'Committed to bringing every hostage home': Trump meets freed Hamas hostage Edan Alexander
US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump met with the last living American hostage held in Gaza on Thursday at the White House.
Edan Alexander
, 21, is an American-Israeli from New Jersey.
He was 19 years old and serving as a soldier in the Israeli military when Hamas militants abducted him during the October 7, 2023 assault.
He had been deployed in the Israeli infantry when Hamas abducted him from a military base close to the Gaza border.
The meeting took place in the Oval Office, where Edan Alexander was accompanied by his mother, Adi Alexander, and father, Yael Alexander, of Tenafly, NJ.
On Friday, Trump shared footage from the meeting on his Truth Social platform.
'It was my great honor to welcome Edan Alexander, held hostage by Hamas for 584 days, to the Oval Office with his loved ones. We remain committed to bringing every hostage home!' he wrote.
Alexander was released from Hamas captivity on May 12, 2025, 584 days after being taken into captivity. After his release, Alexander remained in Israel for several weeks before returning home to New Jersey, where his family resides.
In early March, Trump met with eight former hostages who had been freed by Hamas at the White House. The group included Iair Horn, Omer Shem Tov, Eli Sharabi, Keith Siegel, Aviva Siegel, Naama Levy, Doron Steinbrecher, and Noa Argamani.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
The moment the clean-energy boom ran into ‘drill, baby, drill'
Southern Energy Management is bracing for whiplash. The Raleigh-based home-solar-panel installation company grew steadily in recent years, thanks in part to tax credits in former President Joe Biden's landmark 2022 climate law. Now, Chief Executive Will Etheridge says his 190-person company's residential solar sales could plunge in 2026 by as much as half. President Trump's megabill, which he signed into law Friday, ends the subsidies later this year. Etheridge's plans to buy more supplies from factories in North Carolina and elsewhere are on hold. 'Now, I'm not thinking about that at all," he said. 'I'm trying to think about how to save North Carolina jobs." A wave of government spending that swept through the U.S. economy in recent years is about to recede. Biden's climate law threw subsidies behind wind and solar power, electric vehicles and other green projects that federal forecasters said would total nearly $400 billion. Outside analysts projected the ultimate spending would be even greater. Investors jumped into renewables stocks, while local governments and labor unions clamored for new projects. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill" will turn off that spigot as part of a push to extend the tax cuts enacted in his first term. Credits for EVs and home solar panels are slated to end in the coming months. Incentives to develop or produce renewable energy will wind down within years. The legislation, meanwhile, boosts the prospects for fossil-fuel production on public lands, a boon to oil-and-gas drillers that are pumping record supplies and posting bumper profits. Biden's law tried to build a bridge to an economy more oriented around renewable energy, said Tracy Stone-Manning, president of the Wilderness Society, a group that aims to protect public lands. 'What [Trump's] is doing is blowing the bridge up," said Stone-Manning, who was director of the Bureau of Land Management in the Biden administration. The clashing visions have left many developers and workers around the country in a lurch. Clean-energy executives expected regulatory changes under any new administration. Some warn, though, that the swift rollback of much of a previously passed law will create a new level of uncertainty for future investment and raise financing costs down the road. 'You're going to strand a lot of capital, and you're going to put a lot of people out of business by changing the chessboard right in the middle of the game," said Reagan Farr, chief executive of solar developer Silicon Ranch. 'That's something as a country that we've been good about until now." Trump's spending bill—which the Congressional Budget Office expects will cut more than half a trillion dollars in tax incentives over the next decade—isn't as extreme as some renewables advocates feared. A proposed tax on wind and solar projects was stripped by the Senate. Lawmakers also extended through 2027 a phaseout of credits for renewable energy investment and production. That could give some ongoing construction runway to continue. But deals still in negotiation or in the early stages of development could be caught in no-man's-land, said Farr, whose company's projects include several solar arrays in Georgia and Tennessee to power Meta Platforms data centers. 'They're not things that you just throw up in six months and you're done," he said. The policy changes could reduce investment by about $500 billion across electricity and clean fuels production by 2035, according to preliminary estimates by the Princeton University-led REPEAT Project. Renewables proponents fear the upshot will be higher bills for Americans living through a once-in-a-generation surge in power demand tied to the mania over artificial intelligence. Although Trump's campaign pledged to lower Americans' energy costs, some oil-and-gas executives have said privately that they understood his 'drill, baby, drill" rallying cry as an economic organizing principle, rather than a push to bore more wells through shale rock. Analysts say the new legislation will have limited immediate impact on already record-breaking U.S. fossil-fuel production. The new bill would help protect fossil fuels from more competition. Oil drillers last week operated 12% fewer rigs than they did at the start of the year, according to Baker Hughes. Pointing to languishing commodity prices and new tariffs on imported steel, nearly half of the oil-and-gas executives polled by the Dallas Fed in June said they expect to drill fewer wells in 2025 than initially expected. Longer term, however, measures such as expanded federal leases, cheaper royalties and the end