
‘She's the one that matters': the growing influence of Melania on Donald Trump
Six months into his second term as US president, a period in which Donald Trump has pirouetted on just about every big international issue, mandarins in Whitehall have realised they need to focus less time on trying to tame him, and more on looking at his wife.
Trump's recent golfing visit to the UK underlined the feeling that the first lady is the single biggest influence on her husband – and intend to adapt accordingly. They believe Melania was behind Trump's recent volte-face declaring Palestinians in Gaza were starving; and the president acknowledged it was his wife who had said Vladimir Putin may not have been sincere about wanting a peace deal in Ukraine.
It is not just what the president says about the first lady in public, but the deferential reference to her views in private, according to sources who have spoken to the Guardian. One said: 'Starmer has earned Trump's respect and will tell him in the right way if he disagrees. But she is the one that matters.'
For Whitehall officials to reach such a conclusion about Melania's influence requires quite a reassessment. The first lady has made a virtue of refusing to divulge the secrets of her political partnership. The more he talks, the less she tends to say.
Her banality-packed, bestselling memoir, Melania, revealed, according to one critic, 'an extremely superficial, politically disengaged human being, the last kind of person who you would think of as a political wife'.
Moreover, the first lady often vanishes from view, mainly to New York to be closer to her son. The disclosure in late May that she may have spent less than a fortnight in the White House since her husband's second inauguration did not reveal a woman desperate to be 'in the room where it happens'.
There has been no repetition of her solo visit to Africa in 2018, a visit preceded by a reception on the sidelines of the UN general assembly in which she spoke of her pride in the work of the USAID programme tackling disease and hunger among children.
USAID has now been dismantled.
Earlier this year, Melania gave a glimpse of the role she now plays. In an interview with the chatshow Fox & Friends, she spoke about her life and the hardships she had endured when she first came to the US. And then she spoke of her life now.
'Maybe some people, they see me as just a wife of the president, but I'm standing on my own two feet, independent. I have my own thoughts. I have my own 'yes' and 'no'. I don't always agree [with] what my husband is saying or doing, and that's OK.'
She continued: 'I give him my advice, and sometimes he listens, sometimes he doesn't, and that's OK.'
She clearly clashed with him over Covid and, according to her memoir, over abortion – the first lady has defended abortion rights. The bulk of her formal work has been linked to helping orphans or children at risk of online exploitation. But it has had little cut-through.
In February 2025, a US poll listed Melania as the 10th emost influential person in the Trump administration behind even Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, and the US attorney general, Pam Bondi.
At the time of the poll, the now jettisoned Elon Musk was seen as the figure the president most heeded. Since that fallout, Trump says he trusts no one. All of which has made the work of diplomats, who spend their lives trying to work out who in the president's inner circle they need to cultivate, all the harder.
The British ambassador Lord Mandelson, who has to track Trump's unpredictable and last-minute decision-making, has said: 'I've never been in a town or a political system that is so dominated by one individual. Usually, you're entering an ecosystem rather than the world of one personality.'
A European diplomat added: 'Working out who and what influences him, and the relative value of flattery or firmness, has become every diplomat's preoccupation.'
And yet the answer to reading the president, British officials have come to conclude, was under their nose. Trump himself has encouraged this thinking.
They note he once described his wife as his best pollster, and in his second term he has been increasingly open that his wife affects his thinking – possibly a helpful admission for a leader trailing in the polls especially among independent women alienated by Trump's machismo deal-making and coarseness.
By projecting Melania, the president gets a chance to appeal to different voters. The first lady also provides him with an excuse, if needed, to change course, as may have happened when in 2018 Melania publicly criticised as 'heartbreaking and unacceptable' the administration policy of migrant children being separated from their parents.
She claimed she had been 'blindsided', a phrase that revealed an assumption she would be consulted.
Children were also in her thinking on Gaza, according to Trump. He explained: 'Melania thinks it is terrible. She sees the same pictures that you see and we all see. Everybody, unless they are pretty cold-hearted or worse than that, nuts, [thinks] there's nothing you can say other than it's terrible when you see the kids.' In thinking this, the first lady was not alone: 72% of female voters, according to a YouGov/Economist poll, think there is a hunger crisis in Gaza.
On 27 July, when Israel insisted starvation was not occurring in Gaza or is manufactured by Hamas propagandists, Trump then pushed back, saying the pictures could not be faked.
This would have been music to the ears of the British, who have been urging the president to give the issue his attention.
