What public disclosures did Michael Wildes and other lawyers make about Melania Trump’s immigration timeline, and where do their statements differ from biographers' accounts?
Executive summary
Michael Wildes, who served as Melania Trump’s immigration lawyer, publicly laid out a timeline saying she first entered the United States in late August 1996 on a B-1/B-2 visitor visa, obtained H‑1B work authorization in October 1996, and later acquired permanent residence and U.S. citizenship after vetted approvals, a narrative backed by a September 2016 attorney letter and Wildes’s media interviews [1] [2]. Biographers, a Slovenian profile and contemporaneous reporting have pushed a different chronology—placing her in the United States as early as 1995 and documenting paid modeling work before the H‑1B claim—while news organizations and immigration experts flagged inconsistencies in statements from Wildes and other spokespeople about how and when she obtained a green card [1] [3] [4] [5].
1. Wildes’s public disclosures: arrival dates, H‑1B and consular practice
Wildes’s clearest public disclosures came in a September 2016 letter and follow‑up TV appearances in which he stated that Melania Trump “first came to the United States in August 1996” on a visitor visa and that she “was issued an H‑1B visa in October of that year” to pursue modeling work, adding that U.S. consulates then commonly limited H‑1B visas for Slovenians to one year, which he said explained subsequent renewals [1]. Wildes repeated elements of this timeline in media interviews and in a public letter he signed on the former first lady’s behalf, asserting that records showed a narrow seven‑week window of authorized presence early on and denying illegal work before the H‑1B was activated [3] [1].
2. What other lawyers and spokespeople added or echoed
Campaign and White House representatives, including Hope Hicks and later spokespersons, maintained that Melania “followed all applicable laws” and was “at all times in compliance with the immigration laws of this country,” a line that echoed Wildes’s public defense but stopped short of producing documentary evidence for the precise dates [1]. Other lawyers and commentators who reviewed Wildes’s letter noted that it provided “additional data” but did not constitute incontrovertible proof—legal observers warned that some claims (for example, a specific H‑1B start date) rested on the Trump team’s representations rather than independently released immigration records [4] [6].
3. Biographers and contemporaneous reporting: earlier U.S. presence and paid work
By contrast, biographers and a Slovenian profile, plus contemporaneous modeling ledgers cited by news organizations, placed Melania in the United States in 1995 and documented paid U.S. modeling assignments before the October 1996 H‑1B date Wildes offered; the Associated Press reported she was paid for 10 modeling jobs during a period preceding the work‑visa claim, and some accounts locate a racy 1995 photo shoot that conflicted with the 1996 arrival narrative [3] [1] [7]. Those sources raised the possibility that she worked in the U.S. while on a visitor visa, an allegation Wildes’s letter expressly denied [1] [7].
4. Internal inconsistencies and why they matter
Reporting has cataloged inconsistent public statements tied to the same overall defense: Wildes and the Trump team insisted she entered legally and was “fully vetted,” yet Wildes reportedly told Univision at one point that Melania’s green card in 2001 was “based on marriage,” a claim that doesn’t align with other accounts that identify her 2001 permanent residency as an EB‑1 (extraordinary ability) grant—an inconsistency flagged by Newsweek and analysts as fueling doubt about the precise legal pathway and timing [5] [8]. Independent commentators and immigration lawyers emphasized that Wildes’s letter and media remarks provide an alternative chronology but do not settle documentary questions that only government immigration records could definitively answer [6] [4].
5. Competing narratives, motivations and the evidentiary gap
The competing narratives reflect different agendas: Wildes and the Trump camp sought to rebut claims of illegal work and to close a politically sensitive story during a campaign, biographers and archival reporters sought to reconcile contemporaneous documents and eyewitness accounts, and independent lawyers have pointed out that the public record released by the parties remains partial—meaning unresolved documentary gaps, not deliberate falsity, are the proximate cause of ongoing disputes in the press [1] [3] [6] [4]. Multiple outlets concluded that without the release of immigration records or consular files, the dispute turns on conflicting claims rather than a single, independently verified timeline [3] [1].