How Trump could make Prince Harry’s American dream an American nightmare
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
In 2016, a little-known actress called Meghan Markle told a US chat show that the prospect of a President Trump left her thinking “I might just stay in Canada.” Two months later she went on a blind date with Prince Harry. Three months after that, Donald Trump received 62 million votes to become the 45th president of the United States.
The events between now and then almost defy belief: Ms Markle moved to the UK and married Harry, before fleeing for Canada and then California with her royal husband; swapping state duties for the bright lights of streaming deals and award shows.
Trump’s unconventional four years in office saw him fire off upwards of 26,000 tweets, appoint Supreme Court judges who went on to overturn Roe v. Wade, and be impeached not once but twice.
Against the odds, he now appears to be firmly on track to be the Republican candidate for this year’s US election, taking on Joe Biden for what current polling suggests could be an extraordinary return to the leadership of the Free World.
On the campaign trail this weekend, things seemed to come full circle with an unexpected dire warning for the Duke of Sussex. Prince Harry will be “on his own” under his presidency, Trump warned, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference near Washington DC.
“I wouldn’t protect him,” he said. “He betrayed the Queen. That’s unforgivable. He would be on his own if it was down to me.”
Of the Bidens’ approach to the Sussexes, he added: “I think they have been too gracious to him after what he has done.” The “what he has done” part was interpreted as relating to the Royal family; the “too gracious” part apparently referring to the Biden administration’s role in an ongoing court case about Prince Harry’s visa.
In that case, brought by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, lawyers are seeking the publication of Prince Harry’s immigration form, arguing he should not have legally entered America because he admitted to taking drugs in his memoir, Spare. A lawyer for the Biden administration, rejecting the calls for records to be released, told the court in Washington the book was not proof it had taken place.
The Duke of Sussex, meanwhile, told US breakfast TV he has considered applying for full American citizenship. Not a “high priority”, he said, but “the thought has crossed my mind”.
Trump’s latest intervention may make him wish he had never bothered. Should a future president Trump wish to prove a nuisance to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, there is little doubt he could do so. “Harry could be in deep s—,” one US-based journalist speculates. “His life could get very unpleasant should Trump decide he wants to follow through with this.”
One renowned American lecturer on US constitutional history concurs. “The powers of the president are very formidable,” he says, adding that he is “sure Trump will utilise them” – although the exact way in which he would do this he cannot predict.
Trump has already said he would not pay for the Sussexes’ security protection. The couple, through a representative, have said they had no intention to ask the US to foot the bill anyway.
He could technically interfere in a visa process, it is thought. Danielle Vinson, politics professor at Furman University in South Carolina, says a president can order a visa to be revoked or denied, although this is normally done “in the context of diplomatic disputes rather than personal grudges”.
Meanwhile, Christi Hufford Jackson, head of the US Immigration Practice at law firm Laura Devine Immigration, says Prince Harry’s tales of drug use in Spare do not reach a level of admission that could affect his visa status.
“Could Trump say ‘I want you to look into his previous application?’ I don’t think he would have grounds to do so here,” she says. “But could a president push buttons below and put pressure on a government agency which reports to him to get it re-examined? Potentially.
“The problem is that this is completely unchartered territory.”
The difficulty with Donald Trump – the very thing that delights his fans and confounds his detractors – is that there is no real saying whether he will abide by the conventions of the US government. If there are limitations to his power, will he stick to them, or will he view Nixon’s “Enemies List” less as cautionary tale, and more as inspiration?
All of this presents a problem for the Royal family. It is the King’s duty, after all, to welcome overseas presidents and prime ministers, and if the Foreign Office wants to invite a future President Trump to the UK, Charles will have to host him graciously.
And what about the Sussexes? They have steered clear of politics in the new reign so far but, historically, they have not shied away from it. And, sources say, they have wound up Donald Trump – who views himself as a friend and devoted admirer of the late Queen Elizabeth II – no end. In 2020, both Sussexes joined a voting drive for what Meghan called “the most important election of our lifetime”. “I’m not a fan of hers,” said Trump in response.
In the same year, Prince Harry got caught out by a prank call from a comedian pretending to be Greta Thunberg and was recorded saying that Trump’s pushing of the coal industry left him with “blood on his hands”.
Some argue that a feud with Trump is the last thing the Sussexes want. In theory, the high-profile hassle could drive them out of America, either to their beloved Canada or – to the horror or delight of those who have followed their story – back to Britain. The combination of a belligerent president and a father undergoing cancer treatment at home might nudge them into swapping their Montecito mansion for a British country retreat.
But in reality, they will not want to do either. Prince Harry has spoken of his happiness in California. His wife is in her homeland, and his children are being brought up just as he hoped.
And more to the point, a feud with the Donald won’t do their growing brand any harm.
“Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei”, said a wise man, once. Or, for those who, like Prince Harry, prefer the likes of Brainyquote.com for inspiration: “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. In other words, in finding themselves suddenly in the public firing line of Donald Trump, the Sussexes may be embraced by the Californian liberal Left like never before.
They are in good company: anyone who is anyone in Hollywood must have a run in with Trump at some point. Jennifer Lawrence once said his presidency “will be the end of the world”, George Clooney called him a “xenophobic fascist”, and Cher said she would “move to Jupiter” if he was elected.
Trump in return has called 21-time Oscar-nominated Meryl Streep “one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood”, while Robert De Niro is “a very low IQ individual”, and Brad Pitt “a little wiseguy”.
As the Sussexes build their brand in America, they appeal to a young, diverse, liberal-leaning constituency. In California, being the public face of the anti-Trump movement could finally give Sussexes what they need most: relevance.