But the follow-through has been weak. Trump claimed the US had provided $60m (£45m) in food aid to Gaza, a claim that has been debunked in the US media. He vaguely hinted at restructuring the food centres run by the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund, the much-criticised replacement for the UN-administered food programme. Yet a fortnight later, despite the continuing deaths, Trump's ambassador in Israel, Mike Huckabee, insisted on Tuesday that GHF was fundamentally working, while Fox News was given a tour of a GHF distribution centre to show food was reaching Palestinians. Trump said it was up to Israel if it wished to occupy Gaza permanently.
Trump has also credited the first lady's scepticism with sharpening his partial rethink about Putin. At a meeting with the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, on 15 July he said: 'I go home. I tell the first lady: 'I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation.' She said: 'Oh really? Another city was just hit.''
Later the same day at another White House event, he said: 'I'd get home, I'd say: 'First lady, I had the most wonderful talk with Vladimir. I think we're finished.' And then I'll turn on the television, or she'll say to me one time: 'Wow, that's strange because they just bombed a nursing home.''
Melania's observations led him to muse: 'I don't want to say he is an assassin, but he is a tough guy, it's been proven over the years.'
Asked if the first lady was an influence on his thinking, Trump said: 'Melania is very smart. She's very neutral. She's very neutral, in a sense she's sort of like me. She'd like to see people stop dying.'
In saying she is neutral, and wants the killing in Ukraine to stop, Trump may be gently realigning these views with the latest version of his own.
At the time of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 28 February 2022, Melania ended a long silence on X, sending her prayers to the people of Ukraine and conspicuously not to those of Russia.
In February 2022, when her husband called Putin's invasion of Ukraine 'genius', Melania tweeted: 'It is heartbreaking and horrific to see innocent people suffering. My thoughts and prayers are with the Ukrainian people. Please, if you can, donate to help them @ICRC.'
In that appeal she apportioned no explicit blame for the conflict, and Trump insisted his wife had liked Putin when they had met briefly at a summit in 2017, but it is a stretch to describe Melania as neutral on Ukraine.
The relatively wealthy daughter of a textile worker and a car trader, Melania, with her older sister Ines Knauss, was educated in the communist-run capital of Slovenia, Ljubljana. But Slovenia in the 80s was always seen as the most liberal part of Tito's Yugoslavia, and the first lady has said she always felt more connected to Austria and Italy than to the communist bloc. If her father was a member of the Communist party, self-advancement not ideology was the motive.
The assessment that Melania is important to Trump's decision-making is double-edged. It provides faint hope that the humanitarian perspective still holds some sway in the White House. But the theory is also frustrating as it is difficult to know how engaged she is.
It is symptomatic of a wider problem faced by many western countries. With the US state department hollowed out by cuts, and the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, having decamped to the White House in a temporary posting as national security adviser, western diplomacy, traditionally structured around relations with the state department, is struggling to adapt to Trump's free-wheeling style where power is centred on the president, his instincts and informal conversations, including those with his wife.
Political monitoring teams are being revamped into near 24-hour operations to try to adapt to Trump's continuous statements, often dropping policy clues into impromptu press conferences, doorsteps and on social media.
It is ironic that it will be the royal family who will test the theory that Melania could become Britain's secret ally at court.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Malaysia must stop saying one thing and doing another
In his first year in office as Foreign Secretary, David Lammy has made an astonishing 47 trips abroad. One of the most recent stamps on his diplomatic passport is from Malaysia, where he attended the 58th ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting on 12 July. Opened by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, in the official communique, Anwar underlined the principle of 'centrality' as ASEAN's guiding message, emphasising the need to ensure that, as one international scholar put it, the Southeast Asian organisation should be the engine which empowers 'the evolving regional architecture of the Asia Pacific'. While in Malaysia, Mr Lammy paid a separate courtesy call to the prime minister. Pleasantries and gifts were exchanged, while the prime minister tweeted his delight at the meeting, lauding the upgrade in relations between Malaysia and the UK. In the tweet, Anwar also commended the fact that the UK and Malaysia now benefit from a 'strategic partnership', and that the relationship was 'increasingly mature and strategic, grounded in shared values – justice, the rule of law, and universal humanity'. Honourable and self-congratulatory those sentiments may be, but they are some way removed from the reality of Malaysia's current politics. There has been a bundle of oppressive legislation tabled in Malaysia, the main aim of which appears to be to curtail freedom of expression and media freedom. Anwar's government plans to introduce amendments to the Printing Presses and Publications Act, which, if introduced, will enable the Government to widen the scope of so-called 'undesirable publications' to include those which alight on sensitive issues related to religion, race, and royalty, already a tricolon of controversy in Malaysia. Commentators have noted that the new legislation would be just one of many steps taken to restrict freedom of speech and