Fact check: What are the sources of the rumors about Melania Trump's past as a call girl or prostitute?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal that rumors about Melania Trump's past as a call girl or prostitute primarily originated from media publications, most notably the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail published allegations that Melania Trump once worked as an escort, but later retracted these claims and apologized to her, settling a defamation lawsuit ^[1]. Politifact fact-checked these escort claims and found them to be false, citing the Daily Mail's retraction and apology ^[2].

Melania Trump took legal action against these allegations, suing the Daily Mail and a US blogger for $150 million over allegations she was a sex worker in the 1990s, with her lawyer calling the claims 'outright lies' ^[3]. The legal settlements and retractions indicate that these rumors lacked factual basis.

Multiple authoritative sources provide no evidence supporting these rumors. Wikipedia's extensive coverage of her modeling career contains no substantiation of such claims ^[4], while Britannica's biographical entry makes no mention of rumors about Melania being a call girl or prostitute ^[5]. The official White House biography similarly contains no references to such rumors, instead emphasizing her professional achievements ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal important context missing from the original question. Melania Trump's immigration history shows she was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the US before obtaining her work visa, potentially violating immigration rules ^[7]. She earned $20,056 between September 10 and October 15, 1996, during a period when her visa did not permit paid work ^[7]. While this represents a technical violation, legal experts suggest it is unlikely to affect her citizenship status ^[7].

This immigration issue may have provided ammunition for critics seeking to attack her credibility, though the analyses show she was brought to New York by a legitimate modeling agency in 1996 ^[5]. The scrutiny of her immigration history ^[5] demonstrates how legitimate concerns about visa violations may have been conflated with or used to lend credibility to unsubstantiated rumors about her past.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself contains potential bias by treating these rumors as having legitimate sources worth investigating, when the evidence shows they were false allegations that resulted in retractions, apologies, and legal settlements. The question implicitly legitimizes what the analyses demonstrate were 'outright lies' ^[3] that major publications were forced to retract.

Media outlets like the Daily Mail would benefit from sensational stories that drive readership and clicks, even if later forced to retract them. The damage from initial publication often exceeds the impact of subsequent corrections. Political opponents would benefit from spreading unverified allegations to damage reputations, particularly during election cycles.

The framing of the question as seeking "sources" of these rumors suggests they may have legitimate origins, when the analyses clearly show they were unfounded claims that major fact-checkers determined to be false ^[2] and that resulted in successful legal action for defamation.