of Biden-era tax credits will help shield fossil fuels from more competition. That could be particularly beneficial to producers of natural gas, who are jockeying with renewables developers to fuel the power-hungry AI boom. If 'repealing these subsidies will 'kill' their industry, then maybe it shouldn't exist in the first place," Tom Pyle, president of the pro-oil-and-gas group American Energy Alliance, said in a statement. Already, renewable stocks have been thrashed in recent years by inflationary shock and stubbornly high interest rates. Arduous permitting processes and supply-chain snafus busted project timelines. Costs spiraled. Local officials have feared a pullback in tax credits—and in turn a disappearing customer base for new manufacturers—for the better part of a year. Businesses ended or scaled back an estimated $15.5 billion worth of clean-energy projects in the first five months of the year, according to advocacy group E2. Among those affected were a Georgia battery plant, a Washington-state solar supplier and an offshore-wind-cable factory in Massachusetts. The cancellations spanned projects that promised to create roughly 12,000 jobs. Executives and labor leaders fear turbulence ahead will leave more Americans, including Cierra Pearl, out of work. The 29-year-old Mainer started an apprentice program last year with her local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union and was soon building racks and installing panels on solar arrays. At $23.18 an hour plus overtime, the paychecks were her biggest ever. But Pearl was laid off in early May after developers hit pause. Now, with dimming hope for future projects, she is burning some of her $595 in weekly unemployment benefits on gas to drive to job interviews. 'I've felt hopeless a lot lately," Pearl said. It is not just financial stability that she lost, she added. 'It's dignity." Write to David Uberti at
The Wire
25 minutes ago
- The Wire
Trump's Big, Brutal Bill Entrenches US Empire
Inderjeet Parmar 3 minutes ago Presented as a 'beautiful' fix for growth and security, HR 1 actually funnels wealth to America's richest, arms a $1 trillion war machine and thickens domestic repression, all with the aim of propping up a waning imperial hegemony. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' (H.R. 1), heralded as a transformative economic and security package for the United States, is less an economic stimulus than a manifesto for American supremacy. It weds two imperatives of the US ruling class: an upward transfer of wealth and a vast expansion of militarised power, thereby entrenching its domestic and global dominance. Cloaked in rhetoric about jobs, growth and border security, the Bill arrives at a moment when Washington's hegemony is fraying thanks to rising multipolarity, domestic inequality is at an all time high fast – the top 1% hold 32% of wealth – and popular discontent is increasing. Ruling elites secure dominance not merely through coercion but by manufacturing consent via ideological control over civil society—media, politics, and cultural institutions. The Big Brutal Bill, framed as a 'beautiful' solution to economic and security challenges, exemplifies this process. Its proponents, including Republican leaders and sections of the corporate media, have deployed neoliberal and nationalist narratives to mask the legislation's true aims: redistributing wealth upward, strengthening coercive state mechanisms and escalating militarism to sustain US global primacy. This demands the US power elites discipline both domestic and global populations. The bill's economic provisions constitute a brazen transfer of wealth from the working and middle classes to the ultra-rich. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill reduces household resources for the poorest 10% by 4% ($940 annually) while boosting incomes for the richest 0.1% by $389,000 for those earning over $4.3 million. Extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which directed two-thirds of benefits to the top 20%, the bill amplifies a historical trend: since 1975, the top 1% have sapped $79 trillion from the bottom 90%. Cuts to Medicaid ($930 billion) and SNAP (affecting 4.5 million people) further impoverish the working class, with 15–16 million potentially losing healthcare. This wealth transfer is not merely economic but ideological. Ruling elites, through Fox News and various well funded corporate think tanks, frame the bill as a universal economic boon, echoing neoliberal myths of 'trickle-down' prosperity. Yet, the bill's regressive tax structure and social cuts weaken the economic base of the working and middle classes, limiting their capacity for resistance. Such policies fragment the potential for a radical 'historic bloc' – a unified working-class alliance capable of challenging capitalist dominance. The bill's economic impact aligns with America's global imperial strategies. By prioritising corporate tax breaks, it mirrors US strategies in the Global South, where austerity and privatisation entrench elite power. This domestic imperialism treats the US working class as a colonised population, extracting wealth while offering ideological platitudes about 'growth.' Militarism and War: Coercive Pillars of Hegemony The bill's $1 trillion military budget, the largest in US history, is a cornerstone of its aggressive imperial agenda, escalating war risks while consolidating ruling-class power. Allocating $400 billion for nuclear warheads, hypersonic missiles, and 200 new bombers, the budget aims to counter multipolar rivals like China and Russia. Yet, this spending dwarfs the military budgets of the next ten states across the world. What this bill shows is the degree to which the US empire relies on military dominance and violence to maintain its increasingly precarious global hegemony. