Prince Harry’s visa in doubt over drug admissions

Pressure is growing on the US government to release Prince Harry’s visa records after campaigners criticised an intervention by its ambassador to Britain.

Prince Harry admitted to taking drugs, in his book Spare. Pictrure: AFP

Pressure is growing on the US government to release Prince Harry’s visa records after campaigners criticised an intervention by its ambassador to Britain.

In his memoir Spare, the Duke of Sussex, admitted taking cocaine, marijuana and magic mushrooms. He has faced questions regarding how he was able to move to the US, where a visa application is often blocked if an applicant has admitted to taking illegal drugs.

The US ambassador to Britain, Jane Hartley, told Sky News last month that the US government would not deport the prince, who moved to California with his wife Meghan Markle in 2020, saying: “It’s not going to happen in the Biden administration.”

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, is suing the Department of Homeland Security for access to the prince’s visa documents to ascertain whether he lied on his application, which would be grounds for deportation.

The department has claimed that releasing those documents would be an invasion of Harry’s privacy. In its court filing, the foundation complained that the department had said none of the information could be released “without acknowledging what Prince Harry’s immigration status is or tipping our hand as to what it is”. However, the foundation pointed out that Ms Hartley had already spoken publicly about some of the information.

“Ambassador Hartley categorically stated that the Duke of Sussex will not be deported by the Biden administration. “Thus, the executive branch has now categorically stated that, regardless of future circumstances, they will decline to deport the Duke of Sussex, even in the most extreme of cases,” the filing reads. “(Hartley’s remarks) dramatically enhance the already compelling public interest in disclosure.”

The Heritage Foundation said the ambassador had “selectively disclosed” details while the department was “simultaneously vigorously resisting any disclosure in this matter” and that it “should be considered” by the judge.

“Ambassador Hartley knew full well that the question had media and political salience, and yet she still spoke directly to the issues being litigated in this case by answering the question,” the think tank said.

The Times