Donald Trump's past comments on Prince Harry's U.S. visa have particular resonance now that he has been elected president, as a conservative think tank continues to push for the publication of his immigration records.
Trump has been asked in the past whether he would intervene in the immigration dispute related to Harry's past use of drugs, as detailed in his memoir, Spare.
The Heritage Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Biden administration seeking the publication of Harry's immigration records. It argues there was a public interest in knowing whether he lied about his past use of drugs or disclosed it and was given favorable treatment. But a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against the think tank.
The Heritage Foundation is seeking to challenge the ruling and put the immigration papers of Melania Trump's mother, Amalija Knavs, into the public domain, saying that the Biden administration had been willing to release her records.
Hanging over the case is the outside chance that Harry's visa could be revoked, though experts previously told Newsweek this would be unlikely in the normal run of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) business.
In March, Trump was asked on GB News whether Harry should get special treatment and said: "No. We'll have to see if they know something about the drugs, and if he lied they'll have to take appropriate action."
Asked whether that meant "not staying in America," Trump said: "Oh, I don't know. You'll have to tell me. You just have to tell me. You would have thought they would have known this a long time ago."
The comments were interpreted as a veiled hint that Trump could step in and revoke Harry's visa once he is back in the White House, but recent comments by his son Eric were more mild.
"I don't give a damn if he did drugs. It means nothing," Eric told the Daily Mail. "I can tell you that our father and our entire family has tremendous respect for the monarchy."
He added, "Truthfully I don't give a damn about Prince Harry, and I don't think this country does either."
Harry and Meghan first drew Trump's disdain in 2020 after their comments urging Americans to vote appeared to hint that they wanted to see him lose the White House to Joe Biden.
Meghan said at a Michelle Obama voter drive she was motivated by a desire to see "the change we all need and deserve."
However, this year they did not comment on the election, which may increase the chances that any feelings of resentment on Trump's part may take a back seat to other, more pressing matters.
There is also the possibility that Trump will intervene to ensure Harry's immigration papers are released, despite past DHS protestations that this would invade his privacy.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols' full order in the civil lawsuit remains under seal, but a redacted memorandum that was released and seen by Newsweek read: "The government argues that the Duke has a privacy interest that outweighs any public interest in those records and has therefore withheld them (and, with respect to one category, has declined to confirm whether they exist at all)."
The judge continued: "Following in camera review of certain records and associated declarations, the Court agrees that the Duke's privacy interest outweighs any public interest, and therefore grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment."
Jack Royston is Newsweek's chief royal correspondent based in London. You can find him on X (formerly Twitter) at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.
Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.
English (US) ·