Albany live within its means — and worry less about Washington. Ken Girardin is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A $100 billion mystery is unfolding on tariffs and inflation and economists are cracking the case
Economists have for months warned that tariffs would cause an inflation surge, but as of July, there's little evidence of that in economic data, despite about $100 billion in tariffs already collected by the Treasury. Fortune asked economists to explain why. The possible reasons range from 'it's too soon' to 'consumers won't stand for it.' Since the first weeks of President Donald Trump's second term, when the president signaled a wholesale reimagining of the international trade system on a scale not seen in decades, mainstream economists have warned that prices would surge. The mantra, repeated by everyone from mainstream economists to factions of the GOP, has been clear: A tariff is a tax on consumers. Businesses said the same, with three -quarters of importers in a recent New York Fed study declaring they planned to pass on some tariff costs to customers. But halfway into the year and well into the most consequential reshuffling of trade in half a century, tariff-fueled inflation is missing in action. The tariffs are certainly in place: The Treasury so far has collected a record-setting $100 billion in customs duties, and is on track to pull in $300 billion this year. The tariffs are paid by U.S. importers—think Walmart and other retailers—when goods cross the border into the U.S. It takes some time to work their way into the system, but eventually higher prices get passed onto consumers. Those higher prices directly influence the overall price levels in inflation measures. Except there's a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, and coated in a puzzle. One place tariffs aren't showing up? In the inflation numbers. For four months, official inflation readings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have come in under expectations, with the latest inflation reading a relatively modest 2.4%. The president's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) this week released a brief arguing that import prices have actually been falling. Why doesn't the data show a tariff hit? Here's what leading economists told Fortune. Though tariffs have been discussed for months, they haven't actually been in place for that long. 'Regarding the impact of tariffs on prices, the timeframe used by the CEA is way too short to draw any definitive conclusions,' said the fiscally conservative National Taxpayers Union said in a critique on the study, which looked at prices through May. 'Trump's 10% nonreciprocal tariffs were only imposed in April.' Tariffs on steel and aluminum went into effect in March and increased in June, while Chinese imports have been subject to a 30% tax since March; dozens more 'reciprocal' tariffs, initially announced in early April, have now been postponed. Meanwhile, official government price data takes time to collect and release. As of mid-July, the most recent data for the Consumer Price Index and Personal Consumption Expenditures deflator, covers May. Immediately after tariffs were announced, importers rushed to bring in goods before they were subject to a higher rate. Businesses brought in so many goods, with no corresponding sales, that it briefly flipped the U.S.' GDP into negative territory. (In economist math, imports count as a negative to GDP.) That surge means that businesses could still be largely selling goods brought in under pre-tariff prices. 'Businesses stockpiled inventory, and presumably haven't had to raise prices on goods because they're sitting on the shelf. Eventually they will, and once they start to raise prices it'll start impacting consumers,' said Eric Winograd, chief U.S. economist at AllianceBernstein, to explain this theory. Uncertainty, in a word, is 'the most important reason' the hard data doesn't yet show tariff impact, according to Eugenio Aleman, chief economist at Raymond James. 'Business owners price their goods at replacement cost. If they have to buy the same good in the future, they have to increase the price [charged to the customer] if the price of the replacement is higher,' he told Fortune. The problem, though, is uncertainty. 'Everybody knows the prices that firms will pay for replacement goods will be higher, but nobody knows by how much. That uncertainty is keeping many firms from repricing their goods.' Businesses, particularly small businesses, could be choosing to eat the cost of tariffs for the time being. Unlike large businesses, they have a smaller client base and could be reluctant to hike prices, Aleman said. 'Maybe small firms are eating some large portion of the tariffs. Why? Because they can't afford to lose clients,' he said. One potential data point indicating this possibility is recent Commerce Department figures showing growth in proprietors' income—a proxy for small businesses—flatlining in May. Aleman stressed that more than one month of data would be needed to determine if this is the case. Recent Bank of America research shows the amount of tariffs paid by small businesses in May nearly doubled from 2022 levels. 'Small businesses may be, in some ways, more susceptible to tariff pressures than larger businesses, given their access to capital is more limited,' the note read. An added factor is the bully pulpit of Truth Social, which Trump has wielded freely at even the largest retailer thinking of hiking costs. 'If the president sees significant pass-through of tariffs via prices, you'll see a lot more public policy, probably via Twitter,' Jeff Klingelhofer, a managing director at Aristotle Pacific, told Fortune. Klingelhofer previously suggested that companies would take the brunt of the tariff impact because they're the only ones who could afford to, with consumers being 'tapped out' after years of high inflation. Former Federal Reserve economist Claudia Sahm also noted that companies today are less quick to hike prices now than they were during pandemic inflation, when Americans were flush with cash and eager to spend it. In 2021 and 2022, 'consumers up and down the income distribution, had some cash, and there were a lot of corporate earnings calls saying 'We're passing these [costs] through,' and the consumer could kind of handle it,' she told Fortune. Three years later, Americans have spent all the excess savings accumulated during Covid, and businesses 'realize if they increase prices dramatically, they could be losing customers,' she said. 'There is more hesitation. There is some raising of prices, but not the exuberance' of the pandemic. That's the position of Mark DiPlacido, policy advisor at American Compass, a conservative economic outfit that supports tariffs as a way to rebalance the U.S. economy. 'Foreign exporters have ended up absorbing a lot of [the costs], and businesses—very little has gotten to consumers at this point,' he said. Japanese carmakers, he noted, are slashing prices—sometimes nearly 20%—to compensate for the added costs U.S. buyers will pay. In other words, 'Japan itself and Japanese companies are eating the costs of the tariffs.' Every economist Fortune spoke with made some version of this point—that a tariff, rather than giving a blank check for a seller to boost prices, sets off a complicated negotiation between importers, exporters, and American end buyers. Finding the balance of which party pays how much will take time, and will be individual for each good and sector of the economy. 'Tariffs are a tax on imported goods,' Sahm said. 'Nobody wants to pay the tax, so who is the weakest link? Walmart can go in and tell their Chinese producers, 'You have to cut the price.' Maybe in the pandemic the consumers said, 'OK, I'll pay it—I'm not really happy about it, but I have the money.' The final answer, she added, 'can be very specific to the business, the industry, and also the general macroeconomic conditions.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
