Democrat Questions Melania's 'Extraordinary Ability' Visa in Fiery Hearing

Paul Riverbank, 6/26/2025Democrat questions Melania Trump's elite visa status during heated Congressional immigration hearing.

I've covered countless committee hearings, but few have matched the raw tension that filled the room when Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the Democrat from Texas, took aim at Mrs. Trump's 2001 receipt of the coveted EB-1 visa. You could hear a pin drop as Crockett delivered what seemed like a carefully rehearsed jab: "Let me remind y'all that Melania, the first lady, a model – and when I say model, I'm not talking about Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford, or Naomi Campbell level – applied for and was given an EB-1 visa."

Now, let's put this in perspective. The EB-1, often dubbed the "Einstein visa," isn't just handed out like candy at a parade. Recipients need to tick specific boxes – at least three out of ten criteria that range from national awards to proven financial success in their field. And here's where it gets interesting: contrary to what some might assume, Mrs. Trump's qualification wasn't actually that controversial.

Back in 2018, I remember reading a fascinating New York Times deep dive into this very issue. They spoke with Marshall Cohen, an immigration lawyer from Atlanta who handles cases for world-class athletes. His take? "I am assuming she made a lot of money, got a lot of press and was on the cover of magazines. She was probably a pretty easy case."

The facts support this view. By 2001, Mrs. Trump had built quite a resume – British GQ cover, Sports Illustrated features, and a string of other high-profile magazine appearances. She'd been working legally in the U.S. since '96, steadily climbing the modeling ladder.

Here's something many people don't realize: the EB-1 isn't just for scientists and academics. I've seen it awarded to everyone from Playboy models to stunt performers. The visa category is deliberately broad, recognizing excellence across various fields – including the entertainment industry.

Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising moment came from Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who offered what might be the year's most unusual defense: "Not everybody could marry Donald Trump, and I think that's quite an achievement, so I think she deserves credit for that. Nobody up here could have done it!"

What strikes me most about this entire episode is how it perfectly encapsulates our current political climate. Rather than focusing on substantive policy discussions about visa integrity, we're drawn into personal attacks and political theater. Meanwhile, Mrs. Trump herself – now a naturalized citizen since 2006 – has maintained a dignified silence, her most recent public appearance being nothing more controversial than a flag installation ceremony at the White House.

The real story here isn't about Melania Trump's modeling career or her visa status. It's about how we've lost the ability to separate legitimate policy debates from political point-scoring. But that's a column for another day.

The halls of Congress witnessed yet another political spectacle yesterday, though this time with an unexpected twist. What began as a routine House Judiciary Committee hearing on visa integrity quickly veered into territory that left many observers scratching their heads – a debate about former First Lady Melania Trump's immigration history.I've covered countless committee hearings, but few have matched the raw tension that filled the room when Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the Democrat from Texas, took aim at Mrs. Trump's 2001 receipt of the coveted EB-1 visa. You could hear a pin drop as Crockett delivered what seemed like a carefully rehearsed jab: "Let me remind y'all that Melania, the first lady, a model – and when I say model, I'm not talking about Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford, or Naomi Campbell level – applied for and was given an EB-1 visa."Now, let's put this in perspective. The EB-1, often dubbed the "Einstein visa," isn't just handed out like candy at a parade. Recipients need to tick specific boxes – at least three out of ten criteria that range from national awards to proven financial success in their field. And here's where it gets interesting: contrary to what some might assume, Mrs. Trump's qualification wasn't actually that controversial.Back in 2018, I remember reading a fascinating New York Times deep dive into this very issue. They spoke with Marshall Cohen, an immigration lawyer from Atlanta who handles cases for world-class athletes. His take? "I am assuming she made a lot of money, got a lot of press and was on the cover of magazines. She was probably a pretty easy case."The facts support this view. By 2001, Mrs. Trump had built quite a resume – British GQ cover, Sports Illustrated features, and a string of other high-profile magazine appearances. She'd been working legally in the U.S. since '96, steadily climbing the modeling ladder.Here's something many people don't realize: the EB-1 isn't just for scientists and academics. I've seen it awarded to everyone from Playboy models to stunt performers. The visa category is deliberately broad, recognizing excellence across various fields – including the entertainment industry.Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising moment came from Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who offered what might be the year's most unusual defense: "Not everybody could marry Donald Trump, and I think that's quite an achievement, so I think she deserves credit for that. Nobody up here could have done it!"What strikes me most about this entire episode is how it perfectly encapsulates our current political climate. Rather than focusing on substantive policy discussions about visa integrity, we're drawn into personal attacks and political theater. Meanwhile, Mrs. Trump herself – now a naturalized citizen since 2006 – has maintained a dignified silence, her most recent public appearance being nothing more controversial than a flag installation ceremony at the White House.The real story here isn't about Melania Trump's modeling career or her visa status. It's about how we've lost the ability to separate legitimate policy debates from political point-scoring. But that's a column for another day.