The US president also claimed he was "speaking for the UK more than Prince Harry" after the King's son urged Washington to honour its obligations in the Ukrainian conflict.
Speaking at the Kyiv Security Forum on Thursday, Harry - on his third trip to Ukraine since the war began in 2022 - insisted he was "not here as a politician" but as a "humanitarian" and "a soldier who understands service".
He called on the American leadership to uphold its "international treaty obligations" in what he described as the US's "enduring role in global security" - although he did not mention Mr Trump by name.
The Duke of Sussex said: "The United States has a singular role in this story. Not only because of its power, but because when Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons, America was part of the assurance that Ukraine's sovereignty and borders would be respected.
"This is a moment for American leadership, a moment for America, to show that it can honour its international treaty obligations - not out of charity but out of its enduring role in global security and strategic stability."
Mr Trump's criticism of Harry comes just days before the King is due to arrive in the US for a state visit to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence.
Charles and Queen Camilla will travel on Monday for a four-day trip during which they will meet the US president and First Lady.
The visit will also involve Charles addressing Congress, a state dinner and a commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Read more from Sky News:
World Cup final tickets go on sale for $2.3m each
Babies held aloft at funeral of father shot in Israeli settler attack
Mr Trump, who in recent weeks has been highly critical of Sir Keir Starmer and the UK government in relation to the Iran war, has said the visit of the royals could "absolutely" mend relations between the two nations.
He previously hit out at the prime minister, saying "this is not Winston Churchill we're dealing with" after Sir Keir initially refused to allow the US access to UK military bases at the start of the Middle East conflict.
In a call with Sky's US correspondent Mark Stone earlier this month, Mr Trump described Britain's immigration policies as "insane" and lamented the "sad" state of the US's special relationship with the UK.
FIFA's official "resale/exchange marketplace" website for the match on 19 July shows four seats available for $2,299,998.85 (£1.7m).
Buying all four of those tickets for the showdown, at the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, would set you back $9.2m (£6.8m).
A handful of other tickets in the same section, behind one of the goals, are also on sale for the comparatively bargain price of $16,098 (£11,953).
FIFA does not control the asking prices on the resale website, but takes a 15% fee from both the seller and buyer of such tickets - meaning it could, in theory, earn almost $600,000 from just one of the ticket sales. FIFA's cut is included in the asking price.
Read more
Everything you need to know about World Cup 2026
Italy rules out replacing Iran at World Cup
England stars concerned about pressure to speak out
Organisers have already faced criticism for the high prices of tickets for the tournament, which is being jointly hosted by Canada, Mexico, and the USA, and kicks off on 11 June.
Resale tickets for previous World Cups were capped at face value.
In response to the criticisms, in December FIFA introduced a small number of $60 (£45) cheaper tickets.
More than five million tickets have already been sold for this year's event, with the final phase of ticket sales opening earlier this week.
A FIFA spokesperson said: "FIFA has established a ticket sales and secondary market model that reflects standard ticket market practices for major sporting and entertainment events across the host countries.
"The applicable resale facilitation fees are aligned with industry standards across North American sports and entertainment sectors.
"FIFA's variable pricing ticketing approach aligns with industry trends across various sports and entertainment sectors, where price adaptations are made to optimise sales and attendance and ensure a fair market value for events."
The prime minister fired the former Foreign Office chief last week over his decision not to tell him Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting.
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈
Speaking on Electoral Dysfunction, Baroness Harman said the move "has made the whole thing blow up".
"People in the party out in the country are thinking we wish he hadn't fired him, however much justification he had because he's put a nuclear bomb under the whole thing," she said.
"He wouldn't have had to do the statement in the House of Commons. We wouldn't have had all this evidence to the select committee if he hadn't had fired Olly Robbins."
"He could have done all the investigations and then possibly done due process of disciplining and firing Olly Robbins, but not actually a summary dismissal, which has made the whole thing blow up."
Baroness Harman added Mandelson was "clearly the wrong appointment and a dangerous appointment for the UK to be making".
Read more from Sky News:
World Cup final tickets go on sale for $2.3m each
Babies held aloft at funeral of father shot in Israeli settler attack
The row over Mandelson's vetting has consumed the government for the past week. The prime minister has claimed Sir Olly should have told him that UK Security Vetting (UKSV) had recommended against appointing Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.
