• Meghan Markle and Prince Harry criticize Meta for ceasing its fact-checking program on social media.
• In their statement, the couple claims that Meta allows profit to dictate policies impacting billions.
• A Trump ally suggests Harry could face deportation if he lied on his immigration application.
• The backlash highlights the complexity of royal titles in modern political discourse.
• Critics argue that the Sussexes' involvement in U.S. politics is inappropriate given their royal status.

Less than two weeks after rejoining Instagram, Meghan Markle and her husband, Prince Harry, have launched a scathing attack on Meta, the social media giant's parent company. They criticized its abandonment of a fact-checking program, claiming this move "directly undermines free speech" and accuses the company of lacking integrity. Their statement, issued through their website Sussex.com, was met with derision from observers who labeled it politically charged and inappropriate given their royal titles.

Among their critiques, Markle and Harry assert that Meta's decision is influenced by corporate ego and profit motives, affecting billions of people. Nile Gardiner, a notable conservative commentator associated with the Heritage Foundation, quickly rebuked the couple's involvement in what he called a "hot-button political topic." He is leading calls questioning Harry’s immigration status and suggested that if Harry lied on his immigration papers, he should face deportation. This reaction reflects an ongoing narrative threatening to overshadow the Sussexes with political and legal controversies.

Gardiner, alongside his team at the Heritage Foundation, has made waves by attempting to scrutinize Prince Harry's immigration application, positing that his admissions regarding past drug use could indicate he breached U.S. immigration laws. He argued, “For members of the royal family to engage in such overtly political matters is, quite frankly, highly inappropriate,” expressing concern over their use of royal titles in political discourse. Claims have proliferated on social media insisting Harry should be deported if found dishonest about his immigration status.

The Heritage Foundation's influence in conservative circles has made their stance on the Sussexes' activities particularly weighty. Gardiner is noted for having indicated he would approach Donald Trump with recommendations regarding the release of Harry's immigration records following his remarks about drug use in public statements. He suggests that the political climate might reach a point where public sentiment could force a closer examination of the couple's immigration histories, further complicating their standing as Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

This series of events follows shortly after Markle's Instagram re-entry, which she leveraged to promote content related to her now-postponed cooking show, thus raising eyebrows about the motivations behind their statement against Meta. Even though Meghan and Harry called for advocates to push back against Meta's policies, critics have noted the irony in their crusade, considering their recent revenue-driven engagement on the platform. Political commentators continue to scrutinize how the Sussex duo navigates their royal legacy while making pronounced political statements.

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Meghan and Harry's attack on Meta intertwines with broader debates about media responsibility and the role of public figures—especially those from royal backgrounds—in political discourse. This incident underscores the growing tension surrounding royal involvement in political matters, raising essential questions about the implications of legacy and public engagement in today’s social media landscape.

For further details, visit the original articles by The Daily Beast and The Daily Beast.