Trump Says He Wouldn't Have 'Taken Back' Harry and Meghan After Their UK Return
WASHINGTON / LONDON - President Donald Trump has renewed his criticism of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's return to Britain, telling GB News that if he were in King Charles III's position, he would not have welcomed the couple back into the family after years of public tension with the Royal Family.
The remarks came during an interview with GB News presenter Bev Turner. Trump praised Charles as a longtime friend while sharply criticizing Harry's memoir and Meghan's influence on her husband. His comments added an American political voice to a family dispute that has remained a major subject of British and international media coverage since Harry and Meghan stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
What Trump Actually Said
In the interview, Trump said he considered King Charles 'fantastic' and described the monarch as a friend. Asked about Harry and Meghan, he said that, personally, he would not have taken them back, citing what he described as 'too much hate' and 'too many really bad things' said about the Royal Family.
'Personally, I would not have taken them back.'
- Donald Trump, speaking to GB News
Trump also criticized Harry's memoir, Spare, saying it was unfair to Prince William, and described Meghan as a 'horrible influence' on Harry. He went further by saying that, in Charles's position, he would have cut off contact rather than pursued reconciliation.
Those statements are best presented as Trump's personal assessment. Whether Harry's book was 'terrible' to William, whether Meghan caused or deepened the family rift, and whether the Sussexes behaved with 'great disrespect' are matters of interpretation. A fact-checked article should attribute those judgments directly to Trump rather than repeat them as established conclusions.
'Taken Back' Does Not Mean 'Allowed Into Britain'
The original headline language can easily imply that Trump was discussing immigration or border authority. That is not what the quoted exchange shows. Trump framed the issue as what he would have done 'if I were King Charles' and spoke about whether he would resume a relationship with Harry and Meghan. The King does not personally decide whether people may enter the country.
Prince Harry is a British citizen, while Meghan is an American citizen. Their move back to the UK therefore raises separate questions about residence, security and private life, but Trump's comments were plainly about the royal family's response, not a legal mechanism to exclude the couple from British territory.
What Their Return Changed - and What It Did Not
Harry and Meghan returned to the United Kingdom with their children in late August 2026, six years after stepping back from senior royal duties and building a life in California. The move drew intense attention because it placed the family physically closer to King Charles and revived speculation about reconciliation.
But the return did not restore their former constitutional or ceremonial role. On September 7, King Charles authorized a letter to senior British officials reiterating that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain non-working members of the Royal Family and that their charitable and commercial activity is undertaken in a private capacity. That distinction is important when assessing Trump's language about Charles 'taking them back.'
A private family relationship can improve without changing the couple's official royal status. The King's willingness to maintain contact with his son is not the same thing as reinstating Harry and Meghan as working royals.
Trump Praises Charles and His U.S. Visit
Trump repeatedly contrasted his own reaction with what he portrayed as Charles's more forgiving approach. He called the King a 'fantastic guy' and said Charles was 'a much better person than I am' for keeping the door open to a relationship with Harry.
Trump also referred to Charles's recent trip to the United States, saying Americans had warmly received him and that the King had spoken before Congress. Those details are supported by the public record. Charles and Queen Camilla made a state visit to Washington from April 27 through April 30, 2026. On April 28, Charles addressed a joint session of Congress, becoming only the second British monarch to do so after Queen Elizabeth II in 1991.
The King's Health: Publicly Known, but Still a Private Medical Matter
Trump also praised Charles for continuing his public role while dealing with health challenges. Buckingham Palace disclosed in February 2024 that the King had been diagnosed with a form of cancer and had begun treatment. Charles later resumed public-facing duties and has continued a substantial official schedule.
That public history provides context for Trump's remarks. It does not justify speculation about Charles's present prognosis or treatment beyond information released by Buckingham Palace. A careful report should therefore describe the diagnosis and the King's continued public duties without adding unsupported medical conclusions.