the media by Anwar's coalition. Promises first made in his party's manifesto to repeal draconian legislation, including the Sedition Act and Multimedia Act, remain on Anwar's campaign website, but somehow appear to be missing at the cabinet table. This chipping away at the rule of law and curbing media freedom and freedom of expression can find no greater epitomisation than in UK journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, who uncovered the 1MDB scandal, exposing corruption in her famed Sarawak Report. While she has been the target of abusive lawsuits in Malaysia since she first exposed corruption there, under Anwar's aegis, Clare has been sentenced, in absentia, to two years imprisonment on a bogus defamation charge without being told she was to be put on trial. Anxious to appeal, she cannot clear her name as she must attend the court in Malaysia in person. While journalists in many countries have been the target of SLAPPS (strategic lawsuits designed to muzzle them), Clare's case takes this to a new level. Anwar's election was an attempt by Malaysia's electorate to shed light on the long shadow cast by former premier Najib Razak. The hope was that Anwar would oversee an executive who abided by the rule of law, shunned corruption, and lived by the values of a democracy. Yet, within the last three years, Anwar has placed a satirical cartoonist under a travel ban, allowed a British journalist to be tried and found guilty in absentia (with a prison sentence tacked on) for exposing the corruption of the previous government, and promoted a raft of censorious legislation which tightens his grip on civil society and weakens the checks and balances that freedom of speech, the rule of law and media freedom all provide for a flourishing western democracy. It has been said that politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Anwar Ibrahim has campaigned on the promise of reform and governed in breach of that promise. Clare is another on the list of British citizens, like Jimmy Lai and Alaa Abd El Fattah, who are being punished by foreign Governments simply because they do not like their journalism. The Foreign Secretary should be using every opportunity to press their case. That need is even greater when it comes to a 'strategic partner' and Commonwealth country like Malaysia. Mere months before he took office, David Lammy spoke of how easy it is to take the rule of law for granted when it remains a foreign concept in many parts of the world. He can now use the influence of his office to translate that foreign concept to the government of Malaysia and help its citizens enjoy the freedom of expression that we here in the UK take for granted.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Zelensky calls for ‘fair end to war' as Europe urges pressure on Putin
Volodymyr Zelensky has called for a 'fair end to the war' and thanked European leaders for their robust stance towards Russia. Ahead of Donald Trump's planned peace talks with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, a joint statement by France, Italy, Germany, Poland, the UK and the European Commission said: 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. 'Only an approach that combines active diplomacy, support to Ukraine and pressure on the Russian Federation to end their illegal war can succeed.' On Sunday, Mr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, said: 'The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people today for the sake of peace in Ukraine, which is defending the vital security interests of our European nations. 'Ukraine values and fully supports the statement by President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Tusk, Prime Minister Starmer, President Ursula von der Leyen, and President Stubb on peace for Ukraine.' But the European leaders could be set for a collision course with Mr Trump, the US president. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force,' their statement said. On Friday Mr Trump told reporters that any peace deal may involve 'some swapping of territories'. 'We're gonna get some [territory] back. We're gonna get some switched. There'll be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both,' he said. Mr Zelensky is steadfastly opposed to this, vowing to reject any deal that cedes his country's borders. He insisted that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to occupiers '. The White House has not ruled out inviting the Ukrainian president to the Alaska summit, according to an NBC report. Putin and Mr Zelensky have not been in the same room since before the war broke out. The only time they have met was in Paris in 2019. 'War cannot be ended without us, without Ukraine' If the meeting goes ahead, it will mark Mr Trump's first sit down with Putin in six years, after a string of 'disappointing' phone calls in a bid to end the conflict. Mr Trump last met the Russian president in 2019, on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Osaka, Japan. The last US-Russia summit took place in 2021 when former US president Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva. A senior US official told NBC News that while no visit had been finalised, it was 'absolutely' possible the Ukrainian president would join his US and Russian counterparts. 'Everyone is very hopeful that would happen,' the official said. 'The president remains open to a trilateral summit with both leaders. Right now, the White House is focusing on planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin.' Mr Zelensky said the summit is taking place 'very far away from this war, which is raging on our land, against our people, and which anyway can't be ended without us, without Ukraine'. On Saturday, Ukraine launched an overnight drone attack on the south Russian region of Saratov, striking an oil refinery and setting it on fire. Russian air defence took down 121 drones, according to Roman Busargin, the regional governor. Debris from a destroyed drone damaged three apartments, killing one person, hospitalising another and prompting an evacuation of residents.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Why every Hong Konger in Britain lives in fear of China's mega embassy