But Sir Olly says it was down to him, as head of the Foreign Office, to decide whether to give Mandelson security clearance - and that UKSV considered it a borderline case.
Sir Keir is once again facing a leadership crisis. All major political party leaders have called for him to resign, as have two backbench Labour MPs.
Peers will have their 16th day and final debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
And after that, it's over - at least for now.
Politics Hub: Follow the latest
The bill would give people over 18 who are terminally ill, and in the final six months of their life, the ability to request assistance from a doctor to die.
MPs passed the bill back in June 2025 - but it's taken so long to go through the Lords that it's now run out of time.
So how did we end up here - and where could it go next?
Why assisted dying failed
The bill is a private members' bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater after she came top in a ballot of backbench MPs wanting to introduce their own draft laws.
MPs backed the bill in November 2024 by a margin of 55 votes, which dropped to 23 by the time of its final Commons vote last June.
In the Commons, critics accused Ms Leadbeater of not listening to their concerns. They also claimed the key change made to the bill - replacing the need for a High Court judge to sign off an assisted death application with a panel of a senior lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a social worker - made it less rigorous.
But Ms Leadbeater argued three panellists would have more expertise than a single judge, making the process safer - as well as the crisis in the courts system meaning there wouldn't be capacity to consider assisted dying applications.
The bill then went to the Lords, which began debating it last September. Progress has been slow. Unlike the Commons, the Lords is self-regulating, which means it can take as long as it wants to consider legislation.
Supporters accuse a handful of peers of talking for so long that time runs out. But critical peers fiercely deny they are purposefully obstructing the bill, and insist they are simply trying to improve what they think is a poorly designed piece of legislation.
The bill has to pass by the time the parliamentary session ends next week. It can't be carried over to the next session.
Lords are stuck on the third of five stages - and the bill would have to go back to the Commons to agree any changes.
It's been clear for a while that the bill wasn't going to make it in time - both sides accepted that in March.
A letter from almost 200 peers to MPs seen by Sky News has called it "a failure of the [Lords] to fulfil its constitutional function", adding that "it is now for the elected chamber to decide what should happen next".
But a different letter from over 60 opposing peers, also seen by Sky News, says the bill has failed because of "the refusal by its supporters to engage reasonably on the substance".
How assisted dying could be brought back
Campaigners might have failed to pass an assisted dying law this session, but they aren't planning to give up.
As Sky News has previously reported, supporters are planning to enlist some 200 MPs to attempt to bring the bill back into contention this summer.
The next private members' bill ballot is due to be held on 21 May. Supporters think they have 200 MPs who would be willing to reintroduce the bill if one of them is successful in the ballot.
They then plan to try and get it through the Commons quickly - potentially even by packing the committee with supporters, on the grounds that MPs have already scrutinised it.
And if they can't get it through using the ballot, supporters will seek to persuade the government to give it time to protect the authority of the democratically-elected Commons over the unelected Lords.
"This is not over," Ms Leadbeater said. "The issue is not going to go away just because of an undemocratic filibuster in the Lords. We will keep pushing for a safer, more compassionate law until parliament reaches a final decision."
If it passes the Commons, the bill would then head back to the Lords.
If it once again fails to pass the upper chamber in time, supporters think they can use a piece of procedure called the Parliament Act to get it through, regardless of whether peers back it.
That says the same bill, twice passed by MPs but rejected by peers in two consecutive sessions, becomes law anyway.
It's rarely used, only twice this century. Never before has it been used for a private members' bill - although officials have confirmed it could, in theory. But it would mean that no further changes could be made to the bill.
What will the opponents do?
Just like the bill's supporters, its critics aren't planning to give up their opposition either.
Sky News understands opponents don't believe it's inevitable the bill will become law in the next parliamentary session.
"This is a bad law and its sponsors have repeatedly refused to improve it," said Labour MP Meg Hillier, who opposes the bill. "After months of debate, it still lacks the necessary protections and safeguards for vulnerable and disabled people that the public demands."
Opponents say MPs, asked to vote for a bill they say is dangerous and can't be amended, might think again.
They continue to highlight opposition, including how all the professional medical colleges are against the bill - despite some of them not being against the principle of assisted dying.
Also on their list is claims the bill has become a distraction, and how assisted dying isn't a priority for the public. A recent poll by JL Partners found that 94% of respondents didn't list assisted dying as one of their priorities.
