Did Melania Trump have a phony visa
Executive summary
Melania Trump received an EB‑1 “extraordinary ability” immigrant visa (often called the “Einstein visa”) in or around 2001, and Republicans and Democrats have debated whether her modeling career met that standard — Rep. Jasmine Crockett raised the issue at a June 2025 House hearing [1] [2]. Multiple fact‑checking and news outlets report that immigration lawyers have said models with international careers can and have qualified for EB‑1/O‑1 classifications, and Snopes concluded her case “probably” was legitimate based on available reporting [3] [4] [5].
1. What is the specific allegation — and who raised it?
Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett publicly questioned how Melania Trump, a former model, qualified for the EB‑1 category during a Judiciary Committee exchange in June 2025, saying the visa is reserved for people of “extraordinary ability” and suggesting Melania’s resume did not match examples like Nobel or Olympic winners [2] [6]. The renewed scrutiny surfaced in committee testimony and quickly spread through press coverage and petitions seeking accountability [7] [8].
2. What the record and reporting say about Melania’s visa status
Contemporary reporting and public statements indicate Melania Knauss obtained U.S. permanent residence via an EB‑1 visa around 2001 before later naturalization; Newsweek cited her attorney who defended the legality of her green card and Michael Wildes has repeatedly said she “was more than amply qualified” [5] [2]. Multiple outlets summarize that she first arrived on tourist visas in 1996, transitioned through employment visas, and later secured permanent resident status [5] [1].
3. How experts and fact‑checkers have framed the legality
Fact‑checking outlets and immigration lawyers say the EB‑1/O‑1 paths have been used by models and artists with strong portfolios, and experts told The New York Times and Snopes that such cases are not unprecedented; Snopes’ review concluded she “probably” legitimately qualified based on prior reporting and legal analyses [3] [4]. Reporting notes the EB‑1 is subjective: it requires evidence of sustained national/international acclaim, but the types of admissible proof vary and have included press, contracts, and peer recognition [1] [3].
4. The political context and why this matters now
The controversy is amplified because it comes amid aggressive immigration enforcement under the Trump administration and legislative hearings about immigration integrity; critics argue inconsistency if prominent figures received special treatment, while defenders note legal representation and precedent for models receiving such visas [9] [8]. The debate has produced public petitions and renewed calls from some lawmakers for scrutiny or even deportation talk, illustrating how individual cases are being used as broader examples in the policy fight [7] [10].
5. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas
Critics — including Crockett and some commentators — imply the EB‑1 program can be gamed for the politically connected, framing Melania’s case as evidence of unequal enforcement [2] [6]. Defenders and some immigration lawyers emphasize that models of international standing can meet EB‑1 criteria and that precedent exists for similar approvals, stressing legality over optics [3] [5]. Advocacy groups and partisan actors have incentives to amplify either narrative: opponents to question fairness in immigration policy, supporters to deflect attacks on the administration’s actions [8] [9].
6. What reporting does not settle — limits of available sources
Available sources do not publish Melania Trump’s private visa application or adjudication file, and thus do not show the documentary evidence submitted or the adjudicator’s rationale — reporting relies on public statements, attorney comments, prior press profiles, and expert legal interpretation rather than original agency records [3] [5]. Available sources do not mention any official government reversal or finding of impropriety in her case [3].
7. Bottom line for readers
There is no definitive public proof in current reporting that Melania Trump obtained the EB‑1 improperly; fact‑checking outlets and immigration lawyers say the approval was plausible under existing rules and precedents for models [3] [4]. At the same time, the episode underscores two realities evident in the sources: the EB‑1 standard is subjective and vulnerable to contestation, and high‑profile cases become political lightning rods that can drive calls for policy changes even when investigators or courts have not found legal violations [1] [8].