Even Prince Harry's Own Charity Has Had Enough of His ‘Woke Agenda' and Feud With Trump
Harry's speech was met with cheers in the Invictus arena, and many will enthusiastically support his stance. However, the remarks represented a significant departure from standard royal practice. It is normal for members of the royal family to avoid any mention of global affairs, lest they risk being seen to be meddling in politics, let alone the political choices of a specific country.
Harry said the competitors' 'courage, values and humanity' deserved special respect at a time 'when there is no shortage of crises, no absence of uncertainty, no lack of weak moral character in the world.'
His office has not responded to a request for comment on what he meant.
But Harry's decision to take on Trumpian values in an arena full of veterans and their families was a slightly bizarre choice. Although he is much loved in the Invictus community, veterans typically tend to trend conservative politically, and in the U.S. support Trump by a wide margin, research by the Pew Centre shows.
One organizer of the event told the Daily Mail: 'While we remain committed to supporting the veterans and their families, there is growing frustration over how Harry and Meghan have dominated the narrative. Public sentiment, especially among veterans, reflects this frustration—most do not respect how they continuously insert themselves into the spotlight. Unlike them, veterans and their families do not see themselves as victims. Their 'woke' agenda dies with veterans.'
Harry made his veiled dig at Trump after the president said he wouldn't deport Harry over historical drug use, but then added: 'I don't want to do that. He's got enough problems with his wife. She's terrible.'
Another Invictus insider told the Mail that while they could 'understand' Harry's upset reaction to Trump, 'it is a shame that Harry chose to say what he did, when he did. This event should be about the veterans, not royal spectacle.'
Harry's remarks represented an escalation of his and Meghan's simmering feud with Trump.
He also saluted the Invictus 'spirit of unity' in a 'moment of difficulty and division.'
Trump's deeply personal attack on Meghan distracted from Trump's climbdown on deporting Harry, whose immigration status has been the subject of debate and court actions ever since he admitted to taking drugs in his memoir, Spare. In the book, Harry wrote of the time he got high on mushrooms at Friends star Courteney Cox's house and thought a toilet was talking to him. He also revealed he had used cocaine at 17 'to feel different.'
The Heritage Foundation, the right-wing lobby group which authored Project 2025, has launched legal efforts to force the U.S. authorities to release details of Harry's immigration application.
The Sussex-Trump feud dates to a 2016 Comedy Central panel show in which Meghan, then an actress and not linked to Harry, expressed her contempt for Trump, labeling him 'misogynistic' and 'divisive,' and joking that she might move to Canada if Trump was elected president.
Trump later famously referred to her comment as 'nasty' ahead of his state visit to the U.K. in June 2019, by which time he was president and Meghan had married Harry.
In 2022, Trump told fellow Meghan critic Piers Morgan: 'Harry is whipped like no person I think I've ever seen.' He predicted the couple would divorce, saying, 'It'll end, and it'll end bad… I want to know what's going to happen when Harry decides he's had enough of being bossed around… Or maybe when she decides that she likes some other guy better. I want to know what's going to happen when it ends, OK?'
Trump used his new interview with the New York Post to praise Harry's estranged older brother, William, with whom he met in Paris in December.
