Do we like Rupert Grint?
Our score: 8 out of 10. He backed trans people in his own words and nothing harmful turned up, but the Rowling-linked Broadway return and a tepid answer on fascism stop it short of the top.
Grint was eleven when he became Ron Weasley, and he spent roughly a decade inside the role. He has said it sometimes felt “quite suffocating” and was often heavy going, though he also described the set as a warm, family-like place. That's the backstory of a kid who grew up on camera and has been working out who he is outside the robes ever since.
The big stoush in his story is about J.K. Rowling. In June 2020, after her comments on trans people, he said “I firmly stand with the trans community”. He added that trans women are women, trans men are men, and everyone should be able to live with love and without judgement. Plenty of her other castmates said something similar, but it still counted.
He didn't dodge it afterwards either. He told Esquire in 2021 that “Sometimes silence is even louder” and that trans people are a group that needs standing up for. At Berlin in February 2026 he repeated that he stands with trans people, while saying he's grateful for Rowling's work and that you can disagree with someone and still respect them.
Harm check: nothing harmful in his own words or acts turned up in what I read. No anti-trans campaigning, no conspiracy rabbit holes, no dodgy donations. Asked in Berlin about the rise of fascism, he said “Obviously, I’m against it”. He added that he picks his moments to speak, and some fans called that thin. That's a fair gripe about how loud he is, not about any harm.
The recent bit is the Broadway announcement. He'll play an adult Ron for 17 weeks from February 2027, following Tom Felton into the show. Some LGBTQ+ fans commented “I thought you were an ally” under the post, while others said the cast shouldn't carry Rowling's views. Where you land depends on whether you see a job in a play as a statement or just a job.
The only court blot is money, not people. In late 2024 a UK tax tribunal rejected his appeal and ordered him to pay about £1.8 million. HMRC said he wrongly treated £4.5 million of film residuals as capital, and the judge found the sum was taxable as income. No response from him appeared in the AP report I read.