A Long-Running Trump-Sussex Feud
Trump's criticism did not emerge in isolation. He has clashed rhetorically with Meghan for years and has repeatedly spoken favorably about Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles. The Sussexes, meanwhile, have publicly discussed their dissatisfaction with royal life, the British press and family dynamics through interviews, documentaries and Harry's memoir.
That history explains why Trump's latest comments attracted attention, but it also makes attribution especially important. The president was offering a personal judgment about a highly publicized family dispute. He was not announcing U.S. policy toward the couple, speaking for Buckingham Palace, or describing a formal British government action.
Conclusion
Donald Trump's criticism of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was real and unusually blunt. In his GB News interview, he said he would not have 'taken them back,' criticized Harry's memoir and Meghan's influence, and praised King Charles for showing more willingness to maintain family ties than Trump said he would have shown himself.
But the most accurate framing is narrower than some headlines suggest. Trump was not claiming authority to keep the Sussexes out of the United Kingdom, and Charles's relationship with his son does not amount to a restoration of Harry and Meghan as working royals. Their return to Britain is real; Trump's disapproval is real; and the royal family's formal position remains unchanged.
CANADA EYES A $1 TRILLION INVESTMENT SUPERCYCLE AS CARNEY PUSHES TO REDUCE U.S. DEPENDENCE
TD Economics has identified more than 300 announced projects through 2035 and beyond, but the pipeline is not a single government plan, much of the spending is not yet locked in, and Canada's trade war with the United States is far from over.
OTTAWA - Updated September 10, 2026
FACT-CHECK AT A GLANCE
- TD Economics does estimate just over C$1 trillion in potential spending across 300+ publicly announced projects in energy, resources, AI, defence and transportation through 2035 and beyond.
- That C$1 trillion is not a single Carney government program and it is not all 'locked in.' TD's list includes projects under construction, approved, under review and still only proposed.
- TD places more than C$190 billion of potential project spending inside its two-year forecast window, more than C$500 billion in years three through ten, and roughly C$270 billion beyond ten years.
- The 86 mining projects cited by TD are at different stages of development; describing all 86 as already 'underway' overstates their status.
- The Peace River nuclear project is real but remains a proposed project in the federal impact-assessment process. It should not be described as already creating baseload power for AI data centres.
- Foreign demand for Canadian debt has been exceptionally strong, but this is not the same as a broad flight of foreign direct investment from the United States. TD says first-half 2026 FDI into Canada was lower than a year earlier and the U.S. was again the leading source.
- TD's C$1.5-C$1.7 trillion figure is a high-investment scenario for total longer-term investment, not an additional C$1.5-C$1.7 trillion on top of the existing C$1 trillion project pipeline.
- Carney is pursuing diversification away from heavy U.S. dependence, but more than 70% of Canadian merchandise exports still go to the United States and the bilateral trade conflict has recently intensified rather than been 'shut down.'
OTTAWA - Canada is trying to turn an escalating trade confrontation with the United States into a catalyst for a much larger investment push - one that could reshape energy, mining, artificial intelligence, defence and transportation infrastructure over the next decade.
The scale is substantial. An August 26 analysis by TD Economics identified more than 300 publicly announced Canadian projects with estimated spending of just over C$1 trillion through 2035 and beyond. TD said that, if policy reforms and private investment align, the country could enter an investment 'supercycle' lasting a decade or longer.
But the strongest viral framing goes beyond what the evidence supports. Canada has not 'locked in' every dollar of that trillion-dollar pipeline, the projects are not all part of one federal blueprint, and Prime Minister Mark Carney has not rendered U.S. trade pressure irrelevant. In fact, the trade conflict intensified this week as Canadian counter-tariffs took effect and Washington announced additional restrictions on some Canadian products.
What the $1 Trillion Figure Actually Represents
TD Economics' estimate is a project pipeline, not a single appropriation passed by Parliament. The bank surveyed more than 300 announced projects across five sectors: energy, resources, artificial intelligence, defence and transportation infrastructure. Its tally came to roughly C$1.1 trillion in potential spending.
