Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Controversies about Melania Trump's early US work authorization
Executive summary
Reporting since 2016 has documented two separate flashpoints in questions about Melania Trump’s early U.S. immigration status: [1] that she was paid for modeling jobs in the U.S. during a window before her team says an H‑1B work authorization began in October 1996, totaling about $20,056 for 10 jobs, according to Associated Press documents [2] [3]; and [4] later scrutiny over whether her 2001 EB‑1 “extraordinary ability” green card matched the high standard for that category, a question renewed in 2025 congressional hearings [5] [6]. Coverage presents competing claims from AP and other outlets that found payment records, and from Melania’s lawyer Michael Wildes who has defended her legal status [2] [7] [6].
1. Historic allegation: paid U.S. modeling before an H‑1B, per AP
The Associated Press reported that ledgers, contracts and other documents indicate Melania Trump was paid for 10 U.S. modeling jobs worth $20,056 in the seven weeks before her team says she had legal work permission — a finding summarized by PBS and People in 2016 [2] [3]. Those records are the basis for the claim that income was earned “outside the bounds” of the visitor status she initially used to enter the U.S. [3].
2. The Trump team’s rebuttal and the role of Michael Wildes
Melania’s immigration lawyer Michael Wildes told media and others that she entered on a visitor visa on August 27, 1996 and “began work on H‑1B status on October 18, 1996,” and he has asserted she “always complied with the law” [3] [7]. Wildes later publicly criticized later White House policy moves related to H‑1B visas, demonstrating he remains an active defender of his client’s record [8].
3. Legal implications unearthed by immigration experts at the time
Immigration commentators warned that if paid work prior to an H‑1B or other work‑authorizing status was omitted from required disclosure periods in visa or green‑card filings, that omission could raise potential questions about visa fraud or revocation — though those are theoretical legal risks discussed by lawyers in 2016 and not a documented adjudication in the public record provided here [7].
4. Separate controversy: the EB‑1 “Einstein” green card and renewed 2025 scrutiny
Melania obtained an EB‑1 (so‑called “Einstein”) green card in 2001. That category is meant for people of “extraordinary ability,” and outlets including the BBC and Newsweek have chronicled debate over whether her modeling resume matched the statutory intent. That debate resurfaced in 2025 when Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett publicly questioned the fit between the EB‑1 standard and Melania’s career [5] [6].
5. Fact patterns vs. interpretation — where reporting diverges
Reporting based on contemporaneous documents (ledgers and management agreements) supports the AP’s timeline that paid modeling occurred before the asserted H‑1B start date [2] [3]. The interpretation of those facts differs: Wildes and others maintain the immigration file shows lawful status transitions beginning in October 1996, while critics note the surfaced records and raise ethical and legal questions [7] [2]. The EB‑1 matter similarly hinges on how strictly one reads “extraordinary ability” and whether the documentary record meets that bar — a point on which outlets report both skepticism and legal opinion that the approval was plausible [5] [9].
6. Political context and why this matters now
Coverage repeatedly flags the political irony: Melania’s status and later use of family‑sponsorship pathways became a focal point because Donald Trump has publicly championed restrictive immigration policies such as ending “chain migration,” while his wife used family‑based sponsorship in the past [10] [9]. That juxtaposition fuels scrutiny and partisan framing in congressional hearings and media pieces [10] [6].
7. Limits of the current public record and outstanding questions
Available sources document the AP’s documentary claims and the lawyer’s rebuttals, but they do not show a government adjudication that reversed or punished any past filings; there is no cited record here of an immigration finding that Melania committed fraud or of official revocation based on the 1996–2001 timeline [2] [7]. Also, available sources do not mention any newly released immigration files from U.S. authorities that conclusively resolve the timing dispute [2] [3].
8. What to watch next — evidence that would settle debate
Documents that would definitively resolve the competing narratives include contemporaneous USCIS or INS adjudication records showing exact petition/approval dates, payroll/tax filings tied to employers for the disputed weeks, and any official action (or lack of action) by immigration authorities concerning alleged misstatements — none of which is cited in the material provided here [2] [7].
Bottom line: contemporaneous documents published by AP and summarized by outlets support the claim she was paid for U.S. modeling work before the date her team states H‑1B work began [2] [3], while her attorney and some legal commentators maintain she later obtained lawful H‑1B status and an EB‑1 green card — giving observers competing lawful/ethical interpretations rather than an uncontested legal finding [7] [5] [6].