Truss, who served as the successor to Boris Johnson in Downing Street but was ousted after a short tenure of only 49 days, fielded questions from Wootton and viewers of GB News.
One audience member queried, "Do you think that Britain would welcome Prince Harry back if he was deported or divorced from Meghan? And do you think the Duchess is a bad influence on him?" In response, Truss stated, "If Prince Harry wishes to return to Britain, I believe we should extend a warm welcome to him.
I understand that this may not be a popular sentiment with everyone in the audience, but now that he is no longer financially supported by the Royal Family, he should be free to pursue his own endeavors and find employment like any other individual in our country."
Regarding the issue of influence, Truss refrained from commenting on its specific source, but acknowledged that certain recent interviews and publications have raised suggestions in this regard. Truss's unexpected show of support came shortly after Prince Harry received a legal boost. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced its refusal to release immigration records pertaining to the Duke of Sussex's application.
The DHS declined to confirm whether they possessed records related to Prince Harry's request for a waiver to enter the United States.
The conservative think tank Heritage Foundation initiated a legal challenge concerning the Duke's visa application. Nile Gardiner, director at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom within the think tank, criticized the Biden Administration's lack of transparency in response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the Heritage Foundation.
Gardiner expressed, "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently refused to disclose whether they have records regarding the Duke of Sussex's request for a waiver to lawfully enter the United States. This response showcases a disturbing lack of transparency on the part of the Biden Administration.
There are only three possible explanations for Prince Harry's entry into the United States on a visa: (1) Prince Harry disclosed his complete history of drug use and received a waiver, (2) the DHS blatantly disregarded the law, or (3) Prince Harry committed perjury.
"For the DHS to argue that confirming the existence of a waiver would violate the Duke of Sussex's privacy implies that (1) the privacy of having a waiver is crucial, which would mean he complied with the law since he currently resides in the United States, (2) it is a private matter whether the government deliberately disregarded the law in Prince Harry's case, or (3) perjury is a matter of privacy. This argument lacks coherence but is unsurprising coming from the Biden Administration, which has demonstrated a complete lack of transparency."
