Trump's ‘Gold Card’ Fast-Track Visa Sparks Legal and Economic Concerns

Gerik

Summary:

President Trump’s new “Trump Gold Card” program offers fast-tracked U.S. citizenship for a $1 million donation, but legal experts and economists question its compatibility with existing immigration laws and its actual economic value....

A High-Priced Path to Citizenship for the Global Elite

President Donald Trump has launched the “Trump Gold Card,” a controversial new immigration initiative offering wealthy individuals and corporations expedited U.S. permanent residency and eventually citizenship through large, nonrefundable contributions. For individuals, a $1 million donation and a $15,000 processing fee grant access to EB-1 or EB-2 visa tracks. Corporations may sponsor employees for $2 million under the “Corporate Gold Card,” with additional fees and optional transfer rights.

Applications for both programs opened December 10, following a September executive order. Trump claims the program will raise “billions” for the U.S. Treasury, helping fund government initiatives and strengthening the economy. The Trump administration has framed the move as a way to “bring in the best,” emphasizing elite talent and global capital over broader immigration access.

Legal Ambiguities Undermine Policy Certainty

Despite its high-profile rollout, legal experts argue that the program’s foundation remains shaky. Unlike the EB-5 investor visa program, which is grounded in federal statute and requires job creation, the Gold Card relies entirely on an executive order without congressional approval. This raises key concerns about its legality and long-term enforceability.

Immigration attorney Natalia Polukhtin notes that the program circumvents legislative processes by carving out space within existing visa categories EB-1A for individuals with “extraordinary ability” and EB-2-NIW for those who benefit the national interest without formally amending immigration law. The lack of statutory basis could expose the program to future legal challenges or rollback under a different administration.

Additionally, unlike EB-5, which mandates targeted investments and job creation, the Gold Card requires no specific business placement or employment contribution. The $1 million “donation” is not a capital investment; rather, it is an unstructured payment to the federal government, raising further doubts about whether it aligns with established immigration frameworks.

Dubious Economic Returns Raise Cost-Efficiency Questions

Trump has promoted the Gold Card program as a tool to “build the greatest economy on earth,” but economists remain unconvinced that this visa model will deliver measurable benefits to the U.S. economy. While capital inflows may increase federal revenue, research suggests such schemes typically have only marginal effects especially in large economies like the United States.

Nuri Katz, founder of Apex Capital Partners, points out that the EB-5 program already draws around 4,000 applications annually at a lower cost threshold of $800,000. Even if that number were to migrate to the Gold Card’s $1 million price tag, the Treasury’s gain would hover around $4 billion per year barely registering in the context of the federal budget or national debt.

An IMF study on global citizenship-by-investment programs further suggests that while they may temporarily boost revenue in small countries, they are often associated with real estate price inflation and fail to generate long-term economic gains. In such countries, property markets inflated by investor inflows saw prices rise by up to 3% within a year raising concerns about speculative pressures on urban housing if the Gold Card were widely adopted.

Moreover, the lack of any job creation or economic multiplier requirement limits the program’s capacity to generate productivity or industrial benefits. From an economic standpoint, the Trump Gold Card functions more like a fundraising tool than an investment visa.

Corporate Gold Cards and Transferable Access Raise Ethical Flags

The program’s corporate version adds another layer of complexity. For $2 million, a company can sponsor an employee’s permanent residency with the option to transfer the benefit to another employee for a 5% fee. This raises ethical concerns about the commodification of immigration status and the potential for large firms to use visas as strategic leverage within global talent markets.

Additionally, the 1% annual maintenance fee for approved corporate cardholders introduces an ongoing cost that might be bearable for multinationals but could skew competition by pricing out smaller firms or startups. The ability to transfer immigration sponsorship for a fee, critics argue, turns visa access into a marketable asset rather than a merit-based selection.

High-Profile Rollout, Unclear Impact

The Trump Gold Card offers a flashy new avenue for elite immigration but faces serious scrutiny on legal, ethical, and economic grounds. The lack of congressional authorization, absence of job-creation obligations, and reliance on nonrefundable donations rather than investments all distinguish it from established immigration models like the EB-5.

While the program may succeed in raising capital from a narrow group of global elites, its broader utility for the U.S. economy remains questionable. It risks undermining the coherence of immigration policy by privileging wealth without guaranteeing public benefit, potentially triggering legal resistance and further polarization of immigration reform debates.

In short, the Trump Gold Card symbolizes a policy pivot toward transactional citizenship but without robust legal grounding or economic returns, its legacy may be more political than practical.

Source: Reuters

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

News, historical chart data, and fundamental company data are provided by FastBull Ltd.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.