Fact check: What visa did Melania Trump use when she first arrived in the U.S.?

1. Dramatic Claim — Which Visa Did She Use When She First Arrived?

The most direct claim in the record is that Melania Trump entered the U.S. in August 1996 on a B‑1/B‑2 visitor visa, a short‑term permit for tourism or business that does not authorize employment, a position advanced explicitly by her attorney and reflected in subsequent reporting ^{[1] [3]}. This account contrasts with narratives that imply she was in the country on a work‑authorized visa from the outset; those alternative readings arise largely from the fact that she later worked in the United States and transitioned to an H‑1B and then to an EB‑1 green card, which together created the appearance of a continuous professional presence that some observers interpreted as evidence of an initial work visa ^{[2] [3]}. The B‑1/B‑2 explanation is the clearest statement about initial admission in the materials provided ^[1].

2. Documentary Pressure — Paid Modeling Before Work Permission

Investigative reporting by the Associated Press and related analyses documented that Melania Trump received payment for at least ten modeling jobs in the United States prior to formal authorization to work, totaling roughly $20,000, which would be inconsistent with the inherent restrictions of a B‑1/B‑2 visa if performed while that status governed her stay ^{[4] [5]}. Those documents have been used to argue that she “modeled in the U.S. prior to getting work visa,” with critics asserting this could amount to unauthorized employment under immigration law and that such activity could complicate later attempts to change status or secure permanent residency ^{[4] [5]}. The documents create a factual tension between an initial visitor admission and contemporaneous paid work ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Later Pathways — From H‑1B to EB‑1 and Naturalization

The subsequent immigration steps in her record are described as a shift from visitor status to H‑1B work authorization and then to an EB‑1 immigrant classification — the so‑called “Einstein visa” reserved for individuals of extraordinary ability — before eventual citizenship, a sequence that explains how she obtained long‑term status after arrival ^{[2] [3]}. The EB‑1 category is explicitly identified in analyses as the basis for her green card and is the most scrutinized piece because the EB‑1 requires evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, a standard that some commentators have questioned with reference to the usual thresholds for that classification ^{[3] [2]}. Her later legal trajectory does not negate the earlier visa status but does shape debates about eligibility and timing ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Discrepancies, Critiques, and What Remains Unresolved

Reporters and critics point to discrepancies in dates and documentation—notably payments predating work authorization and conflicting public accounts of timing—as grounds for suspicion about whether the technical requirements of each visa were observed and whether any retrospective change of status was fully compliant ^{[6] [4]}. Supporters stress the official filings and her attorney’s statements that document a lawful sequence of status adjustments culminating in an EB‑1 green card and naturalization, framing the contested early payments as either permissible under narrow interpretations of visitor activity or as misunderstandings of modeling’s legal status at the time ^{[1] [2]}. Both sides lean on selective records: critics emphasize early pay stubs and AP documents, while defenders cite legal filings and counsel statements ^{[4] [6] [1]}.

5. Bottom Line — What the Record Actually Shows and Where Questions Persist

The clearest, best‑documented fact in the assembled materials is that Melania Trump’s initial U.S. entry is reported as a B‑1/B‑2 visitor admission in 1996, followed by later H‑1B work status and an EB‑1 green card, with naturalization thereafter; contemporaneous payment records complicate the narrative by indicating paid modeling before alleged work authorization ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The disagreement in public discourse arises from whether those early payments violated the limitations of her visitor status and whether any such violation should have affected subsequent approvals; the evidence presented to date consists of payment records and legal statements that support competing interpretations, leaving procedural questions open to legal and administrative review rather than settled factual reversal ^{[4] [5] [6]}.