Introduction
In February 2025, President Donald Trump floated a new immigration initiative known as the “Gold Card”. Aimed at wealthy foreign nationals seeking residency in the United States, the program was priced at $5 million per applicant and positioned as a premium alternative to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. With proposed green card benefits and more, the Gold Card represents a streamlined pathway to legal status for wealthy immigrants.
While the Trump Administration has yet to formally announce a Gold Card program, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has already created the technical infrastructure to support it. Additionally, some foreign visitors recently reported being asked about a “Trump Card Visa” on official immigration forms. The proposed Gold Card program has sparked increasing debate over immigration law, national debt, and executive power.
The EB-5 Visa
In 1990, Congress established the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program to stimulate the American economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. Under the program’s most recent requirements, immigrants who invest either $1,050,000 in a for-profit, U.S.-based business or $800,000 in targeted employment and infrastructure areas are eligible for a green card. To fully meet eligibility criteria, investments must lead to the creation of at least ten full-time jobs for American workers within two years. In the past two decades, 135,519 visas have been issued under the EB-5 program.
Over time, the EB-5 program underwent significant reform. Issues of fraud and inadequate oversight prompted the passage of regulatory updates, most notably the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA) of 2022. The RIA increased transparency in the investment process and implemented new measures for compliance.
The Gold Card Proposal
Under President Trump’s proposed Gold Card initiative, customers will receive legal permanent residency status and a pathway to citizenship in exchange for a one-time payment of $5 million. Unlike the EB-5 program, the Gold Card—as proposed so far—does not require job creation nor targeted geographic investment. The program has been marketed as a quicker and more straightforward process for ultra-wealthy individuals seeking American residency.
According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, approximately 37 million individuals worldwide possess the financial capacity to purchase a Gold Card. Secretary Lutnick also stated that there are 250,000 individuals in line for the EB-5 visa, although this has been disputed by attorneys and researchers who say the number is closer to 14,000. In late March, Secretary Lutnick appeared on the business and technology podcast All In and announced that he had already sold over 1,000 Gold Cards.
Criticisms of the Gold Card
President Trump’s Gold Card proposal has drawn controversy, eliciting debates on the limits of executive power. Some critics argue that the President does not have constitutional authority to unilaterally eliminate or replace the EB-5 visa program. They highlight that the passage of immigration laws falls under the jurisdiction of Congress, and that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) governs legal admission, exclusion, and naturalization of immigrants. While the executive branch may introduce pilot programs or proposed changes, opponents of the Gold Card assert that replacing an existing visa category or reallocating green card quotas would require legislative action to modify the INA. Immigration law experts anticipate that attempts to replace the EB-5 program without congressional approval would not survive Supreme Court scrutiny.
Others argue that while a Gold Card program may sound like a great strategy to increase government revenue in theory, the demand for such a program does not exist. Economists predict that investors who have the ability to purchase a green card will be deterred by U.S. tax law. Moreover, given the uncertain legality of the proposed Gold Card program, policy analysts doubt that wealthy individuals’ would opt for such a large investment in a program that could be quickly rescinded by the Supreme Court.
The Gold Card proposal has also sparked concern within the existing community of EB-5 investors, regional centers, and developers. Projects and individuals already operating under the EB-5 framework made significant financial commitments, and the abrupt shift has introduced uncertainty into the immigration and investment landscape. Unlike the EB-5 program, where investors can expect monetary return on their investments in addition to a green card, Gold Card buyers receive no financial return.
Moreover, the absence of job creation or economic development requirements has raised worries about the long-term economic and societal benefits of a Gold Card program. Critics of the Gold Card have coined it a pay-to-stay-model, arguing that such an approach risks prioritizing wealth over long-standing immigration principles, including merit-based systems, family reunifications, and humanitarian protection. Watchdog organizations also warned that the program’s high cost and ambiguous vetting processes may expose it to corruption, reduce transparency, and strain diplomatic relations, especially in cases where controversial foreign nationals attempt participation.
Arguments for the Gold Card
Supporters contend that the Gold Card proposal presents an opportunity to modernize the United States’ approach to investor-based immigration in line with global practices. Approximately 30 countries already offer similar investment-based residency or citizenship programs. These systems are built on the idea that high-net-worth individuals can positively contribute to national economies through substantial financial investments. Proponents argue that by establishing a clear and direct pathway for economic contributions, the Gold Card could align the United States with international norms and ensure it remains competitive in attracting global capital.
The Gold Card obtains support from advocates as a potential generator of substantial government revenue. Secretary Lutnick suggested that the sale of 200,000 Gold Cards could raise $1 trillion, potentially contributing to the reduction of national debt or funding fiscal initiatives. Economic stimulation has also been emphasized, as wealthy individuals who relocate to the U.S. will be subject to U.S. tax law.
Compared to the existing EB-5 visa program, supporters maintain that the Gold Card may offer a simplified and more efficient process. The EB-5 program faced criticism for being overly complex, restrictive, and difficult to administer. Today, at least 14,000 people are waiting to have their EB-5 visa approved. Moreover, high-profile fraud cases—such as a multi-million-dollar fraudulent investment in Vermont by three foreign nationals seeking visas through the EB-5 program—have drawn awareness to inconsistencies in the existing system. A simplified system, where applicants contribute a one-time investment, may reduce administrative burdens and improve transparency, while still promoting the core goal of investor visas: stimulating economic growth.
Conclusion
The Gold Card proposal has been framed as a significant departure from existing American immigration policy because it emphasizes financial capability as the principal criterion for residency. While administrative benefits and fiscal gains have been touted, a range of legal, ethical, and procedural challenges remain, particularly concerning the ongoing EB-5 program, which will remain intact through 2027 under federal law.
At present, key details surrounding the Gold Card remain undefined, including whether the program will be implemented through executive action, regulation, or legislative means. Until such information is clarified, the EB-5 program continues to operate under full legal authority, with current investors protected under existing statutes.
As immigration policy evolves, the broader debate will intensify over balancing national interests, economic goals, and the foundational values that have long guided the American immigration system.