"TRUMP BANS HARRY & MEGHAN: 'Terrible' Treatment Of King Charles Exposes Them!"
TRUMP SAYS HE WOULD NOT HAVE 'TAKEN BACK' HARRY AND MEGHAN - THE QUOTES ARE REAL, BUT THEIR UK RETURN WAS NOT A RESTORATION OF ROYAL STATUS
President Donald Trump did tell GB News that he would not have welcomed Prince Harry and Meghan back if he were King Charles, called Meghan a 'horrible influence' on Harry and said he would have stopped speaking to Harry after the attacks on Prince William in the memoir Spare. He had made a similar point in the Oval Office a day earlier. The remarks are authentic. But the phrase 'taken back' can mislead if it suggests the Sussexes were restored to official royal life: they returned to Britain for an extended stay while remaining non-working royals, and King Charles later formally reaffirmed that the 2020 arrangement still applies.
Updated and fact-checked through Sept. 13, 2026.
Trump Really Did Say He Would Not Have Taken Harry and Meghan Back
In a GB News interview with presenter Bev Turner published on Sept. 3, Trump said that if he were King Charles, he would not have welcomed Harry and Meghan back so readily.
He praised Charles as a friend, criticized Harry's memoir and said Meghan had been a 'horrible influence' on her husband. Trump also said that if he were in Charles's position, he would have stopped speaking to Harry.
The central quotations in the story are authentic. They reflect Trump's personal judgment about a royal family dispute, not an official U.S. policy decision.
The Story Combines Two Separate Trump Appearances
Trump first addressed the Sussexes' move on Sept. 2 during a White House event involving travel-industry executives. Asked about their return to Britain, he said he was happy they had left the United States, said he was not a fan and accused them of treating the Royal Family with great disrespect.
The more detailed comments about Meghan's influence, Harry's memoir, Prince William and Charles being a better person than Trump came in the separate GB News interview released the following day.
Both sets of remarks are real, but a careful article should distinguish the Sept. 2 Oval Office comments from the Sept. 3 GB News interview rather than presenting them as one continuous exchange.
'Taken Back' Does Not Mean the Sussexes Were Restored as Working Royals
Harry and Meghan returned to Britain with Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet in late August after six years based primarily in California. Their children began the school year in the United Kingdom, and the family is living at a private, non-royal residence.
But the move did not restore Harry and Meghan to official royal duties. They did not return as working members of the Royal Family and were not given a 'half-in, half-out' arrangement combining commercial independence with official representation of the monarch.
Trump's phrase 'taken back' is best understood as his view of the family reconciliation and return to Britain. It should not be read as evidence that Charles reinstated the couple into The Firm.
The Move Is an Extended Return, Not Necessarily a Complete Abandonment of America
Early reporting described the relocation as an extended stay in Britain rather than a clean break with the United States.
The family has retained its Montecito home in California, and reporting has also said it will keep its property in Portugal. Meghan continues to operate commercial interests with an international audience, while Harry continues charitable work on both sides of the Atlantic.
Describing the move as a return to Britain is accurate. Saying the Sussexes permanently abandoned the United States would go beyond what has been publicly established.
King Charles Later Made Their Non-Working Status Explicit
On Sept. 7, four days after Trump's GB News interview, a letter authorized by King Charles and issued through the Lord Chamberlain formally restated the Sussexes' status for senior government, military and royal officials.
The letter said there was no change to the arrangement established in 2020: Harry and Meghan are not working members of the Royal Family, their HRH styles remain in abeyance and are not used, and their charitable work is undertaken in a private capacity.
It summarized their position as akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests.
The King's later guidance confirms that their residential return did not reopen the door to official royal duties.
The Timeline Matters: Trump Was Not Responding to the King's Sept. 7 Letter
Because Trump's GB News interview was published on Sept. 3, his comments came before Charles's formal Sept. 7 clarification of the couple's status.
Trump was reacting to the news that Harry and Meghan had moved back to Britain, not to the later palace letter that publicly restated the 2020 settlement.
This timing is important because later reporting about palace tensions can make the events appear more directly connected than they were.
Trump's criticism preceded the King's formal status letter. It should not be presented as a response to that later palace action.
Trump's 'Horrible Influence' Remark Is an Opinion, Not a Verifiable Finding
Trump said Meghan had been a 'horrible influence' on Harry and described what she had done to him as unacceptable.
Those statements are plainly evaluative. They reflect Trump's interpretation of the couple's relationship and of Harry's estrangement from members of his family.
There is no objective measure by which a news report can establish that one spouse is a 'horrible influence' on the other. Harry has publicly defended Meghan for years and has described their departure from working royal life as a joint decision shaped by security, media and family pressures.
The quote is authentic; the underlying judgment is Trump's opinion.
Harry's Memoir Did Contain Harsh Material About William
Trump's reference to Harry's memoir Spare rests on a real source of family tension. Harry described the collapse of his relationship with Prince William in highly personal terms and alleged that a 2019 argument became physical, leaving Harry on the floor.
