A debate over Prince Harry's US visa status has been ignited after the recent release of a heavily redacted version of his immigration documents. A segment on today saw commentators questioning why the Duke of Sussex seems to have avoided visa issues that other public figures faced after their drug use became public knowledge.

Prince Harry publicly admitted to a history of drug use in his autobiography, Spare. During the discussion on GB News, expressed skepticism that the matter had been handled fairly by the US government, given that he has been allowed residency. He grumbled: "There's either a rule or there's not a rule. You're either allowed to take drugs illegally or you're not."

When guest Jack Stooks defended Prince Harry saying he won't be the only person in the US to have taken drugs, co-host pointed out that there is a disparity between how he is treated by immigration officials versus how the common person is.

She hit back: "That's not the point, is it? If you or I admitted that we'd taken drugs or it was found that we had and then we'd lied on our forms, we'd be deported super sharpish, so why should he get any special treatment?"

Charlotte Griffiths echoed this sentiment, referencing , who reportedly faced visa difficulties after being caught on camera .

She said: "If I was Kate Moss, I'd be pretty annoyed right now. Kate Moss was caught apparently snorting lines of white powder in 2005. She was then pictured 13 years later applying for a US visa. She was a model, she could have been very successful in New York Fashion Week, bringing money into the US. It really damaged her career, but she knew she couldn't apply for a visa because it had been in the public domain that she had dabbled in drugs."

Griffiths also pointed out that Amy Winehouse faced the same predicament when she was unable to travel to the US to receive her Grammy Award in person because of her history of drug use.

The Mail on Sunday editor added: "The reason is because it was in the public domain that they had been using drugs. Now Harry's drug use is in the public domain by his own admission. But the difference is, he didn't dare bring out that book Spare before he'd safely arrived in the US. It was only once he was in that he released the book."

Prince Harry's visa status has come under scrutiny after a Conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Request to obtain the details of his application.

The request was based on the claims made in Spare, where the prince openly admitted to using cocaine, marijuana, and psychedelic mushrooms in the past.

While US visa forms explicitly ask applicants about their drug history, the documents released by the US government provided little clarity on whether Harry had disclosed his past drug use, as that section was redacted.

Griffiths expressed surprise at this, saying: "I was expecting a heavy redaction, but I was hoping they would redact everything but that one question. I could not believe that bit got redacted as well. Shocking."

The Department of Homeland Security has defended its decision to keep parts of the documents private, citing concerns that releasing such information could lead to the prince being harassed.

Members of the Heritage Foundation have complained at these measures, and representative Sam Dewey stated: "We may well have another lawsuit against [the] Department of Homeland Security." He added that he believes the government has not provided all relevant documents, and accused Prince Harry of avoiding consequences other people have faced as a benefit of his "wealth and status".