Outspoken Dem Rep. Jasmine Crockett slammed for ‘evil' comments about Melania Trump's modeling career, US citizenship
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) has been slammed as 'evil' and a 'disgrace' for insulting Melania Trump's modeling career and marriage during a heated House hearing — even suggesting there was no way the first lady could have earned a so-called 'Einstein visa.'
The outspoken lefty pol took a swipe at President Trump's wife and ridiculed her US citizenship as lawmakers argued over restoring the visa process during Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing.
After attacking the Trump administration's immigration tactics, Crockett quickly made things personal.
3 Dem Rep. Jasmine Crockett took aim at Melania Trump during a heated House hearing.
'Since we're talking about integrity, I'm confused as to why my Republican colleagues aren't talking about the lack of integrity when it comes to the president's family's visas,' she griped.
'Melania, the first lady — a model, and when I say model, I'm not talking Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford or Naomi Campbell-level — applied for and was given an EB-1 visa,' she said cruelly.
Melania moved to the US on an EB-1 visa — dubbed the 'Einstein visa' — as a model in the 1990s before eventually becoming a US citizen in 2006 after marrying Trump.
Crockett, who is notorious for going viral during committee hearings with her incendiary rhetoric, added insult to injury by explaining the Einstein visa process.
3 Melania moved to the US on an EB-1 visa — dubbed the 'Einstein visa' — as a model in the 1990s.
Getty Images
'You're supposed to have some sort of significant achievement, like being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize or a Pulitzer, being an Olympic medalist, or having other sustained extraordinary abilities and success in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics,' she said.
'Last time I checked the first lady had none of those accolades under her belt.'
'It doesn't take an Einstein to see that the math ain't mathin' here,' she added.
3 Crockett has been called 'evil' and a 'disgrace' for her comments about the first lady.
Getty Images
The backlash against her was swift with many on social media blasting the Texas lawmaker as being 'jealous.'
'Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) disgracefully attacked Melania Trump on Wednesday for her modeling career and visa. Crockett said Melania wasn't on the same level as other models and didn't have the accolades to warrant an Einstein visa. Crockett is jealous,' one user wrote on X.
'Can Jasmine Crockett speak 5 Languages like Melania? NO! so she can just close her mouth,' another raged.
One person chimed in, saying: 'How dare her compare Melania to those models? Melania has a lot more class in her little finger than Jasmine Crockett has in her whole body!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
Joe Rogan says MAGA ‘very divided' over Trump strikes on Iran: ‘They voted for no war'
Joe Rogan painted a picture of a 'very divided' MAGA on his podcast this week, saying that many Trump supporters are outraged over the US strikes on Iran since they voted for an end to 'forever wars.' 'I think the whole MAGA thing right now is very divided, particularly because one of the things they voted for was no war. Well, now it seems like we're in a war,' Rogan said Tuesday during an interview with Bernie Sanders. 'It's quick, six months in and that's already popped off, and then people are very concerned with now – what happens to our troops overseas that are in these bases in very vulnerable positions?' Advertisement 3 Podcast host Joe Rogan said MAGA is 'very divided' over the US strikes on Iran. YouTube/PowerfulJRE Rogan also shared fears that 'documented terror cells' might have snuck in over the border over the last four years, putting citizens at risk after the US led strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran allegedly sent a message to Trump threatening to activate sleep-cell terror inside the US prior to the attacks, NBC News reported over the weekend. Advertisement Rogan praised Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who has long opposed Trump and most recently decried his attacks on Iran as unconstitutional. 'When a guy like Thomas Massie steps up and says something, he's going to have a lot more support as well,' Rogan said. Trump has hit back at Massie on social media and launched a PAC that aims to unseat him – but Rogan questioned whether 'there's a Streisand effect to that.' 3 The New York Post's front page after the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Advertisement 3 President Trump holds up a closed fist after arriving at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Wednesday. AP 'Don't you think that there's a blowback for that kind of thing? When people recognize that this guy should be allowed to have his own opinions, and [he] makes some reasonable points, and then people are gonna reject this idea,' Rogan said. It's not the first time Rogan has questioned Trump's tactics during his second term – even though he famously hosted Trump on 'The Joe Rogan Experience' before the presidential election last year. That episode racked up 20 million views on YouTube just 20 hours after its release. Advertisement But last week, Rogan took aim at the ICE blitzes led by Trump across Los Angeles. 'If the Trump administration, if they're running and they said, 'We're gonna go to Home Depot and we're gonna arrest all the people at Home Depot. We're gonna go to construction sites and we're going to just tackle people at construction sites,' I don't think anybody would have signed up for that,' Rogan said on his podcast.
Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We're Faith Leaders Calling for Conscience in the U.S. Senate
As pastors and spiritual leaders, we sit with families in tears, fearing they will be separated from their children. From El Paso to Miami, Catholic parishes to Southern Baptist churches and beyond, our faith communities are filled with long-settled immigrant families now living in fear. Without creating panic, we must acknowledge that these fears are real—and act now to prevent lasting harm. The Trump administration's efforts to end temporary protected status and humanitarian parole for approximately two million people have put many immigrants with legal status at risk of becoming undocumented. At the same time, ICE is targeting individuals and families who have lived peacefully in our communities for years, often decades, for detention and deportation. The budget reconciliation bill passed by the House and now before the Senate could drastically escalate these harms. It includes $45 billion for the construction of new detention centers, over $25 billion to support stepped-up enforcement and deportation operations, and unprecedented fees—including a combined $8,500 before a family member or other safe sponsor could begin to care for an unaccompanied child. This bill would effectively triple annual spending on ICE detention facilities and could lead to the indefinite detention of families, as well as the expedited removal of unaccompanied children without any access to legal assistance. We find these aspects of the bill—which pave the way for separating, arresting, detaining, deporting, and penalizing vulnerable immigrant children and families—to be morally objectionable. These measures do not reflect the values we uphold as Christians or as Americans. Detention centers are no place for children. They expose young people to unsafe conditions, inadequate medical care, limited access to education, and psychological trauma. At least nine people have died in ICE custody in 2025—a chilling reminder of the dangers these facilities can pose. PASADENA, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 18: People gather at a protest and vigil after a morning ICE raid in Pasadena on June 18, 2025 in Pasadena, California. PASADENA, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 18: People gather at a protest and vigil after a morning ICE raid in Pasadena on June 18, 2025 in Pasadena, do not oppose the legitimate goals of promoting public safety and regulating immigration. However, despite claims that immigration enforcement would focus on individuals who have criminal records, the reality has been different. Between January 26 and March 23, the number of people without criminal convictions or charges arrested by ICE increased fivefold. With border crossings at historic lows, families with deep community roots will increasingly become the focus of enforcement. Our faith calls us to protect children and families, treat migrants and refugees with compassion, and uphold the dignity of every person because each of us is made in the image of God. These are not partisan positions—they are Christian imperatives. A recent report, "One Part of the Body: The Potential Impact of Deportations on American Christian Families," makes this truth clear: "If even a fraction of those vulnerable to deportation are actually deported, the ramifications are profound—for those individuals, of course, but also for their U.S.-citizen family members and, because when one part of the body suffers, every part suffers with it, for all Christians." We call on senators of both parties to exercise moral courage, and to consider how well these important policy decisions respect human life and dignity, rather than political expediency. Reject the current enforcement-only approach to immigration that will lead to family separation and deny communities the vital contributions of immigrants. Ensure that the final budget reconciliation bill does not include new funding that could be used by ICE to make families the focus of immigration enforcement and subject them to inhumane detention conditions. Eliminate the unjust fees proposed that would hinder family reunification and undermine our legal immigration system. George Washington is said to have described the Senate as a saucer that "cools" the hot tea of the House. In this moment, the Senate must live up to that calling—not just as a check on rash legislation, but as a defender of the common good. Most Rev. Mark J. Seitz is bishop of El Paso, Texas and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration. Dr. Keny Felix is senior pastor of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church in Miami Gardens, Florida and president of the Southern Baptist Convention National Haitian Fellowship. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Social Security is headed for a cliff. When will voters care?
