What did congressional hearings say about Melania Trump's EB-1 visa and what witnesses testified?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Congressional scrutiny of Melania Trump’s EB‑1 “Einstein” visa flared during a June 2025 House hearing about visa integrity, where Representative Jasmine Crockett publicly questioned whether the former model met the EB‑1’s high bar and elicited pushback from at least one outside witness who defended her qualification; the episode crystallized two competing narratives — one of perceived double standards and one stressing legal precedent and the discretionary nature of EB‑1 adjudications [1] [2] [3].
1. The hearing: a spotlight on “Restoring Integrity in the Visa Process” and Crockett’s challenge
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing framed as “Restoring Integrity in the Visa Process,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett used Melania Trump’s immigration history as a concrete example to argue the EB‑1 category had been applied inconsistently, saying in the hearing that “Melania, the first lady, a model — and when I say model I’m not talking about Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford or Naomi Campbell‑level — applied for and was given an EB‑1 visa,” and declaring “the math ain’t mathin’ here,” a line widely reported and repeated [1] [2] [4].
2. What the EB‑1 requires — official standard vs. real‑world practice
The EB‑1 immigrant visa is officially reserved for people of “extraordinary ability” with “sustained national or international acclaim,” with illustrative benchmarks like Pulitzer, Oscar or Olympic winners and criteria that include major‑publication coverage, original contributions and exhibitions of work — yet long‑standing reporting and expert commentary show the category is not limited to celebrity laureates and depends heavily on documentary evidence and adjudicator judgment [5] [6].
3. Evidence about Melania’s case presented in the hearing and public record
Committee members and reporters noted that Melania Knauss applied for the EB‑1 around 2000, was approved in 2001, and later naturalized in 2006; The Washington Post and other outlets cited that she was one of only a handful of Slovenians to receive an EB‑1 that year, a statistic used by critics to underline perceived irregularity [5] [2]. Crockett and others framed her modeling résumé and magazine appearances as insufficient to meet the “extraordinary ability” archetype described by the statute [4] [7].
4. Who testified and how witnesses framed the controversy
Among named witnesses at the hearing was Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who responded to Crockett’s remarks by downplaying the stigma of Melania’s path and quipping that “not everybody could marry Donald Trump,” a defense reported as part of the witness testimony [2] [8]. Media summaries and subsequent analysis also quoted immigration lawyers and scholars noting that EB‑1 approvals can be idiosyncratic and that the category’s thresholds are broader in practice than its nickname “Einstein visa” implies, a perspective reflected in Snopes’ review and in legal commentary cited by outlets [3] [6].
5. Competing interpretations and the political subtext
Lawmakers who raised the case sought to highlight an apparent hypocrisy between the administration’s tough public stance on immigration and the first family’s own immigration history, while defenders and some experts emphasized that EB‑1 grants have historically encompassed a range of achievements and that adjudication depends on documentation and officer discretion; outlets also flagged prior media investigations and legal commentary that together portray the controversy as part legal question, part political theater [7] [3] [4].
6. Limits of the public record and what the hearing did not resolve
The hearing underscored broader policy questions but did not produce new documentary evidence overturning or validating Melania Trump’s EB‑1 approval; reporting relied on existing accounts that she applied in 2000 and was approved in 2001 and on expert testimony about how EB‑1 claims are evaluated, leaving open the factual mechanics of her specific adjudication because committee coverage and public reporting did not release internal adjudicative files at the hearing [5] [3].