Have U.S. immigration agencies ever investigated or formally adjudicated Melania Trump’s immigration timeline?
Executive summary
Public reporting shows that Melania Trump received a sequence of U.S. immigration approvals — a work visa period in the late 1990s, an EB‑1 (extraordinary‑ability) green card around 2001 and naturalization in 2006 — but there is no publicly reported record in the cited reporting of a separate, agency‑led criminal investigation or a formal adjudicative proceeding that retroactively found her immigration timeline unlawful [1] [2] [3].
1. Documented permits and dates: what the records and reporting say
News reports and public statements place key dates on Mrs. Trump’s status: she entered in 1996 and has been reported to have been paid for U.S. modeling work between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, 1996 (before asserted work authorization) according to AP reporting and contemporaneous ledgers [4] [2] [3], her counsel has said she began H‑1B status on October 18, 1996 [5], she received an EB‑1 green card in 2001 and was naturalized in 2006 [1].
2. Adjudication versus investigation: what agencies do and what the sources show
Immigration agencies routinely adjudicate visa and green card petitions and would have handled whatever applications produced those approvals, but the public reporting does not produce agency documents showing a later formal adjudication or enforcement finding that she fraudulently obtained status or that her citizenship was revoked; outlets note the likelihood that routine agency review occurred but do not cite a recorded government probe that concluded she violated immigration law [6] [2] [3].
3. Allegations of pre‑authorization work and media scrutiny
Investigations by journalists—most prominently the Associated Press—uncovered accounting entries and contracts indicating Mrs. Trump was paid for U.S. modeling jobs in the seven weeks before she had clear permission to work, a factual reporting thread that generated legal commentary and debate about whether any rules had been broken [4] [3]. Legal commentators and some immigration lawyers pointed out paths that could have cured or explained potential irregularities [5] [7], and outlets cautioned that discovery of past payments does not automatically change naturalization status absent a finding of willful misrepresentation [2].
4. Political and congressional scrutiny, not an agency prosecution
The matter resurfaced in political forums and a House hearing in 2025 where lawmakers questioned the EB‑1 grant to Mrs. Trump and contrasted scrutiny of her case with broader immigration enforcement, but the reporting describes legislative and public questioning rather than an agency determination of wrongdoing [8]. News coverage and legal essays variously defended or criticized the merits of her EB‑1 approval, but none of the cited sources documents a formal agency revocation or criminal enforcement action arising from those questions [9] [10].
5. Limits of the public record and what remains unknown
Multiple legal and advocacy pieces note that full immigration files are private and that the Trumps have not released exhaustive records, so reporters have relied on ledger copies, lawyers’ statements and public filings; that means reporting can document apparent inconsistencies and agency grants but cannot, from the cited sources alone, confirm whether internal USCIS or DHS compliance reviews were ever opened, closed or resolved behind the curtain of confidential files [7] [6]. In short, the evidence shows approvals and subsequent media and congressional scrutiny, but the sources do not show a publicly announced U.S. immigration agency investigation or formal adjudicative finding overturning those approvals.