Visa controversy erupts: Jasmine Crockett presses how Melania Trump got elite US visa
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett spoke at a government hearing. She asked how Melania Trump got a special visa in 2001 called the EB-1 or 'Einstein visa.' This visa is usually for people who have done something really amazing—like winning a Nobel Prize, being in the Olympics, or being a famous scientist, as per the report by Newsweek.
Crockett said Melania was a model, but not as famous as big names like Tyra Banks or Naomi Campbell. She said Melania didn't have the kind of huge awards or career success that usually earns someone an EB-1 visa. Crockett joked, "It doesn't take an Einstein to see that the math ain't mathin' here."
Crockett also called out Republicans for being tough on other immigrants but staying silent on Trump's own family. She pointed out that Trump's administration revoked visas for people based on their social media posts and ran ICE raids across the country. She mentioned Trump's executive order on June 4, which targeted student visas, especially for Chinese students, as stated by the Newsweek report.
Later in June, Trump also banned or restricted visas from 19 countries, including full bans from 12. The Trump administration made visa rules stricter, like checking people's social media posts more carefully. Crockett said this all shows a double standard—tough rules for regular people but easy for Trump's circle.
ALSO READ:
Supreme court rules South Carolina can block Medicaid funding to planned parenthood — what this means for Medicaid patients
Live Events
What Melania did before the visa
Melania came to the U.S. in 1996 on a tourist visa, then got work visas for modeling jobs. She met Donald Trump in 1998, which made her more famous. By 2001, she applied for and got the EB-1 visa.
In that year, only 5 people from Slovenia got EB-1 visas, according to the U.S. State Department. Before applying, she had been on magazine covers, like British GQ and some U.S. publications, as per reports.
What others said
Alex Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute jokingly said, 'Not everybody could marry Donald Trump. That's quite an achievement.' Crockett replied, 'You sure are right, I couldn't have done it', accoridng to the report by Newsweek.
Melania's lawyer Michael Wildes said in 2018, 'She got her green card legally and was more than qualified for the Extraordinary Ability category.'
Melania Trump has not commented on the controversy yet. She has been keeping a low profile since Trump's second term began. Last seen at Trump's 79th birthday parade on June 14, and at other events like a Kennedy Center red carpet and a White House picnic, as mentioned by Newsweek report.
FAQs
Q1. What visa did Melania Trump get?
Melania Trump received an EB-1 visa in 2001, also known as the "
Einstein visa
," meant for people with extraordinary abilities.
Q2. Why is Melania Trump's visa being questioned?
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett questioned how Melania qualified for an elite visa usually reserved for Nobel winners or top athletes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions
* Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions US, NATO allies disagree on Putin's ultimate aims * Rubio says Russia wants Ukrainian territories; Rutte warns of attack on Europe * Lack of Russia strategy a blot on otherwise successful summit By Gram Slattery THE HAGUE, - For U.S. President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is a man looking for an off-ramp to his bloody three-year assault on Ukraine. But according to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Russian leader may be just getting started. If the alliance does not invest in its defense capabilities, Rutte warned the annual NATO summit on Tuesday, Russia could attack an alliance country within three years. By most measures, this year's NATO summit in The Hague was a success. Member states largely agreed to a U.S. demand to boost defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. Trump, who once derided the alliance as a "rip-off," said his view had changed, while a budding bromance blossomed between him and Rutte, who compared the U.S. president to a stern "daddy" managing his geopolitical underlings. But the summit, which ended on Wednesday, also highlighted the widening gap between how the U.S. and Europe see the military ambitions of Russia, the bloc's main foil. That is despite some lawmakers in Trump's own Republican Party hardening their rhetoric in recent weeks, arguing that while the president's ambition to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine is laudable, it is now clear that Putin is not serious about coming to the table. In a Wednesday press conference, Trump conceded that it was "possible" Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. But he insisted that the Russian leader - buffeted by manpower and materiel losses - wanted the war to end quickly. "I know one thing: He'd like to settle," Trump said. "He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump's view in a sideline interview with Politico, saying the U.S. was holding off on expanding its sanctions against Moscow, in part to keep talks going. "If we did what everybody here wants us to do - and that is come in and crush them with more sanctions - we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire," he said. The message from others at the summit was starkly different. A senior NATO official told reporters in a Tuesday briefing that Putin was not in fact interested in a ceasefire - or in engaging in good-faith talks at all. "Regardless of battlefield dynamics, we continue to doubt that Russia has any interest in meaningful negotiations," the official said. Russia's ambitions, the senior official said, go beyond control of "certain territories at their administrative lines," as Rubio put it. Putin is instead bent on imposing his "political will" on neighboring states. Rutte put the Russian threat in existential terms. "If we do not invest now," he said on Tuesday, "we are really at risk that the Russians might try something against NATO territory in three, five or seven years." RUSSIA STRATEGY REMAINS ELUSIVE The U.S. is not the only NATO member with a more optimistic view of Russia. