Did Melania Trump work without authorization before her 2001 visa?

1. Timeline of arrival, work visas and permanent residency

Public statements and reporting piece together this sequence: Melania Knauss arrived in the U.S. in 1996 on a B‑1/B‑2 visitor visa, was later issued H‑1B work visas beginning in October 1996 and “consistently issued” H‑1Bs through 2001, and became a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) via an EB‑1 approval in March 2001 ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Law firms and the former first lady’s attorney have repeatedly said she adjusted status through these nonimmigrant work visas before obtaining the green card ^{[5] [2]}.

2. The AP finding that she worked before authorization

The Associated Press reported that ledgers, contracts and documents show Melania was paid for 10 U.S. modeling jobs, totaling about $20,056, in the seven weeks before she had documented permission to work in the United States, a gap the AP said could indicate she accepted paid work before legal authorization ^[1]. Legal commentators at the time noted the difference between entering on a visitor visa and the timing of H‑1B approvals and said the records raised questions about whether some early work predated H‑1B authorization ^{[4] [1]}.

3. The Trump legal narrative and denials

Melania’s attorney, Michael Wildes, has maintained she obtained H‑1B status beginning October 1996 and that she “thereafter” received H‑1Bs until becoming a permanent resident in 2001; Wildes and other supporters contend the paperwork shows she lawfully adjusted status ^{[2] [5]}. Some law firms repeating that narrative point to a B‑1/B‑2 entry that later converted to proper work visas as the explanatory timeline ^{[5] [2]}.

4. How journalists and lawyers interpret the evidence differently

News organizations (AP, PBS) emphasize documentary evidence that some paid modeling occurred before documented work authorization and say that, on paper, that could amount to unauthorized employment ^[1]. Immigration attorneys and later explainer pieces argue that multiple H‑1B approvals and subsequent green‑card approval provide a plausible legal path and that some disputes hinge on timing and incomplete public records ^{[5] [2] [4]}.

5. The EB‑1 question is separate but related

Independent of the early‑work question, reporting has placed fresh scrutiny on Melania’s 2001 EB‑1 green card—an “extraordinary ability” category—that some lawmakers and commentators say doesn’t match typical EB‑1 profiles; others note that EB‑1 approvals are subjective and that strong legal advocacy can present a qualifying portfolio ^{[3] [6] [7]}. Congressional questioning during House hearings highlighted perceived double standards in immigration policy tied to that EB‑1 approval ^{[7] [8]}.

6. What the sources do not say or cannot prove publicly

Available sources do not include the complete immigration file (private H‑1B approvals, exact dates of authorization, or every contract) that would definitively prove whether each early modeling payment was lawful at the time ^{[2] [1]}. Sources do not present a public adjudication reversing her later naturalization based on these questions; legal analysts said revocation would be unlikely absent proof of willful fraud ^{[1] [4]}.

7. Competing implications and why this matters

If payments preceded work authorization, critics say it reveals a gap between rhetoric on illegal employment and reality; defenders point to subsequent visa approvals and the EB‑1 green card as legitimizing her status ^{[1] [5] [3]}. The debate now intertwines two issues: whether any early modeling was unauthorized, and whether the EB‑1 award in 2001 was appropriate—both questions rely on records that remain partly private and on legal interpretation ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

Limitations: reporting relies on partial documentary disclosure, public statements from Melania’s lawyers, and journalistic reconstructions; definitive adjudicative findings are not in the public sources cited here ^{[1] [2]}.