Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s partnership with World Central Kitchen (WCK) has been touted as a long-term commitment, but is it truly as enduring as it appears? In 2021, the couple garnered significant media attention for their $300,000 donation to WCK through their Archewell Foundation.
This contribution was intended to support the establishment of four relief centers worldwide to aid communities in crisis. The announcement came with glowing headlines, celebratory press releases, and a flurry of positive PR. However, IRS filings reveal that this donation marked both the beginning and the end of their financial support to WCK. According to Form 990s for 2022 and 2023, no additional contributions were made—zero, nada, zilch.
While Meghan and Harry continue to tout their "long-term partnership" with WCK, the reality appears to be more of a fleeting commitment. Meanwhile, WCK has tirelessly provided aid across the globe, including disaster relief in the Dominican Republic, COVID-19 support in India, assistance for Ukrainian refugees, and aid to California wildfire victims. Such efforts would seem like prime opportunities for additional support from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Yet, no further contributions from Archewell have surfaced.
Interestingly, it wasn’t Meghan and Harry but their fans who stepped up for WCK, inspired by the couple’s daughter Lilibet’s birthday. Regular individuals donated their hard-earned money to the organization while Meghan and Harry seemingly observed from the sidelines. This pattern raises questions about their approach to philanthropy. They often appear to favor grand initial gestures followed by silence, leveraging the PR benefits for as long as possible. It’s akin to purchasing a lifetime humanitarian membership but allowing it to expire after the first year.
A notable comparison can be drawn with other high-profile donors. For instance, Jeff Bezos donated $100 million to WCK without issuing frequent press releases or basking in public adulation. In contrast, Meghan and Harry seem to maximize every small gesture for PR mileage. The contrast underscores a recurring narrative: their actions often seem more about image-building than substantive impact.
This isn’t the first time their philanthropic efforts have raised eyebrows. For example, Archewell donated $250,000 to Ashley Biden’s charity, coinciding with reports of the couple seeking a ride on Air Force One after Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral—a request that was denied. Similarly, other donations appear linked to high-profile events, such as the NAACP Awards and the Ripple of Hope Gala. These patterns suggest a focus on strategic PR rather than consistent, genuine philanthropy.
Even the now-infamous Time Magazine cover, which featured glowing praise from WCK’s founder, seems to follow this pattern. After receiving a moment in the spotlight, the couple reportedly distanced themselves from WCK, leaving others to carry the torch of meaningful support. The contrast between Meghan and Harry’s approach and that of consistent donors like Bezos highlights the superficiality of their so-called long-term partnerships.
Will Archewell’s 2024 filings reveal a surprise donation to WCK? The odds seem slim. For now, Meghan and Harry’s actions suggest they are more invested in appearing as humanitarians than actively embodying the role. While others provide substantial resources and make tangible impacts, the Sussexes seem content to bask in the glow of borrowed credit, leaving much to be desired in the realm of meaningful, long-term philanthropy.
