A new immigration initiative dubbed the ‘Trump Gold Card’ is generating significant attention among affluent global circles, offering a controversial pathway to United States residency through substantial financial contributions. The program, established via executive order rather than congressional legislation, mandates a non-refundable $1 million gift to the U.S. Department of Commerce per applicant, plus a $15,000 filing fee.
Unlike traditional immigration routes, the Gold Card program operates under existing EB-1 (extraordinary ability) and EB-2 (national interest waiver) visa categories, bypassing lottery systems and employment-based sponsorship requirements. However, this very classification creates immediate complications, as both EB-1 and EB-2 categories already face severe visa backlogs for applicants from China and India—with wait times extending to several years or even decades.
Immigration experts highlight critical distinctions between this new program and the established EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. While the EB-5 requires an $800,000 investment in designated projects with potential returns and covers entire families under a single application, the Gold Card demands separate $1 million donations for each dependent family member with no financial return. Furthermore, the EB-5 program is grounded in federal statute, providing greater legal stability, whereas the Gold Card’s executive order foundation leaves it vulnerable to judicial challenges or revocation by future administrations.
Dubai-based US attorney Shai Zamanian notes additional uncertainties: ‘Guidance remains unclear regarding whether applicants can file for adjustment of status within the US or must undergo consular processing abroad, potentially restricting their ability to work or travel during application review.’
Proponents like Rayad Kamal Ayub of UAE’s Rayad Group argue the program represents a ‘paradigm shift’ in immigration policy, attracting ‘legitimate, high-value applicants’ through transparent economic contributions. However, the exceptionally high financial threshold—totaling $4 million plus $60,000 in fees for a family of four—raises substantive questions about equity and accessibility in global migration systems, effectively limiting this pathway to ultra-high-net-worth individuals despite its theoretical availability to those of extraordinary ability or national interest benefit.