Considering recent news, you may have missed that the 2025 trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare are out. Once again, they confirm what we've known for decades: Both programs are barreling straight toward insolvency. The Social Security retirement trust fund and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund are each on pace to run dry by 2033. When that happens, seniors will face an automatic 23% cut in their Social Security benefits. Medicare will reduce payments to hospitals by 11%. These cuts are not theoretical. They're baked into the law. If nothing changes, they will be made. I have nothing against cuts of this size. In fact, if it were up to me, I would cut deeper. Medicare is a terrible source of distortions for our convoluted healthcare market and needs to be reined in. Social Security was created back when being too old to work meant being poor. That's no longer the case for as many people. Thanks to decades of compound investment growth, widespread homeownership and rising asset values, seniors are no longer the systematically vulnerable group they once were. The top income quintile includes a growing number of retirees who draw substantial incomes from pensions and investment portfolios with Social Security benefits layered on top. These programs have become a transfer of wealth from the relatively poor to the relatively wealthy and old. Of course, America still has some poor seniors, so cutting across the board is bad. This is why the cuts should be targeted, not the automatic effects in 2033. And Congress should get started now. The size of the problem is staggering. Social Security's shortfall now equals 3.82% of taxable payroll or roughly 22% of scheduled benefit obligations. Avoiding insolvency eight years from now would require an immediate 27% benefit cut, according to former Social Security and Medicare trustee Charles Blahous. Alternatively, legislators could raise the payroll tax from 12.4% to 16.05%. That's a 29.4% increase. Or they could restructure Social Security so that only people who need the money would receive payments. But because facing this problem in an honest way is politically toxic, legislators are ignoring it. Blame does not rest solely with Congress. The American public has made it abundantly clear that they don't want reforms. They don't want benefit cuts or tax increases, and they certainly don't want higher retirement ages. So politicians pretend everything is fine. Congress does deserve fresh criticism for making things worse. Last year, legislators passed the misnamed 'Social Security Fairness Act,' giving windfall benefits to government workers who didn't pay into the system — which enlarges the shortfall. This year, the House proposed expanded tax breaks for seniors in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which would further worsen the problem. The cost of political giveaways is steep. Social Security's 75-year unfunded obligation has now reached $28 trillion, up from $25 trillion just a year ago. Medicare is no better. Its costs are projected to rise from 3.8% of gross domestic product today to 6.7% by the end of the century (8.8% under more realistic assumptions). Most of the additional spending will be financed through general revenue, meaning more borrowing and more pressure on the federal budget. As Romina Boccia of the Cato Institute has documented, other countries have taken meaningful steps to address similar challenges. Sweden and Germany implemented automatic stabilizers that slow benefit growth or raise taxes when their systems become unsustainable. New Zealand and Canada have moved toward more modest, poverty-focused pension systems that offer basic support without bankrupting the state. A few weeks ago, Denmark increased the retirement age to 70. These are serious reforms. The U.S. has done nothing. Options exist. Policymakers could gradually raise the retirement age to reflect modern, healthier, longer lives. They could cap benefits at $2,050 monthly, preserving income for the bottom 50% of beneficiaries while progressively reducing benefits for the top half. They could reform the tax treatment of retirement income to encourage private savings, as Canada has done with its tax-free savings accounts. Any combination of these reforms would help. But that would require admitting that the current path is unsustainable. It would require telling voters the truth. It would require courage. So far, these admirable traits have been sorely lacking in our politicians. The programs' trustees have made the stakes clear: The only alternatives to reform will be drastic benefit cuts or massive tax hikes. Waiting until the trust funds are empty will leave no room for gradual, targeted solutions. It will force crisis-mode slashing that will hurt the most vulnerable. The ultimate blame is with voters who continue to reward politicians for promising the impossible. A functioning democracy cannot survive if the electorate insists on voting benefits for themselves to the point of insolvency. At some point, reality asserts itself. That moment is rapidly approaching. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