A faded billboard near the Tower of London declares that a disused site behind high walls is set to become a 'new mixed use campus' with 'office, retail and leisure space'. That was the old plan for Royal Mint Court, where the coinage of the Realm was minted in buildings of 19th century grandeur for over 150 years until 1967. The new plan is for the People's Republic of China to transform this venerable location, beside the gleaming high rises of the City and directly opposite the Tower of London, into a gigantic new embassy. A final decision on whether to allow China to proceed will be taken by Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, before Sept 9. Just how big China's new embassy would be is disclosed by the original planning application, rejected by Tower Hamlets Borough Council in 2022, but 'called-in' by Rayner for a definitive verdict. Royal Mint Court spans 5.2 acres and its fine Georgian buildings and their modern additions boast an internal area exceeding 563,000 sq ft (52,300 sq m) - approaching twice the floorspace of Westminster Abbey. If it goes ahead, China's new embassy would have a bigger site and a larger floor area than America's, which is built on 4.9 acres of Battersea. Not only would China's new mission be the biggest in London, it would be the largest of its kind anywhere in Europe: it would even have 30 per cent more floorspace than the Chinese embassy in Washington. There is simply no precedent for a diplomatic project of this scale on British soil. Plenty of concerns have been raised about the implications for national security but perhaps no-one has a better understanding of the potential dangers than people who are already bitterly familiar with the long reach of China. 'When I first heard of that I was really frightened to be honest,' says Chloe Cheung, a 20-year-old pro-democracy activist from Hong Kong. 'It's a really huge space in central London. Why would they need that?' Cheung left Hong Kong and moved to Britain with her family in 2020 after Beijing imposed a draconian National Security law on the territory. This bid to crush the pro-democracy movement caused over 150,000 of Hong Kong's people to seek refuge in Britain. Now some wonder whether they will always be safe. On Christmas Eve last year, Hong Kong's police published an arrest warrant accusing Cheung of 'incitement to secession' and 'collusion with a foreign country', and offering a bounty of HK$1 million (£95,000) for 'information on this wanted person'. That was not because of anything Cheung had done in Hong Kong: she was only 14 when she left. Instead she was targeted for having dared campaign for democracy in her old home while living in Britain and working here for the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong. 'It's because of what I did in this country: it's only because of that that I was given a bounty,' she explains. Cheung was subjected to the arrest warrant and bounty under Hong Kong's National Security law, which punishes anything the authorities might define as 'subversion' with life imprisonment. Most chillingly of all, Articles 37 and 38 say this law 'shall apply' to anyone living anywhere in the world, setting no limits on who might become a target of the Chinese authorities. Cheung fears this could help explain China's ambition to build a colossal new embassy in London. 'The location is not about us but the size is more about us,' she says. 'They want to have more space and more people to intimidate us, to do trans-national repression.' Her fears have been supported by Parliament's human rights committee, which on Aug 1 named China as a 'flagrant' perpetrator of 'trans-national repression', targeting Hong Kong's pro-democracy campaigners and other supposed opponents for threats, harassment and intimidation on British soil. While the latest version of the Diplomatic List names 139 Chinese diplomats based in London, the new embassy would include 225 residential flats, suggesting that China wants to increase its staffing by up to 60 per cent. Cheung is deeply disturbed by that possibility. 'They could have a huge surveillance office inside Royal Mint Court and the British cannot do anything because it will be their sovereignty, their embassy,' she says. 'And it's not just about giving them space: it's about giving them face. Giving them the biggest embassy in London is like saying 'you are the most important country'.' Already Cheung must vary her route every day and 'look over my shoulder before I get home to check no-one is following me'. Once, she says she was tailed through London by two men of Chinese appearance, who followed her into a restaurant where they simply stared at her, before disappearing into a nearby hotel. Every time she writes an article or speaks in public, she is inundated with 'sexual harassment and threatening messages' online. 'It has affected my mental health,' says Cheung. 'I have to be really cautious about meeting people.' 'The reality is that the Chinese are going to pursue you wherever you are. When I was placed on the bounty list they said they would chase us to the end of the world.' She adds: 'We thought that it was going to be safe if you move here, but if you are vocal against the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities, you are constantly being harassed. When people think the UK is a safe haven for activists, it's not necessarily the case for us from Hong Kong.' As for the new embassy, Cheung says it would 'make me feel a lot more endangered than right now…. it would imply that the British Government are less and less willing to stand up for our safety'. Last month, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, jointly condemned the National Security law, saying: 'This Government will continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong, including those who have made the UK their home. We take the protection of their rights, freedoms and safety very seriously, and will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass, or harm their critics overseas.' But words like these are of limited reassurance to George* (not his real name), a 22-year-old student from Hong Kong studying at a British university. Having attended some campus demonstrations in favour of democracy in Hong Kong, he now feels compelled to hide his real identity from the Telegraph. 