Melania Trump has revised her defamation lawsuit against the Mail Online for claiming she was a hooker — scrubbing claims that the website’s article ruined her “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to cash in on the presidency.

The first lady had been widely criticized for saying in court papers earlier this month that she “had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person … to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world.”

The amended complaint, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court late Tuesday, also deletes her listing of planned “product categories” including “apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance.”

Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush, had told the Associated Press that the language in Mrs. Trump’s suit was “an unprecedented, clear breach of rules about using her government position for private gain.”

Painter continued, “This is a very serious situation where she says she intends to make a lot of money. That ought to be repudiated by the White House or investigated by Congress.”

Other critics suggested that allegations about hurting the Melania Trump brand could open the first family up to unwanted probing of their financial affairs in court.

Mrs. Trump is still suing for the same $150 million in reputation damages and adds that the prostitute allegations continue to be repeated, most recently by New York Times journalist Jacob Bernstein at a Fashion Week event. Bernstein later apologized.

Her lawyer, Charles Harder, and spokeswoman did not immediately return requests for comment on the changes.

But just a day after the suit was first filed Feb. 6, Harder said in a statement that the first lady “has no intention of using her position for profit and will not do so. It is not a possibility. Any statements to the contrary are being misinterpreted.”

Reps for the Mail Online did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment. The news site eventually apologized and removed the August 2016 article.