Meghan and Harry’s Humanitarian Image: A One-Off Deal?

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have once again captured public attention, but this time the focus is on their purported long-term partnership with World Central Kitchen (WCK).

While they tout their commitment to humanitarian causes, questions are arising about the sustainability of their support.

Is it really a lasting partnership, or just a fleeting moment in the spotlight?

Let's take a closer look.

Back in 2021, the couple made headlines with a substantial $300,000 donation to WCK through their Archul Foundation.

This generous contribution was intended to fund four relief centers across the globe, aimed at assisting those in dire need.

The announcement was met with positive press coverage and plenty of fanfare, but it now appears that this donation may have been a one-time affair.

According to IRS filings from Archul, there have been no additional donations made to WCK in either 2022 or 2023.

In fact, the records show a stark absence of any financial support—zero contributions after that initial splash.

While Meghan and Harry continue to promote their partnership with WCK, it increasingly resembles a fleeting encounter rather than a committed alliance.

Meanwhile, WCK has been tirelessly providing aid in various crises, from supporting COVID relief efforts in India to assisting Ukrainian refugees and helping victims of California wildfires.

You might think this would be the perfect opportunity for the Sussexes to step up and offer more assistance, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Interestingly, it's not Meghan and Harry who have stepped in to help, but their fans.

Inspired by their daughter Lilibeth's birthday, supporters of the couple have rallied to donate their own funds to WCK, while the couple remains conspicuously absent from the action.

This pattern of behavior isn't entirely new; it hints at a trend where they make a grand gesture, bask in the resulting publicity, and then seemingly retreat.

It's reminiscent of the celebrity culture where stars pledge millions for disaster relief, but often rely on the public to raise those funds instead of digging deep into their own pockets.

In this instance, WCK received a generous upfront donation from the Sussexes, but the anticipated ongoing support never materialized.

If Archul had contributed more than $5,000 to WCK in the past two years, the IRS would mandate disclosure.

Yet, the foundation's giving habits appear more aligned with public relations strategies than with a genuine desire to help.

For instance, they donated $250,000 to Ashley Biden's charity around the same time reports surfaced about their attempt to secure a ride on Air Force One following Queen Elizabeth's funeral.

Other donations seem strategically timed with high-profile events, such as the NAACP Awards and the Ripple of Hope Gala.

Then there's the notable Time magazine cover featuring WCK's founder, who praised Meghan and Harry for their supposed commitment to humanitarian efforts.

Ironically, it seems the couple distanced themselves shortly after basking in that moment of glory.

In contrast, figures like Jeff Bezos have demonstrated genuine support for WCK, donating $100 million without feeling the need to announce each contribution.

Meghan and Harry, however, appear to treat even the smallest gestures as opportunities for maximum media exposure.

Their promotion of WCK raises eyebrows, suggesting a focus on enhancing their image rather than a sincere commitment to humanitarian work.

As we look ahead to Archul's 2024 filings, many are left wondering if there will be any surprise donations to WCK.

The likelihood of that happening seems slim, much like the chances of Meghan's Netflix cooking show becoming a major success.

Ultimately, it appears that Meghan and Harry are more invested in projecting an image of humanitarianism than in genuinely engaging in charitable acts.

While others are rolling up their sleeves, making significant contributions, and effecting real change, the Sussexes seem content to enjoy the benefits of borrowed credit.