What visa did Melania Trump use when she first arrived in the U.S. in 1996?

1. Arrival on a visitor visa — what the records and reporting say

Contemporary reporting and legal commentary consistently state Melania Trump arrived in the U.S. in 1996 on a B‑1/B‑2 visitor (tourist/business) visa. Legal-analysis pieces and media profiles summarize her own attorney’s timeline that she “came to the U.S. in 1996, first on a tourist visa” and later moved to employment-based visas ^{[2] [1]}. Multiple outlets — including CNN, PBS and AP reporting cited by later outlets — describe August 1996 arrival on a visitor visa ^{[6] [5] [4]}.

2. Modeling work before an H‑1B — AP’s ledger evidence

The Associated Press reported detailed accounting ledgers and contracts showing Melania was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, 1996 — a seven‑week window before records show a work visa was issued — and noted that her initial visa “allowed her to be in the U.S.” but not to perform paid work ^{[4] [7]}. PBS’s reporting likewise highlighted ledger entries and a management agreement dated Aug. 27, 1996, showing earnings before a documented work authorization date ^[5].

3. Transition to H‑1B: the Trump legal position and public skepticism

Melania’s attorney and immigrant‑law commentators say she obtained H‑1B work authorization in October 1996 — one account gives a specific H‑1B start date of Oct. 18, 1996 — which would have legalized her modeling work from that point forward ^{[8] [1]}. Critics and some journalists note the gap between arrival and documented H‑1B as the basis for scrutiny; AP and other outlets reported the apparent paid work before formal work authorization ^{[4] [7]}. Legal analysts observed that an H‑1B start in mid‑October is unusual but technically possible given visa cap timing then ^[8].

4. Longer-term immigration path: EB‑1 green card and citizenship

After the period at issue, sources say Melania applied for and received an EB‑1 “extraordinary ability” green card in 2001 and later naturalized in 2006 ^{[2] [9]}. Her EB‑1 status drew debate among immigration experts and lawmakers about whether catalog and ad modeling met the high threshold for “extraordinary ability,” which opponents and some commentators questioned ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Competing narratives and what is documented vs. what is not

Available reporting documents her arrival on a visitor visa and ledger evidence of paid modeling before the H‑1B date; that combination shapes the competing narratives. The Trump side has asserted she “came in totally legally” and later adjusted status to H‑1B and EB‑1 ^{[10] [1]}. Investigative pieces focus on the ledgers and timing ^{[4] [5]}. Sources do not provide a full public record of her consular files, H‑1B petition paperwork, or adjudication notes, so precise administrative details and any mitigation explanations are not publicly documented in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).

6. Why this matters politically and legally

This case has political resonance because it contrasts a high‑profile family’s immigration pathway with enforcement debates; outlets and commentators — and lawmakers during later hearings — cited the timeline to question qualifying standards for EB‑1 and to highlight perceived double standards ^{[3] [2]}. Legally, accepting paid work while on a B‑1/B‑2 is not authorized, and the AP coverage spotlighted payments during the gap that critics flagged as a violation, even as legal experts note subsequent lawful adjustments can affect removal exposure ^{[4] [6]}.

7. Bottom line and limits of public record

Fact: multiple reputable sources report Melania Trump arrived in 1996 on a B‑1/B‑2 visitor (tourist/business) visa and was paid for modeling work in the weeks before a reported October 1996 H‑1B start date ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Limitation: full visa adjudication files, petitions and consular records are not publicly available in the cited reporting, so some administrative details and any official explanations for the timing gap are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting). Readers should weigh the ledger evidence and contemporaneous reporting against statements from her legal representatives and recognize the unresolved administrative record.