Critics also say supporters are using underhand tactics - packing the committee with supporters, threatening to force the bill through. Supporters, on the other hand, say critics have been unreasonable by blocking the bill.
This incarnation of the bill may be officially over today. But don't expect the war of words to die down any time soon.
The woman had been separated from her friends on a night out when the trio found her "staggering in the street", alone and "incapacitated", Hove Crown Court heard.
Two of the men took her behind a beach hut where they raped her, and the other went to the location moments later and captured footage of the attack.
Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, from Egypt, and Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, from Iran, had both denied two counts each of raping the woman on 4 October last year. They were found guilty.
Egyptian national Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, was also found guilty of all four counts of rape as a secondary party by encouraging and filming the ordeal.
Jurors returned their verdicts in the five-week trial after more than 12 hours of deliberation.
Footage showed the woman falling down twice, jurors were told, with prosecutors describing the alleged attack as "cynical, predatory and callous".
Alshafe was also shown smiling and sticking his tongue out during the assault, as well as slapping the woman in the face.
He and Ahmadi had claimed during the trial the encounter was consensual and that she had approached them along the seafront, kissed and touched them both, mentioned something about sex and took them both to the beach.
Al-Danasurt, who claimed to jurors he attempted to stop the attack by filming it, also denied he spat in the woman's mouth and called her a "dirty b****".
Prosecutor Hanna Llewellyn-Waters KC had told jurors: "Frankly, to these defendants, the complainant was meat.
"She was repeatedly abused for their sexual gratification and entertainment.
"They wanted sex. and that could be achieved by being with someone who was in no state to resist them."
She said the woman told police she remembered being spat on, kicked, and her throat being grabbed during the attack, as well as men laughing.
Giving evidence, the woman told the court: "It wasn't consensual... they are evil and they have ruined my life."
Being cross-examined from behind a screen in court, she cried as she said: "It's the filmer's face I see every time I close my eyes, laughing at me."
In a police interview played to jurors, recorded on 13 October 2025, the victim said she had been at a bar with friends until about 3am before heading to a nightclub near the beach.
She said she regained consciousness lying on the beach, and thought she was going to be killed.
In the recording, she said: "I closed my eyes because I thought 'oh my God, they're actually going to kill me', I can hear all these voices and I can't stop them."
The court also heard minutes after leaving the men, the woman spoke to her friends and was described as "wailing and hysterical saying she has been raped".
Read more from Sky News:
UK cancer cases reach record high
WH Smith issues profit warning
CCTV footage from a nearby nightclub identified all three suspects, who had scanned their ID cards upon entering the club as part of the venue's own security measures. They were then located and arrested.
Samples of DNA were taken from all three defendants.
DNA from both Alshafe and Ahmadi matched with samples taken from the complainant's body during a forensic medical examination, while Al-Danasurt's was inconclusive.
At the time of the incident, all three defendants knew each other, and were living at hotel accommodation for asylum seekers near Horsham, West Sussex.
The court heard Ahmadi and Alshafe met each other on a small boat which arrived in the UK from France in June 2025. Al-Danasurt had arrived in the country in October 2024.
The three men are due to be sentenced at the same court on 15 July.
Border security and asylum minister Alex Norris said the Home Office will seek to deport them once they have been sentenced.
Details of Al-Danasurt's past emerged at a plea hearing in November last year ahead of the trial.
Prosecutors said Al-Danasurt had been convicted of murder in his absence in Egypt, adding that the basis of his asylum claim was that he fled the country to "evade a lengthy custodial sentence".
The judge withdrew the evidence from the case after his defence team contested the conviction, saying it was in fact his brother who had the murder conviction, not him.
Detective Chief Superintendent Richard McDonagh said: "These three predatory men took advantage of an extremely vulnerable woman, subjecting her to a prolonged, harrowing ordeal.
"I do not underestimate the strength and courage it required to report this to the police, and support the investigation as she dealt with the lasting impact of that morning's incident. Thanks to this woman's resolve, we have been able to bring her attackers to justice."
He added: "Women and girls should be able to feel safe in public and in private, at any time of the night or day.
"Brighton is a safe place, but incidents such as this serve as a sobering reminder of why we and our partners work so hard to prevent people from coming to harm, and tirelessly pursue perpetrators should the worst happen."