'We still think that the UK has free speech and the UK government and police won't allow the Chinese government to exercise trans-national repression over us,' he says. 'So far I feel safe to live here.' But if the new embassy is constructed, George says: 'That would definitely change the way that we feel. The Royal Mint is a huge place so there may be a danger that the Chinese can bring their agents inside.' He warns of a chilling effect on anyone campaigning for democracy. 'Every Hong Konger in the UK may be free in body, but their minds are still in fear of the Chinese government. If the embassy is built, that may make this fear become bigger and bigger.' And George is struck by the internal contradiction in the British Government's position. 'You can't in one press release say the Chinese government is harming democracy and freedom in the UK and then, in the next press release, say we're allowing them to build a big new embassy,' he says. In January, Cooper and Lammy publicly supported the new embassy on two conditions. China would have to relinquish the seven diplomatic premises it already has in London and consolidate everything in the new embassy. In addition, China would have to build a 'gated barrier or fence' to control public access to the forecourt of Royal Mint Court in order to reduce the risk of security incidents. This conditional backing showed that the Government was, in principle, content for the embassy plan to go ahead. Back in 2018, Boris Johnson, then Foreign Secretary, allowed China to buy the Royal Mint Court site for £255 million, a decision that began the project. But Royal Mint Court is next to the City of London, the biggest financial centre in Europe and the second most important in the world, representing the single most vital economic asset in the United Kingdom. The fibre-optic cables serving the City and transmitting countless transactions criss-cross the area around the proposed embassy: a secure BT telephone exchange is directly adjacent to the site. There is an irony in the fact that Angela Rayner is being asked to grant permission for this project not to a close ally but to a state described by Lammy in the House of Commons as a 'sophisticated and persistent threat'. But events this week suggest the British position may be changing. As Housing Secretary, Rayner has the final say and she has suddenly asked for further assurances. It turns out that plans for the new embassy submitted for her approval omit certain details for 'security reasons'. China aims to fill the imposing main building, completed in 1812, with reception rooms, offices and a banqueting hall. But a letter from Rayner's department - revealed by Luke de Pulford, the Director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China - states that the 'internal physical arrangements' in this plan have been 'greyed out' in the version she received. Plans for the basements of other buildings have also been concealed, along with the proposed layouts of the flats in the accommodation block. In total, Rayner's department has identified 52 redactions which appear to obscure key elements of what China proposes for all the main buildings on the embassy site. Redacting those details inevitably stirs suspicions that China intends to use secure underground facilities for espionage. Rayner has given the planning consultancy engaged by China's regime until August 20 to rectify these omissions. Her department's letter also discloses that China has not satisfied either of the conditions set by Lammy and Cooper. The plans do not include the new 'gated barrier or fence'. And Rayner has asked the Foreign Office for an 'update' on China's 'progress towards consolidation of accredited diplomatic premises', showing this has not been agreed. A Foreign Office spokesperson confirmed that the department would provide this update but declined any further comment. De Pulford describes the letter from Rayner's office as 'easily the most significant development' in the embassy saga, adding that it was possible that the British Government was 'looking for reasons to say no' and reject the scheme. However, the spokesperson of China's Embassy in London says the 'resubmitted planning application for the new Chinese Embassy project has taken into full consideration the UK's planning policy and guidance as well as views of all relevant parties.' The spokesperson adds: ' It is hoped that the UK side will consider and approve this planning application based on merits of the matter.' Step by step, China is steadily extending its influence in Britain, from providing the technology for renewable energy to investing in research with UK universities and preparing to export even greater numbers of electric vehicles. A grand new embassy would be a fitting symbol of how Beijing is steadily entrenching its position and advancing its interests. And part of China's plan, it seems, is to make it steadily harder for any British Government to provide people like Chloe Cheung with a safe refuge and the freedom to campaign for democracy in Hong Kong. Like its predecessors, the Government wants to build a beneficial relationship with Beijing while also upholding Britain's values - and this country's status as a place where even those who are abhorred by China's brutally authoritarian leaders can still be safe. But one day, the balancing act may become impossible and a choice will need to be made. If China is allowed to have the biggest embassy in London, a milestone may be passed. 'We have told them that our safety is at risk from this mega-embassy,' says Cheung. 'But if they still let it be built? If the UK government is walking backwards and the Chinese government is walking forwards?'