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.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