Energy is the largest category at about C$363 billion, followed by defence at C$281 billion, AI at C$158 billion, resources at C$140 billion and transportation at C$114 billion. TD estimated more than C$190 billion could fall within its two-year forecast window, more than C$500 billion during years three through ten, and around C$270 billion beyond ten years.
The status of those projects matters. TD divided them among projects already under construction, projects that have regulatory approval but have not begun construction, projects under regulatory review, and early-stage proposals. That is why 'C$1 trillion in announced projects' is defensible, while 'C$1 trillion locked in' is not.
If Canadian policymakers play their cards right, the country could be propelled into an investment 'supercycle' lasting for a decade or longer.
- TD Economics, August 26, 2026
Energy, AI and Critical Minerals: Big Potential, Uneven Readiness
The TD pipeline includes major conventional energy, electricity and transmission proposals, as well as AI data-centre projects and mining developments. Among the examples cited by TD are Wind West, the Peace River Nuclear Power Project, a proposed Alberta-British Columbia oil pipeline, NORAD modernization and 86 mining projects at various stages of development.
The Peace River project illustrates why careful wording is necessary. Energy Alberta proposes up to four large reactors near Peace River, Alberta, with potential generating capacity of as much as 4,800 megawatts. The federal Impact Assessment Agency formally began the project's impact-assessment phase in April 2026. It remains proposed; construction and operation are not guaranteed.
Likewise, the 86 mining projects should not all be described as active construction. Some are advanced, some are under review and some are earlier-stage opportunities. They collectively show the scale of Canada's critical-minerals ambition, but the economic payoff depends on permitting, financing, infrastructure, commodity markets, Indigenous partnerships and execution.
Record Debt Inflows Are Real - but They Are Not the Same as an FDI Boom
The source material's strongest overstatement is the claim that global investors are broadly fleeing U.S. unpredictability for Canada. There is evidence of unusually strong foreign demand for Canadian debt, but the direct-investment picture is more mixed.
Statistics Canada reported that non-resident investors added a record C$175.0 billion of Canadian debt securities in the first half of 2026. Market commentary from National Bank put year-to-date net foreign buying of Canadian bonds at roughly C$185 billion, more than 50% above the previous annual high cited by the bank. Those figures demonstrate strong demand for Canadian fixed-income assets.
They do not prove that factories and long-term corporate capital are abandoning the United States en masse. TD Economics reported that foreign direct investment into Canada totaled C$44.7 billion in the first half of 2026, down from C$54.7 billion in the same period of 2025. U.S. direct investment was C$31.4 billion and the United States re-emerged as Canada's leading source of FDI.
That distinction is important: portfolio purchases of bonds can move quickly and reflect interest rates, issuance patterns, currency conditions and risk preferences. Foreign direct investment usually represents longer-term ownership stakes, acquisitions or productive capacity. Both matter, but they measure different things.
Some U.S. Manufacturers Are Moving Capacity North - but the Evidence Is Anecdotal
There are concrete examples of U.S. manufacturers adding Canadian production. Wildlife Acoustics CEO Ian Agranat wrote that his company had arranged a manufacturing partner outside Toronto and planned to duplicate a production line there, with the possibility of shifting a majority of other manufacturing to Canada by 2027 if conditions persisted.
Howell Ski Bindings has also discussed setting up manufacturing in Quebec, citing Canada's access to overseas markets among its reasons. But the company's own materials say its new bindings are not expected to ship until 2029. That makes Howell an example of planned Canadian production, not evidence that a mature U.S. factory has already been fully relocated.
These cases are relevant signals, especially for firms whose customers are mostly outside the United States. They are not enough by themselves to establish a broad macroeconomic migration of U.S. manufacturing into Canada.
The Major Projects Office Is Part of the Strategy - but It Is Not the Same as TD's Pipeline
The Carney government has created policy machinery intended to accelerate large projects. Canada's Major Projects Office, launched in 2025, acts as a federal point of contact for major nation-building projects and is designed to simplify and speed regulatory decisions while coordinating with provinces, territories, Indigenous partners and investors.
