Did Melania Trump hold a U.S. green card before becoming a citizen and what evidence supports it?

1. What the mainstream reporting states: green card via EB‑1 in 2001

The Washington Post’s reporting, summarized by outlets including The Hill and the BBC, is the basis for most coverage saying Melania (then Knauss) applied around 2000 and was approved for an EB‑1 employment‑based green card in 2001 — the EB‑1 category is reserved for people with “extraordinary ability” and is often nicknamed the “Einstein visa” ^{[1] [2]}. These accounts place her in New York in the late 1990s as a working model and say she transitioned from temporary work visas to the EB‑1 green card that year ^[2].

2. How EB‑1 works and why this case drew attention

EB‑1 is an elite employment category intended for people with “sustained national or international acclaim” — Nobel laureates, top researchers, elite athletes and similar figures — which is why media and commentators were struck when reporting suggested a fashion model received that classification ^{[1] [2]}. That mismatch between statutory language and a high‑profile beneficiary is why outlets labeled it an “Einstein visa” story and why it prompted scrutiny and debate ^[2].

3. Arguments that her record could justify the visa

Immigration attorneys and defense pieces argue Melania’s modeling career (international runway work, magazine features and agency affiliations) gave her prior H‑1B and later EB‑1 credibility; some lawyers cited by legal analyses say models have received these employment visas and that her record could meet the criteria used at the time ^{[3] [4]}. Commentary in Forbes and law‑firm explainers stressed that EB‑1 approvals have precedent among performing‑arts professionals and models, and that approval does not imply fraud ^{[6] [3]}.

4. Arguments that it was controversial or surprising

Critics highlighted that EB‑1’s statutory examples are extremely high‑profile figures, and questioned whether Melania’s résumé — which lacked major international awards or the kind of sustained acclaim EB‑1 contemplates — matched that threshold; later reporting and editorial pieces framed the award as deserving scrutiny or as atypical for the category ^{[5] [2]}. The debate intensified because of the political context and because EB‑1 is colloquially seen as reserved for “genius”‑level figures, not mainstream fashion models ^{[7] [5]}.

5. What evidence is publicly available and what is not

Available reporting rests on the Washington Post’s investigation and subsequent summaries and legal commentary; those sources report the EB‑1 approval date ^[8] and her later naturalization (mid‑2000s) but do not publish Melania’s full immigration file or the government’s adjudication memos in the public pieces provided here ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The Trump campaign’s public statements asserted she followed the law and noted the green card and later citizenship, but campaign disclosures or full USCIS records are not included in the sources supplied ^[9].

6. Data and context about EB‑1 approvals and enforcement trends

Longer‑term EB‑1 adjudication patterns show variability; reporting notes EB‑1 approval rates and that administrations can and do shift enforcement standards, which frames why some observers consider certain approvals noteworthy — though this corpus does not include primary USCIS statistics beyond journalistic summaries ^[7]. Law‑firm and immigration‑policy pieces argue the criteria are specific but interpretable in context of prior approvals for similar professions ^{[3] [6]}.

7. Bottom line and limits of the record

Reporting in multiple outlets consistently states Melania Trump received a green card in 2001 under the EB‑1 (extraordinary ability) category and later became a U.S. citizen; legal commentators disagree on whether her modeling career clearly met EB‑1’s high standard, producing both defenses and critiques ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The exact adjudicative reasoning and full immigration file are not included in the available sources, so definitive claims about whether the approval was strictly warranted by the record are not supported by the documents cited here (not found in current reporting).