The book also criticized aspects of the Royal Family, palace communications and Harry's treatment during the period leading up to his departure from royal duties.
Those disclosures were widely seen as deepening the rupture with William. The palace largely declined to litigate Harry's individual allegations in public.
It is factual that Spare contained severe criticism of William and exposed private family conflict. Trump's description of the book as 'terrible' remains a personal judgment.
Harry and William Remain Estranged, but 'Never Speak Again' Was Trump's Advice
Public reporting continues to describe Harry and William as deeply estranged, with no public evidence of a full reconciliation following the Sussexes' return.
That does not mean outsiders can state with certainty that the brothers have no private contact whatsoever unless that claim is directly sourced.
Trump's statement that he would never have spoken to Harry again was a description of what Trump says he would do in Charles's position. It was not evidence that Charles or William has adopted that exact position.
The family rift is real. Trump's preferred response to it is his own.
Trump's Praise of King Charles Is Consistent With His Public Record
Trump has repeatedly described Charles in warm terms and has emphasized that he knew him before he became king.
Charles and Queen Camilla made a four-day state visit to the United States in April 2026. The visit included White House ceremonies, a state dinner and a rare address by Charles to a joint meeting of Congress.
Trump's GB News remark that 'everybody loved him' is an obvious generalization, but it reflects the president's consistently favorable public view of the monarch.
The friendship claim and the recent state visit are well documented. 'Everybody loved him' is praise, not polling data.
The King's Health Comments Refer to His Ongoing Cancer Treatment
Charles has been receiving treatment for an undisclosed form of cancer since Buckingham Palace announced his diagnosis in 2024.
He has continued major public duties, including the 2026 U.S. state visit, while speaking at times about the limits imposed by age and health.
Trump told GB News that Charles was showing unusual bravery by continuing through a difficult health situation.
The King's ongoing cancer treatment is a matter of public record. Trump's characterization of Charles's courage is praise rather than a medical assessment.
The King's Later 'Private Citizens' Guidance Does Not Mean Harry and Meghan Are Unknown Private People
After Charles's Sept. 7 letter, sources close to Harry and Meghan pushed back on the phrase 'private citizens,' stressing that they remain highly visible public figures.
Both descriptions can be true in different senses. In the royal and constitutional context, they are private citizens rather than working representatives of the sovereign. In ordinary public life, they are internationally famous figures whose activities receive extensive media coverage.
The palace language describes their official status, not a claim that the Sussexes live anonymous or non-public lives.
Charles's Willingness to Maintain Family Contact Should Not Be Overstated as a Full Reconciliation
Charles has had renewed family contact with Harry, Meghan and their children, including a private family meeting at Highgrove in July. The King's relationship with his younger son therefore cannot accurately be described as total permanent estrangement.
At the same time, the Sept. 7 guidance shows that Charles has drawn a firm institutional boundary between private family relations and official royal status.
Commentators may call that an olive branch, forgiveness or caution. Those descriptions go beyond what the palace itself has formally said.
The record supports limited family rapprochement alongside strict institutional separation. It does not establish that all past disputes have been forgiven or resolved.
Trump's Criticism of Meghan Is Not New
Trump's September comments fit a long pattern of public friction with Meghan. Before entering the Royal Family, she criticized Trump during the 2016 U.S. election campaign and discussed the possibility of moving to Canada if he won.
Trump has repeatedly cited Meghan's treatment of Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles when explaining his dislike of the Sussexes, while also saying he respects or admires members of the working Royal Family.
That history helps explain the severity of the new remarks, but it also means the interview should not be treated as the first time Trump has expressed hostility toward Meghan.
The September interview intensified a long-running public feud rather than creating one from scratch.
The Strongest Defensible Conclusion
Trump's latest comments about Harry and Meghan are genuine. In the Sept. 3 GB News interview, he said he would not have taken them back, called Meghan a horrible influence on Harry, criticized Spare for its treatment of William and said Charles was a better person than he was for maintaining a relationship with his son.
He had already told reporters in the Oval Office on Sept. 2 that he was happy the couple had returned to Britain, that he was not a fan and that he believed they had treated the Royal Family with disrespect.
May you like
But several distinctions matter. Harry and Meghan returned to Britain for an extended period while retaining international ties and property. They were not restored to working royal status. Trump's remarks preceded the King's Sept. 7 letter formally reaffirming the 2020 arrangement. And claims that Meghan is a horrible influence, that Harry should never be spoken to again or that Charles should not have welcomed the family back are opinions, not factual findings.
The strongest verified conclusion is that Trump delivered an unusually blunt and authentic rebuke of Harry and Meghan while praising King Charles. What the comments do not prove is that the Sussexes were 'taken back' into the Royal Family in an official sense: their return is residential and familial, while their non-working royal status remains unchanged.
