Did Melania Knauss Trump apply for an EB-1 visa or another visa category when immigrating to the U.S.?

1. What the contemporary reporting says: an EB‑1 approval in 2001

Multiple mainstream and legal reporting threads assert that Melania Knauss began applying for permanent residence through the EB‑1 category in 2000 and was approved in 2001; The Washington Post reporting cited by the BBC and other outlets says she was one of just five Slovenians to receive EB‑1 status that year, and she later naturalized in 2006 ^{[1] [2]}. Commentators repeatedly describe the EB‑1 as the “Einstein” or “genius” visa—the statutory EB‑1 category for “extraordinary ability” or other priority workers—when summarizing her path ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What immigration analysts and law firms note: public file gaps and typical EB‑1 mechanics

Immigration‑law writeups acknowledge that while reports say she secured an EB‑1, the underlying petition materials are not publicly available for independent review; lawyers say EB‑1 approvals often hinge on defining the applicant’s “field” and producing testimonials, published work, and other evidence of distinction ^{[4] [5]}. Practical guides and legal commentary point out EB‑1 petitions can succeed for artists and models if they can document national/international recognition, even if those applicants are not Nobel or Oscar winners ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Dispute and scrutiny: critics question the “extraordinary” claim

Congressional and public critics have repeatedly questioned whether Melania’s modeling resume met the EB‑1 bar. In 2025 Representative Jasmine Crockett raised Melania’s case in a House hearing as an example when criticizing selective visa enforcement, echoing longer‑standing media skepticism that a fashion model without major awards could qualify for an “extraordinary ability” green card ^{[7] [2] [8]}. Reporting frames the concern as a fairness and transparency issue rather than a proven legal violation ^{[2] [8]}.

4. Defenses and prevailing journalistic conclusions: no published evidence of fraud

Several outlets and experts summarized in reporting and books conclude there is no public evidence Melania did anything illegal in obtaining her green card, and some sources explicitly state there is no proof of wrongdoing even amid speculation over how she met EB‑1 standards ^{[3] [1]}. Fact‑checking outlets like Snopes have reviewed claims and reported that she legitimately qualified for the EB‑1 as described in reporting ^[9].

5. What is not in the public record: the petition’s contents and adjudicator reasoning

Multiple sources emphasize an important limitation: the specifics of Melania Knauss’s EB‑1 petition—supporting exhibits, reference letters, legal arguments, and the adjudicator’s notes—are not publicly available, and no public government database lists individual EB‑1 recipients for independent verification ^{[4] [3]}. Therefore claims about exactly how she met each statutory criterion cannot be independently vetted with the supplied reporting ^[4].

6. Competing framings and underlying agendas to watch

Coverage divides into two competing framings: critics use the case to argue for stricter, more transparent vetting (and to highlight alleged hypocrisy when policy is selectively enforced), while defenders and many legal observers treat the matter as an instance of lawful use of EB‑1 procedures and caution against assuming misconduct without documentary proof ^{[2] [3] [9]}. Note the political context: the story resurges in congressional hearings and policy debates, where partisan aims—either to attack or to defend the political figure involved—shape how the case is presented ^{[7] [8]}.

7. Bottom line for your question

Available reporting consistently states Melania Knauss applied for and was granted an EB‑1 “extraordinary ability” green card (approved in 2001) and subsequently naturalized in 2006 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The exact application files and adjudicative reasoning are not public, so while no evidence of legal impropriety has been published, independent verification of how she met EB‑1 criteria is not possible from the sources provided ^{[4] [3]}.

If you want, I can compile a timeline of the public reporting citations (by year and outlet) or extract the specific quotes used in the Congressional hearing and media articles cited above.