Lalit Shastri
In recent days, headlines across the globe have been abuzz with reports that the United States is offering a so-called “Gold Card” — a $5 million ticket to U.S. residency and eventual citizenship. While the optics of the initiative appear to cater to ultra-high-net-worth individuals seeking a fast-track to the American dream, a closer examination reveals a far more complex reality.
The Gold Card: What It Is — and Isn’t
The term “Gold Card” does not refer to an existing immigration status or visa category. Instead, it is part of a proposed immigration overhaul floated by Donald Trump as part of his 2024 campaign platform.
Under this new proposal, foreign nationals would be allowed to buy U.S. permanent residency — with an optional path to citizenship — by making a direct payment of $5 million to the U.S. government. Unlike the current EB-5 visa, this new scheme does not require job creation, business investment, or economic development in underserved areas.
The proposal was unveiled in February 2025, with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claiming that 1,000 Gold Cards were being sold daily, with expectations to reach one million cards sold, generating $5 trillion in revenue. While these figures sound ambitious, critics argue they are speculative at best and legally questionable at worst.
EB-5 vs. Gold Card: A Study in Contrasts
| Feature | EB-5 Visa (Current Program) | Gold Card (Proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Investment Required | $1.05 million (or $800,000 in TEAs) | $5 million (fixed) |
| Type of Investment | In a business that creates 10 U.S. jobs | Direct payment to U.S. government |
| Job Creation | Mandatory (10 full-time jobs) | None required |
| Residency Granted | Conditional green card, then permanent | Permanent residency with path to citizenship |
| Cap on Issuance | Limited visas per year | Proposed as unlimited |
| Legal Status | Existing program under USCIS | Not yet legislated; legally contested |
While the EB-5 visa has long served as a mechanism to stimulate the U.S. economy and create employment opportunities, the Gold Card seems focused on revenue generation and speed of processing, bypassing traditional checks and balances.
Legal and Political Roadblocks
Immigration policy in the U.S. is largely shaped by Congress, and any significant changes — especially one that involves monetizing access to permanent residency — would require legislative approval. Constitutional experts have questioned whether the Executive Branch has the authority to bypass Congress and implement such a program unilaterally.
Additionally, the idea of selling U.S. residency for a price tag of $5 million may provoke public backlash, raising ethical questions about inequality and privilege, especially when thousands of skilled immigrants wait years for green card processing.
Market Response: A Mixed Bag
Despite government claims of strong interest, the response from the wealthy elite has been lukewarm. A Canadian billionaire was quoted saying, “If you’re a billionaire, you don’t need it,” while a Russian investor remarked, “I do not understand who will pay $5 million.”
Global high-net-worth individuals often weigh tax implications, reputational risks, and long-term value before committing to such schemes. While the Gold Card might exempt holders from U.S. global taxation (unlike citizens), it remains uncertain how attractive this will be when compared to more established investor migration options in countries like Portugal, Canada, or Australia.
Policy or Political Theatre?
The proposed Gold Card may be more of a campaign strategy than a sound policy instrument. It highlights Trump’s transactional view of immigration — offering the American dream to the highest bidder — but it’s unlikely to pass unchallenged through the U.S. legal or legislative systems.
For now, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program remains the only official U.S. visa route for residency through investment. While imperfect, it is structured, regulated, and contributes to job creation — three aspects the Gold Card proposal overlooks.
The Gold Card scheme may serve more as political symbolism than practical reform. Whether it reshapes U.S. immigration policy — or fades into the archive of controversial proposals — remains to be seen.
This is News 