Tug of war in Slovenia between president and PM over Trump invite

A public clash has broken into the open in Ljubljana over which Slovenian institution holds the authority to invite the President of the United States for an official visit. The disagreement pits President Nataša Pirc Musar against Prime Minister Janez Janša and has quickly become a broader argument about constitutional powers, diplomatic protocol, and the direction of Slovenian foreign policy.

President Pirc Musar has made clear on 28 September that she intends to issue a formal invitation to U.S. President Donald Trump, but only through the proper channels. Speaking on national television, she stressed that the constitutional prerogative to invite foreign heads of state belongs to the president. She expressed no personal objection to a visit by the leader of NATO’s principal ally and even indicated she would welcome the opportunity, saying she has “a lot to tell him.” At the same time, she insisted that any such invitation must be coordinated among state institutions and must respect established protocol. Before an official invitation is sent, relevant departments normally check whether the prospective visitor has both the time and the intention to undertake a state visit. In her view, the process cannot be short-circuited by informal gestures.

The president’s comments came as a direct response to an initiative taken by Prime Minister Janša. During the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Janša announced that he had invited Trump to Slovenia. He publicized the invitation on his social-media account and through the government’s official channels. Janša also shared a short interview clip with the American network Newsmax in which he noted that Trump is already familiar with Slovenia because First Lady Melania Trump was born there. The two leaders met at a traditional reception hosted by the head of the host state for delegation leaders on the sidelines of the General Assembly. Janša later indicated that he had discussed Slovenia’s relations with the United States, Israel, the war in Ukraine, and European defence with the same network earlier in the month.

The exchange has turned a potential high-profile visit into a visible test of the division of powers between the presidency and the government. Slovenian political observers note that such institutional friction is not entirely new, yet it has gained sharper edges under the current alignment of office-holders. While the president emphasizes constitutional form and inter-institutional coordination, the prime minister has chosen a more direct, personal style of diplomacy on the international stage.

Constitutional roles and diplomatic practice

Under the Slovenian constitutional order, the president represents the state in its international relations and is the formal authority for issuing invitations to foreign heads of state. The government, led by the prime minister, conducts day-to-day foreign policy and maintains operational contacts with partner countries. In practice the two institutions are expected to work in tandem. A state visit by a U.S. president would require extensive preparation involving the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, security services, and protocol offices. An informal invitation issued abroad, however well-intentioned, risks creating the impression that these procedures have been bypassed.

Pirc Musar has sought to keep the dispute from becoming purely confrontational. In her public remarks she highlighted one area of potential common ground with Janša: the need to limit the use of the veto in the UN Security Council in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. She expressed the hope that the two leaders could discuss the matter at a future meeting. By focusing on shared concerns rather than institutional rivalry, the president attempted to frame the disagreement as a procedural rather than a political conflict. Whether that framing will hold remains uncertain, given the charged atmosphere surrounding any high-level engagement with Washington.

Foreign-policy context and shifting emphases

The dispute over a Trump visit cannot be separated from the wider debate about the orientation of Slovenian foreign policy. A recent commentary argued that the current government has executed a “sharp turn” away from the European multilateral framework and toward closer alignment with Washington and Tel Aviv. The evidence cited includes intensified political dialogue with Israel, the opening of a resident Israeli embassy in Slovenia, and a more pronounced emphasis on Israeli security concerns alongside continued formal support for a two-state solution.

A concrete illustration of the changed approach occurred in August, when Slovenia blocked a joint EU statement condemning Israel’s decision to expand settlements in the E1 area of the West Bank. As a result, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas issued a statement in her own name reaffirming the Union’s long-standing position that such settlements are illegal under international law. The Slovenian Foreign Ministry justified the blockage by arguing that a new joint text would add little value beyond positions already adopted by the European Council, while reiterating Slovenia’s commitment to international law and the two-state solution.

Slovenia’s Israel policy U-turn sparks protests as embassy opens in Ljubljana

Critics interpret these moves as evidence of a broader realignment. Defenders counter that the change is better understood as a recalibration of priorities rather than a rupture with Slovenia’s established European and Euro-Atlantic foundations. The government continues to treat Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine, supports Ukraine’s European perspective, and maintains traditional support for the integration of the Western Balkans into the European Union. Good relations with the United States have long been regarded as a strategic necessity for a small NATO member, irrespective of which party holds power in Ljubljana or Washington. Closer ties with Israel, while more pronounced than under the previous government, have not yet produced a clear abandonment of core legal positions on settlements or international humanitarian law.

In this light, an official visit by the American president would carry both symbolic and practical weight. It would signal that Slovenia remains an engaged partner within the transatlantic community at a time when European security debates are intensifying. At the same time, the manner in which the invitation is extended and accepted will be scrutinized for what it reveals about institutional balance inside Slovenia itself. President Pirc Musar has indicated her willingness to issue the formal invitation; the question now is whether the government and the presidency can coordinate the necessary preparatory steps without further public friction.

Slovenia’s President Pirc Musar has become the focus of a political and security controversy this summer. The country’s parliamentary security committee has requested urgent information from the SOVA intelligence agency about possible links between the president and Russian intelligence. The inquiry stems from reports about the president’s longtime friend, Viktorija Krivolucka, a Slovenian citizen of Russian origin. She was previously in a romantic relationship with a former Slovenian intelligence officer who later settled in Russia.

MP Žan Mahnič of the ruling Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) has called on the government to stop sharing intelligence and security materials with Pirc Musar, citing concerns over a potential connection to a Russian spy network. The President’s office has firmly rejected any suggestion that she is collaborating with Russian intelligence services.

Sources: Siol.net, BGNES, RTVSLO.si, STA

Slovenian president’s long-time Russian friend at centre of growing intelligence scandal

Caption: Prime Minister of Slovenia Janez Jansa speaks during the General Debate of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations Headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 24 September 2026. EPA/SARAH YENESEL