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute notes that such military modernisation lowers conflict thresholds, with arms races historically preceding wars 70% of the time. This leads to escalating fears of military miscalculation in regions like the South China Sea. The budget has a dual role: coercion abroad and control at home. Abroad, it reinforces U.S. primacy by projecting power against adversaries, a response to the declining legitimacy of the US-led liberal imperial-international order. Domestically, $50 billion for militarised police and National Guard equipment, alongside $8 billion for 10,000 new ICE agents and private prisons, equips the state to suppress dissent. The bill's provision barring courts from holding officials in contempt further enables authoritarianism, echoing post-9/11 trends where domestic repression accompanied foreign wars (e.g., Iraq). Imperialism is not solely an external phenomenon; it disciplines domestic populations to ensure compliance with elite agendas. The military-industrial complex benefits immensely, with $250 billion in contracts to firms like Boeing and Raytheon. Since 2001, some arms firm stocks have outperformed the Standard & Poor 500 by 600%, and contractor CEOs earn $20–$30 million annually. This economic-militaristic nexus incentivises instability, geopolitical tensions, and war, as historical examples like Iraq ($39 billion to Halliburton) demonstrate. Ruling elites are leveraging coercion to secure economic power, with war profits reinforcing their hegemony. Ideological Consent: Nationalism and Distraction The bill's militaristic and economic aims are cloaked in nationalist ideology, a classic tactic to secure consent. Its $10 billion for 'countering foreign disinformation' doubles as domestic propaganda, while border wall and ICE funding ($8 billion) symbolise 'defending America.' These measures rally nationalist sentiment, particularly among the 55% of Republicans who support the budget for 'security'. Such symbols unify subordinate classes under ruling-class leadership, diverting attention from wealth transfers and social cuts. Put crudely, American elite nationalism is little more than an instrument to mask class conflict. By demonising immigrants and foreign adversaries, the bill aligns segments of the working class with elite interests, dampening class consciousness. SIPRI data suggests nationalist surges increase war risks by 15–20% within five years, as publics tolerate aggression. The bill's narrative of 'preventing a recession' and 'securing borders' obscures its role in impoverishing millions, a hegemonic sleight of hand. Crisis of Hegemony and Resistance It is not a coincidence that the bill has emerged in a moment of hegemonic crisis. Rising inequality, multipolarity and public opposition signal eroding consent. Yet, the ruling elite counters this through intensified coercion (military, police) and ideological manipulation (nationalism, neoliberalism). Crises of hegemony require constant renewal, explaining this aggressive consolidation. However, cracks exist: there are widespread denunciations of the bill as a 'wealth transfer' and 'war machine'. Without a unified and organised counter-hegemonic movement, however, this resistance remains fragmented. The Big Brutal Bill is a masterclass in imperial hegemony, blending wealth transfers, militarism, and nationalism to entrench the power of the American Establishment. Its $1 trillion military budget escalates war risks by fuelling arms races and domestic repression, while its economic provisions siphon wealth from the working and middle classes to the ultra-rich. The bill is an example of what Gramsci would call a 'war of position' – fortifying US capitalism amid crisis, reflecting the American state's dual nature: coercive abroad, exploitative at home. Resistance requires exposing these truths and building a historic bloc to challenge the ruling class's grip. Inderjeet Parmar is a professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George's, University of London, a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics, and powers of the US foreign policy establishment. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
India Today
27 minutes ago
- India Today
US sends 8 deported migrants to South Sudan after Supreme Court clearance
Eight men deported from the United States in May and held under guard for weeks at an American military base in the African nation of Djibouti while their legal challenges played out in court have now reached the Trump administration's intended destination, war-torn South Sudan, a country the State Department advises against travel to due to 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.'advertisementThe immigrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan arrived in South Sudan on Friday after a federal judge cleared the way for the Trump administration to relocate them in a case that had gone to the Supreme Court, which had permitted their removal from the US Administration officials said the men had been convicted of violent crimes in the US.'This was a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people,' said Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement Saturday announcing the men's arrival in South Sudan, a chaotic country in danger once more of collapsing into civil war. The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the transfer of the men who had been put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan. That meant that the South Sudan transfer could be completed after the flight was detoured to a base in Djibouti, where they men were held in a converted shipping container. The flight was detoured after a federal judge found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow the men a chance to challenge the court's conservative majority had ruled in June that immigration officials could quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger.A flurry of court hearings on Independence Day resulted a temporary hold on the deportations while a judge evaluated a last-ditch appeal by the men's before the judge decided he was powerless to halt their removals and that the person best positioned to rule on the request was a Boston judge whose rulings led to the initial halt of the administration's effort to begin deportations to South Friday evening, that judge had issued a brief ruling concluding the Supreme Court had tied his men had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands.- Ends