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a longtime Trump ally and critic of European institutions, said Russia was "not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO." Still, as the alliance's largest contributor and most powerful member, Washington's position is a central preoccupation in most NATO capitals. The White House, asked for comment, referred to Trump's comments at the Wednesday press conference. In response to a request for comment, a separate NATO official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that there were differing assessments within the alliance, pointing to a NATO declaration on Wednesday which referenced the "long-term threat posed by Russia." The Russian embassy in Washington referred to Thursday comments by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who criticized NATO for wasting money on defense. "It seems that only by invoking the fabricated 'Russian threat' will it be possible to explain to ordinary people why their pockets are being emptied once again," she said. The U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment. The lack of a common understanding about Putin's goals will complicate future diplomatic plans to wind down the war, said Philippe Dickinson, the deputy director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former British diplomat. "To reach a peace agreement, it's not just something that Trump and Putin can agree themselves," Dickinson said. "There does need to be European involvement. That needs to mean that there is some sort of sharing of views among allies on what Putin is trying to achieve." European leaders likely have not given up on trying to change Trump's views on Russia, Dickinson said. But they were always unlikely bring up thorny conversations at the NATO summit. The alliance's main goal was to simply get through it without major blowups, he said, an aim that was accomplished. Still, peace came at a cost - the lack of substantive discussion around Ukraine and Russia, he argued, was conspicuous. "The lack of a Russia strategy is a real glaring omission from what the summit could have produced," Dickinson said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
NDTV
35 minutes ago
- NDTV
What Iran's Khamenei Said On Trump's "Surrender" Remark
Tehran: Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has strongly criticised US President Donald Trump's call for Iran's surrender, describing it as "too big to come out of his mouth." "The US President stated, "Iran must surrender." Needless to say, this statement is too big to come out of the US president's mouth," Khamenei wrote on X. The US President stated, "Iran must surrender." Needless to say, this statement is too big to come out of the US president's mouth. — (@khamenei_ir) June 26, 2025 According to The Hill, he said that the US "achieved nothing" from its military strikes on his nation and warned against any further attacks. In his first public remarks since the US bombed three Iranian nuclear sites Saturday, Khamenei declared victory in the conflict and pushed back on President Trump's claims that the strikes were a "spectacular military success." "My congratulations on our dear Iran's victory over the US regime. The US regime entered the war directly because it felt that if it didn't, the Zionist regime would be completely destroyed," Khamenei said in his more-than 10 minute address, according to a translated passage posted to his account on the social platform X. "It entered the war in an effort to save that regime but achieved nothing," he added. Trump has said that the strikes "obliterated Iran's nuclear program," but the Iranian supreme leader pushed back on that assessment. Recently, Trump shared a post on his social media, Truth Social, saying "Unconditional surrender" Trump warned that he could order further action if Tehran does not agree to a satisfactory peace agreement. In his address to the nation from the White House on Saturday (local time), Trump said, "There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we've witnessed over the last eight days." "This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill," Trump added. The conflict between Iran and Israel began on June 13 when Israel launched a large-scale airstrike targeting Iranian military and nuclear facilities under "Operation Rising Lion". Iran responded by launching "Operation True Promise 3", a campaign involving missile and drone attacks against Israel's infrastructure.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Donald Trump Defends US Strikes On Iran, Says Nuclear Facilities "Fully Obliterated"
Hague: President Donald Trump on Wednesday rejected an early intelligence assessment that U.S. strikes inflicted only a marginal setback on Iran's nuclear program, insisting that his country's spies did not have the full picture and defending his own swift conclusion that American bombs and missiles delivered a crushing blow. "This was a devastating attack, and it knocked them for a loop," Trump said as his administration scrambled to support his claims, made only hours after the attack, that Iranian nuclear facilities were "completely and fully obliterated." Trump said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other military officials would hold an "interesting and irrefutable" news conference Thursday morning to "fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots" who carried out the mission. He wrote on social media that "these Patriots were very upset" by "Fake News" reports about the limited impact of the strikes. The issue dominated Trump's attendance at NATO's annual summit in the Netherlands, which was otherwise focused on European security. The White House highlighted an Israeli statement that Iran's nuclear efforts were