Exclusivity & the American Dream: What the Gold Card Means for Immigration
Former President Donald Trump recently announced a new immigration initiative called the “Gold Card,” aimed at attracting high-net-worth individuals to the United States. The proposal would allow foreign nationals to obtain U.S. permanent residency in exchange for a $5 million investment, bypassing many of the requirements in the existing EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. While Trump has framed this plan as a way to stimulate the economy, it raises significant legal, ethical, and policy concerns that immigration attorneys and investors must carefully consider.
Understanding the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program
The EB-5 program, created by Congress in 1990, was designed to encourage foreign investment and job creation in the U.S. economy. Under the program, a foreign investor must invest a minimum of $800,000 in a Targeted Employment Area (“TEA”) (rural or high-unemployment areas) or $1.05 million elsewhere in a U.S. business that creates or preserves at least 10 full-time American jobs. In return, the investor and their immediate family members become eligible for a green card (lawful permanent residency).
EB-5 applications are subject to strict vetting procedures, and the program has often been plagued by long processing times, fraud concerns, and regulatory challenges. Although the program has been instrumental in funding projects such as hotels, real estate developments, and infrastructure, its complexity and backlog have led to frustration among investors.
How the Gold Card Differs from EB-5
Trump’s Gold Card proposal appears to offer a simpler and more direct pathway to U.S. residency for the ultra-wealthy. Unlike the EB-5 program, which requires job creation and investment in a business, the Gold Card would only require a $5 million payment to the U.S. government—effectively selling a green card to wealthy foreign nationals. The key differences between the two programs include:
Investment Type – The EB-5 program requires investment in a job-creating business, while the Gold Card would be a direct payment to the government with no business obligations.
Job Creation Requirement – EB-5 applicants must create at least 10 jobs for American workers, whereas the Gold Card would eliminate this requirement.
Processing and Vetting – EB-5 applicants undergo extensive scrutiny regarding the source of funds and compliance with U.S. business laws. The Gold Card’s vetting process remains unclear, but critics worry it could weaken security checks.
Price Point – The EB-5 investment threshold is $800,000 to $1.05 million, while the Gold Card would require a $5 million lump sum payment—making it accessible only to the ultra-wealthy.
While the Gold Card proposal has yet to be formalized into law, it raises critical questions about U.S. immigration policy, economic benefits, and ethical considerations.
From a legal standpoint, there are several hurdles that must be addressed before the Gold Card program could take effect. First, immigration laws are set by Congress, and replacing the EB-5 program with a pay-to-enter model would likely require legislative approval. Immigration attorneys and policy analysts are already questioning whether such a program would stand up to scrutiny under existing immigration laws or if it would need a major overhaul of current statutes.
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the direct sale of citizenship, meaning the Gold Card could only offer permanent residency (a green card) rather than an instant path to citizenship. Investors who obtain permanent residency would still need to meet the standard naturalization requirements (five years of continuous residence, good moral character, and passing the civics and language tests) before becoming U.S. citizens.
Another major concern is national security and financial transparency. The EB-5 program already requires investors to prove the legal source of their funds, but some experts worry that a cash-for-residency program could increase the risk of money laundering and fraud. Countries like Malta and Cyprus, which have sold residency and citizenship to wealthy investors, have faced international scrutiny for allowing politically exposed individuals and criminals to exploit their programs.
Clearly, the function of the gold card is one which appears to resonate with the brand that made the President famous. However, as President Trump militarizes our country to forcibly remove those without documentation, his administration has simultaneously put a price on the American dream itself. While the law will eventually settle the implications of this program, what does this mean for the United States and its position in the world?
If you or a loved one have immigration-related questions, please do not hesitate to reach out directly at Alex@LehighValleyImmigrationLawyers.com for a free consultation.