DONALD Trump’s hatred for Prince Harry puts his future in the US at risk, experts have warned.
Greg Swenson, Chairman of Republicans Overseas UK, blasted “stupid” Harry for lying about taking drugs on his visa form and then writing about it in his memoir Spare.
It opened up an intense row into whether he should be allowed to stay in the country.
Trump previously vowed if he was elected back into office “Harry is on his own”.
This morning Trump won a crushing election victory to seal his spot in the White House for another term.
And it’s put Harry’s future at risk, according to experts.
Mr Swenson told The Sun: “Donald Trump doesn’t like Harry and Meghan. He loves the King but doesn’t care for Harry at all.
“They indicted Trump for misrepresenting a book keeping entry, you could argue misrepresenting drug use on a visa form is more serious.”
Trump was found guilty on 34 charges of falsifying business records to disguise a hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
Meanwhile, Trump addressed Harry’s visa row earlier this year, saying: “I wouldn’t protect him. He betrayed the Queen. That’s unforgivable. He would be on his own if it was down to me.”
American think-tank The Heritage Fund previously appealed the decision made by the Biden administration to keep Harry’s visa details private.
Fund’s director Nile Gardener tweeted: “An extremely bad night for Harry and Meghan.”
And Trump’s 40-year-old son Eric has lashed out at the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, claiming the only reason Prince Harry’s US Visa is safe is because “no one cares” about him but said “we’ll happily send them back” to the UK.
Among the shocking claims made in Harry’s memoir Spare, he referenced the times he did lines of cocaine at 17 before experimenting with psychedelic mushrooms and smoking marijuana.
It prompted a Washington DC think tank to question why he was allowed into the US in 2020.
It filed a 13-page motion to the court to try to reopen the case, arguing “iron-clad guardrails” were broken.
Now royal expert Ingrid Seward has warned Harry will need to tread carefully now Trump is back in office.
She told The Sun: “Trump is pretty mad isn’t he. So maybe he will pick on them. I don’t think Harry and Meghan will be too worried about what Trump might say, it’s what he might do that’s the issue.
“If he suddenly wanted to make an impact, it would definitely do that. He knows better than anyone that would get worldwide coverage. There is that danger.”
Harry and Meghan are not believed to be fans of the new US President.
Ahead of the 2020 election which he lost to Joe Biden, the Sussexes called on the public to vote and “reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity” in what was interpreted as a swipe at Trump.
The Duchess of Sussex added that the election was “the most important election of our lifetime” but the pair have been quiet during this year’s vote.
In an astonishing outburst Harry claimed Trump has “blood on his hands” over his failure to tackle climate change during a hoax call with a fake Greta Thunburg in 2020.
The Sussexes moved to Montecito four years ago and have been evicted from their UK home at Frogmore Cottage.
IN September a judge ruled Harry’s visa documents would NOT be made public despite his admission that he took drugs.
Harry’s reference to taking cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his book Spare prompted a conservative Washington, DC think tank to question why he was allowed into the US in 2020.
However, in a major boost for the Duke of Sussex, Judge Carl Nichols said Harry had a “reasonable privacy interest” in relation to his US immigration paperwork and therefore it should stay private.
The judge did, however, agree Harry had revealed “intimate details” of his life in his memoir – which included a description of his private parts freezing.
And Harry’s privacy interests were somewhat diminished by him being a public figure, the judge said.
The decision comes after Judge Nichols spent five months reviewing Harry’s immigration file as part of a case brought by the Heritage Foundation.
The organisation sued the Department of Homeland Security after it refused a Freedom of Information request to see immigration files on Harry — now a US resident.
Heritage claims Harry may have lied on the forms under the section which asks if you have been a drug user.
Now, in his ruling seen in court documents today, Judge Nichols said “the public does not have a strong interest in disclosure of the duke’s immigration records”.
His judgement added: “Like any foreign national, the duke has a legitimate privacy interest in his immigration status.
“And the duke’s public statements about his travel and drug use did not disclose, and therefore did not eliminate his interest in keeping private, specific information regarding his immigration status, applications, or other materials.”
At the court in Washington, D.C., Judge Nichols noted that Harry’s memoir ‘Spare’ sold more than 1.4 million copies on its first day on sale and became a New York Times bestseller.
Judge Nichols said that the book “shares intimate details of his life” including “numerous instances” where Harry took drugs.
In the view of the judge, Harry had a “reasonable privacy interest in his immigration records”.
Judge Nichols said Heritage is “partially correct that as a public figure, the Duke’s public statements tend to diminish his privacy interests compared to ordinary foreign nationals admitted to the United States“.
The opinion states: “But it (Heritage) goes too far in arguing that the privacy interest is so diminished by his public statements as to be de minimis (Latin for very small).”
Judge Nicholas added the Duke’s public statements about his drug use did not eliminate his interest in keeping private information about his immigration status.
Heritage’s argument that revealing Harry’s paperwork would shed light on the workings of DHS “fails”, the ruling states.
“For the reasons discussed, the public does not have a strong interest in disclosure of the Duke’s immigration records”, the order states
The judge said some documents submitted to him by DHS were “of particular relevance” but the sentence was followed by a large paragraph that is redacted.
Another large section of ‘particularly relevant’ information was also redacted.
DHS handed over Harry’s immigration paperwork in April for Judge Nichols to review.
He wanted to see the ‘particular harm’ that would arise from the material being made public.
Judge Nichols told Homeland Security its arguments so far, including during a hearing in February, were ‘insufficiently detailed’ for him to decide.
