Prince Harry’s fight to have his official, armed full-time security reinstated when he visits the U.K. appears to have taken a step forward.

Insiders tell PEOPLE there are “positive” noises coming from the government regarding a reversal of the decision not to grant Harry security, and they are cautiously hopeful that the decision to upgrade his cover will go ahead.

It follows a report that an official review has found that Harry, 41, meets the criteria for inclusion in the taxpayer-funded security cover.

Neil Mockford/GC Images

After several years of the Duke of Sussex’s campaigning — including a high-profile court battle which he lost — a full-scale review was granted in December.

That meant an official risk assessment was carried out by the body that draws up the roster for who gets security – the royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec.) Ravec is made up of members of the government’s Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the royal household.

Prince Harry waves as he departs an engagement in London in Sept. 2025.Suzanne Plunkett – Pool/Getty

On Jan. 4, The Mail on Sunday reported that the committee had found that the criteria for the top-level security measures had been met. A source close to Harry was quoted as saying,  “It’s now a formality. Sources at the Home Office have indicated that security is nailed on for Harry.”

Our new app is here! Free, fun and full of exclusives. Scan to download now!

There is now a belief that, barring a last-minute intervention from opponents, the duke will be granted the armed guards and institutional backup he used to get when he was a working royal.

Harry has repeatedly said that without such security cover, he is unable to bring his wife, Meghan Markle, 44, and their two children, Prince Archie, 6, and Princess Lilibet, 4, to the country of his birth — insisting he doesn’t feel safe doing so.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle carrying their two children Princess Lilibet, left, and Prince Archie, right, at their former Windsor home, Frogmore Cottage.Netflix/Youtube

This reversal could pave the way for Harry to bring his children, who are being raised in California, to the U.K. to be reunited with his father, King Charles.

It emerged on Oct. 6 that a female stalker came within feet of Prince Harry on a couple of occasions when he was on a charity visit to the U.K. in September 2025.

Harry lost his full security cover when he and Meghan stepped back from frontline royal duties in 2020. In May 2025, he lost an appeal over the issue. It emerged during that case that he and Meghan, 44, and the family had not had an assessment since 2019.

But in October 2025, Harry made another approach, making a personal appeal to the British government minister in charge of policing and crime prevention in Britain, the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.

In an interview in May, following the failure of his appeal, Harry implied to the BBC that he believed his father, King Charles, could influence the decision despite the fact that the palace has consistently denied that the King, 77, has the power to have that security reinstated.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry enjoying a night out at at Dodgers Stadium in Oct. 2025.Joe Scarnici/MLB Photos via Getty

Then, in December, the full-scale review of the Duke of Sussex’s security by the official body that assesses how royals and VIPs are guarded commenced.

Related Stories

Prince Harry Won’t Return to Sentebale Charity He Co-Founded amid Ongoing Fallout

Prince William’s Annual Salary Revealed in 2025 Royal Report

Harry is due back in the U.K. later this month for a court case over his legal claim against Associated Newspapers, the owners of the publishers of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday and Mail Online.

Can’t get enough of PEOPLE’s Royals coverage? Sign up for our free Royals newsletter to get the latest updates on Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle and more!  

His spokesman declined to comment, saying they don’t discuss security matters.

A government spokesperson added in a statement, “The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”