The federal Spring Economic Update said 15 referred projects and six transformative strategies represented more than C$125 billion in new investment and more than 60,000 construction jobs. Separately, the government says its broader capital investments and incentives are intended to enable as much as C$500 billion in private-sector investment over five years and more than C$1 trillion in total investment.
Those government targets overlap conceptually with TD's investment-supercycle thesis, but they should not be merged into one statistic. TD's C$1 trillion count is an independent inventory of announced projects; the government's C$1 trillion language is a policy objective for investment enabled by public spending, incentives and private capital.
The C$1.5-C$1.7 Trillion Scenario Is Upside, Not Money Already Committed
TD's high-investment scenario estimates that C$1.5 trillion to C$1.7 trillion could materialize over the longer term if Canada improves the conditions needed to turn proposals into actual construction and productive assets. The source material describes that as 'additional' investment on top of the C$1 trillion pipeline. That is not how TD presents it.
The C$1.5-C$1.7 trillion range is better understood as a possible total under a high-investment scenario. TD's argument is that today's publicly announced pipeline could be joined by projects that have not yet been identified if Canada improves permitting, tax competitiveness, interprovincial trade, labour mobility and capital formation.
That upside is conditional. Canada has long struggled with major-project timelines, infrastructure bottlenecks and productivity growth. A supercycle requires proposed projects to survive financing, regulatory and market tests; headline project values are not equivalent to realized investment or GDP.
Carney's Goal Is Diversification, Not Instant Decoupling
Carney has explicitly framed trade diversification as a way to make Canada more resilient to pressure from any single partner. In a national address on September 8, he said the goal was to build a country strong enough that 'no country can ever hold us hostage.' He also warned that the pivot 'will come at a cost' and would not be easy.
That is very different from saying Canada has already decoupled from the United States. More than 70% of Canadian merchandise exports still go to the U.S. market, and deeply integrated supply chains in autos, energy, agriculture and manufacturing cannot be redirected overnight.
The trade war also has not been 'shut down.' Canada imposed new counter-tariffs on C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports on September 8 after Washington imposed 50% tariffs on C$27.6 billion of Canadian goods. The United States then announced additional restrictions on certain Canadian dairy products, most alcohol, motorcycles and federal procurement. The dispute remains active and economically consequential.
Supporters See Strategic Autonomy; Critics See Execution Risk
Supporters of Carney's approach argue that the trade conflict has exposed the danger of relying too heavily on one export market. From that perspective, faster project approvals, more east-west infrastructure, new trade agreements and expanded energy and critical-mineral capacity can strengthen Canada's bargaining power even if the United States remains its largest customer.
Critics do not necessarily dispute the need for diversification, but they question how quickly the government can turn announcements into construction. They point to permitting delays, tax competitiveness, interprovincial barriers, labour shortages, cost overruns and the risk that some proposed projects will never reach final investment decisions.
Both points can be true: Canada may have a historically large investment opportunity, and realizing it may still be difficult. The most defensible conclusion is not that Ottawa has made Washington irrelevant, but that the U.S.-Canada trade conflict has increased the political and economic incentive for Canada to build alternative sources of growth.
Conclusion
Canada's trillion-dollar investment story is substantial, but it becomes more credible when stripped of the viral exaggeration. TD Economics really did identify more than 300 announced projects worth just over C$1 trillion, including major energy, defence, AI, mining and transportation opportunities. Ottawa really is trying to accelerate nation-building projects and attract more private capital. Record foreign buying of Canadian debt also shows that international investors are willing to finance Canadian issuers at scale.
What has not happened is equally important. The C$1 trillion is not all locked in, every project is not under construction, foreign direct investment is not surging across the board, and the C$1.5-C$1.7 trillion high case is not an extra pile of money already committed. Above all, Canada's trade war with the United States remains unresolved.
Carney's strategy is therefore best described as an attempt to convert geopolitical pressure into a long-term diversification and investment drive. If Canada executes, the result could materially reduce vulnerability to U.S. trade shocks. Whether it becomes the promised investment supercycle will be determined by projects actually financed, approved, built and connected to global markets - not by the headline value of proposals alone.