'I think William is a great young man,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bipartisan senators push for Trump to keep portions of Biden-era AI rule
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) urged the Trump administration Thursday to maintain some parts of an artificial intelligence (AI) chip export framework laid out by former President Biden. In a letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the bipartisan duo called for the administration to keep provisions incentivizing companies to maintain most of their computing infrastructure for leading AI models in the U.S. and mandating 'robust' guardrails on data centers abroad. 'While the Diffusion Rule was rightfully criticized for being overly complicated and burdensome, it is essential that the Administration issues a replacement that keeps the center of gravity for AI infrastructure in the United States and imposes strong, robust security requirements on overseas facilities,' the pair wrote. Biden released the AI diffusion rule in his final days in office. The rule, which placed caps on chip sales to most countries other than a select few U.S. allies, faced sharp pushback from the semiconductor industry. The Trump administration rescinded the rule shortly before it was set to go into effect in May, arguing it would 'have stifled American innovation and saddled companies with burdensome new regulatory requirements.' Several months later, the administration has yet to offer a replacement. A group of Republican House members urged Lutnick earlier this month to provide a 'stable exporting structure' to take the place of the diffusion rule. However, a new framework may not be coming. Semafor reported Tuesday that the administration is weighing whether to scrap efforts to replace the rule. This comes after Trump unveiled his AI Action Plan last week, which underscored a shift in policy toward China, focusing less on export restrictions and more on boosting the adoption of American technology abroad. Seemingly in line with this approach, the Trump administration is allowing Nvidia to sell its H20 chips to China once again. After initially placing new restrictions on H20 sales in May, the administration gave the chipmaker the green light earlier this month. The decision has faced pushback from multiple fronts, with former national security officials, several Democratic lawmakers and at least one Republican member voicing concerns about the decision.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Harris to give Colbert her first interview since 2024 election
Former Vice President Kamala Harris will return to 'The Late Show' with Stephen Colbert on Thursday for her first post-election interview since her November loss to President Trump. The appearance comes days after Harris announced she would not run for California governor next year and also as she promotes her new book, ' 107 days ' detailing her short time as a presidential candidate after the withdrawal of then-President Biden. She'll be in conversation with Colbert, whose show is ending next year following his vocal criticism of both Trump and his network CBS's parent company Paramount's settlement of a lawsuit Trump brought against '60 Minutes' over its editing of an interview with Harris. Before his cancellation, Colbert had described the $16 million settlement as a 'big fat bribe' following the president's similar agreements with ABC and other media outlets. CBS insisted that canceling 'The Late Show' was a purely financial decision, but shortly after it was announced, Trump's Federal Communications Commission approved Paramount's desired merger with Skydance. Harris, who like Biden attended Trump's inauguration in January, has been relatively quiet in regards to his accusations about the 2024 campaign trail, although he's alleged she purchased endorsement from celebrities and should be prosecuted. Last month, she did, however, address Trump's move to deploy the military to Los Angeles amid his immigration crackdown. 'Deploying the National Guard is a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos,' she said on social media. 'In addition to the recent ICE raids in Southern California and across our nation, it is part of the Trump Administration's cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division.' 'This Administration's actions are not about public safety — they're about stoking fear,' Harris added. 'Fear of a community demanding dignity and due process.'
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats blast Bessent over Trump baby accounts ‘backdoor for privatizing Social Security' remarks
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is facing heavy backlash from Democrats over a Wednesday remark in which he talked about 'a backdoor for privatizing Social Security.' 'In a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security,' Bessent said Wednesday during an event with Breitbart News, discussing 'Trump accounts.' These are savings accounts the Trump administration has proposed for kids born between 2024 and 2028 in which the government will put $1,000. It was a part of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that he signed into law earlier this year. Social Security has long been a third rail in politics, and Democrats were quick to accuse Bessent of suggesting he and the administration saw the accounts as a future replacement for Social Security. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said in a post on the social platform X Wednesday that Bessent was 'saying the quiet part out loud.' ''In a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security.' – Scott Bessent,' Luján said in his post, which featured a clip of Bessent's comments. 'That means gutting the promise our seniors earned and dismantling Social Security as we know it.' In his own post on X Wednesday, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) offered an opinion similar to Luján's. 'Trump Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent said the quiet part out loud: Trump-Republicans want to privatize Social Security, turning it from a dependable safety net to a risky profit center for moneyed special interests at the expense of everyday Americans,' Reed said in his post. Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said on X that 'Republicans' ultimate goal is to privatize Social Security.' 'And we know that there isn't a backdoor they won't try to make Wall Street's dream a reality,' he added. Later on Wednesday, Bessent sought to clean up his remarks by arguing the new accounts would bolster Social Security. He said in a post on X that 'Trump Baby Accounts are an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security's guaranteed payments.' 'This is not an either-or question: our Administration is committed to protecting Social Security and to making sure seniors have more money,' he added. In an appearance on CNBC's 'Squawk Box' Thursday, Bessent said he was 'I was giving an interview, and I was talking about the $1,000 baby bonds that every American citizen, every newborn, is going to get.' 'The Democrats hate this program because the — it brings capitalism and markets to every American, not just their constituents at the upper end, and over time, the compounding is going to be an incredible supplement to Social Security, not a replacement. It is a compliment,' he added.