delayed by years, much longer than the few months determined by American intelligence. A spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry also said the facilities have suffered significant damage. But those comments fell short of Trump's hyperbole and did little to suggest that U.S. strikes had eliminated the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking in an interview with Politico, limited his own assessment to saying Iran was "much further away from a nuclear weapon today than they were before the president took this bold action." Drawing reliable conclusions about the impact of the U.S. strikes remains difficult, especially only days after they took place. That makes the issue a breeding ground for competing claims that could determine how American voters view Trump's risky decision to join Israel's attacks on Iran. Jeffrey Lewis, a professor of nonproliferation at the Middlebury Institute, said Trump was trying to have it both ways. "If it's too early to know, why is Trump saying it's obliterated?" he said. "Either it's too early to know, or you know." What's Next? Also at stake are Trump's next steps in the Middle East, where diplomatic efforts could be required to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program. Trump said U.S. and Iranian officials would meet soon, resuming a dialogue that was interrupted by nearly two weeks of war, even as he suggested that negotiations were no longer necessary. "I don't care if I have an agreement or not," Trump said, because Iran was too badly damaged to even consider rebuilding its program. "They're not going to be doing it anyway. They've had it." Iran maintains that its atomic ambitions are for peaceful purposes, while U.S. and Israeli leaders have described the country's nuclear program as the precursor to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The episode has triggered some of Trump's long-standing vendettas against leaks and intelligence officials, whom he has often viewed as a part of a "deep state" dedicated to undermining his agenda. He also lashed out at media outlets that reported on the classified assessment, describing them as "scum" and "disgusting." The intelligence assessment was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is part of the Pentagon. Out of all the country's spy services, it's usually "the fastest on the draw" to produce preliminary results, said Frank Montoya, a former counterintelligence leader. "They have to respond quickly to what the war fighters are looking for, but those preliminary assessments are still based on information that's out there," Montoya said. Leon Panetta, who held top national security roles under President Barack Obama, said it's too soon to have a more complete understanding of the strikes' impact. "Bottom line is, that's going to take an extended period of time, at least a number of weeks, before we have a full assessment of the damage done by the attack," Panetta said. However, Trump administration officials have been chiming in with their own statements emphasizing the damage done by the American mission. CIA Director John Ratcliffe said there's "a body of credible intelligence" showing "several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years." Trump Vs. The Media Trump said questioning the effectiveness of the strikes was disrespectful to the military, which flew stealth bombers halfway around the world to attack with weapons designed to penetrate deep underground. The reports, he said, were "very unfair to the pilots, who risked their lives for our country." He described the American attack as a definitive conclusion to what he's dubbed "the 12-day war," much like the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki heralded the end of World War II. "That ended that war," he said. "This ended the war." During a news conference at the NATO summit, Trump briefly ceded the stage to Hegseth, who also lashed out at the media. "There's a reason the president calls out the fake news for what it is," he said. Hegseth said reporters were using a leaked intelligence assessment to politically damage Trump. "They want to spin it to try to make him look bad," he said. Trump pointed to satellite photos that showed the area around the nuclear facilities was "burned black," and he said that underground tunnels where uranium was enriched and stored were "all collapsed." He also suggested that Israel had sources on the ground in Iran, saying "they have guys that go in there after the hit" to evaluate the damage. The bombing "rendered the enrichment facility inoperable," according to a statement distributed by the White House and the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The American strikes, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran's military nuclear program, have "set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years," the Israel Atomic Energy Commission said. In addition, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told Al Jazeera that there was significant damage from U.S. bombers. "Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that's for sure," he said. Where's The Uranium? One critical question is whether enriched uranium, which could be developed into fuel for a nuclear bomb, was moved out of facilities before the U.S. strikes. "I believe they didn't have a chance to get anything out, because we acted fast," Trump said. He added that "it's very hard to move that kind of material, and very dangerous." In the wake of the leak, the White House going forward intends to try to limit the sharing of classified documents with Congress, according to a senior White House official. The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not provide detail on how the administration would go about limiting the flow of classified information to lawmakers. The move, first reported by Axios, seems certain to be challenged by members of Congress. Classified briefings for lawmakers, originally scheduled for Tuesday, are now expected to take place Thursday and Friday.
