In a bold move that has drawn both interest and skepticism, US President Donald Trump unveiled the “Trump Gold Card,” a new program intended to offer an expedited pathway to US residency. This announcement follows a prolonged wait that began nearly six months ago, raising concerns about the card’s legitimacy and potential effectiveness.
The Gold Card will require individuals to make a significant financial commitment—a “gift” of $1 million to the Department of Commerce. For corporations wishing to sponsor an employee, the cost will escalate to $2 million per card, but this expense is transferable among employees. Additionally, a premium “Platinum Card” can be acquired for a contribution of $5 million, allowing holders to stay in the US for an extended period—270 days out of the year—without incurring taxes on non-US income.
During the launch in the Oval Office, Trump emphasized the need for reforming the US immigration system, stating, “For far too long, we have had millions of Illegal Aliens pouring into our Country, and our Immigration System was broken.” He expressed optimism that this initiative could generate over $100 billion swiftly, further underlining his administration’s aggressive stance on immigration reform.
Critics, however, have raised serious doubts regarding both the feasibility and the ethical implications of this initiative. Some experts and political analysts are skeptical of the revenue projections made by Trump and his advisors, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who suggested the combined Gold and Platinum card offerings could multiply revenues to an astonishing $1 trillion. The surging interest—reportedly from about 250,000 wealthy individuals—has not quelled concerns about the practicality of such claims.
The new program is set to replace existing visa categories, notably the EB-1 and EB-5 visas, which previously allowed foreigners with exceptional abilities or those willing to invest in U.S. Job creation to gain lawful permanent residency. These traditional pathways had a cap of fewer than 10,000 annual visas, primarily focused on regions of high unemployment or rural areas.
Legal challenges are anticipated, as opponents argue that creating new visa categories falls under Congress’s purview rather than that of the executive branch. In contrast, Trump’s defenders assert that he has the authority to initiate such reforms through executive action, claiming that the financial backing of the program denotes “exceptional business ability and national benefit.”
The administration has also rejected what they describe as “alarmist” forecasts that suggest the Gold Card initiative will be accessible to anyone with substantial funds, including those with potentially nefarious backgrounds. They maintain that applicants will undergo stringent vetting by the Department of Homeland Security.
As the discussion surrounding the Trump Gold Card continues, it remains to be seen how this development will play out legally and operationally, and whether it will genuinely reshape the landscape of U.S. immigration policy.
