Trump Administration’s Gold Card Visa Program Brings In $1.3 Billion in Less Than Two Weeks

When President Donald Trump’s administration quietly launched a new immigration initiative earlier this month, it did not initially draw widespread public attention. That changed rapidly as sales figures began circulating through Washington. In just 12 days, the so-called Trump Gold Card visa program generated an estimated $1.3 billion in commitments, according to administration officials. The speed of that uptake stunned immigration experts and political observers alike, instantly turning what might have been a niche policy experiment into a national political flashpoint. The program, which allows wealthy foreign nationals to pay steep fees in exchange for expedited U.S. residency, now sits at the center of a broader debate over money, merit, and who gets priority access to the American immigration system.

The Gold Card initiative reflects a defining feature of Trump’s governing philosophy, which treats policy as both leverage and transaction. While his administration has pursued mass deportations and tighter restrictions on asylum and legal immigration pathways, the Gold Card moves in the opposite direction by offering fast-track residency to those able to pay. Supporters argue it is a pragmatic revenue generator that attracts global capital without raising taxes. Critics say it amounts to selling access to the United States while sidelining scientists, engineers, and professionals who have spent years waiting their turn. As legal questions mount and political reactions sharpen, the program is quickly becoming one of the most controversial immigration experiments of Trump’s presidency.

What the Trump Gold Card Visa Program Offers

The Trump Gold Card visa program officially launched with the debut of Trumpcard.gov, a government website featuring an “apply now” button and clear pricing. Applicants must first pay a $15,000 processing fee to the Department of Homeland Security. After completing background checks and vetting, they are then required to make a $1 million payment described on the website as a “contribution” or “gift.” In return, applicants receive expedited permission to live and work in the United States under a status similar to a green card.

Trump has framed the program as a superior version of existing residency options. “Basically it’s a Green Card, but much better. Much more powerful, a much stronger path,” he told reporters at the White House. He added, “A path is a big deal. Have to be great people.” The administration has emphasized speed and exclusivity, marketing the Gold Card as an elite channel for those deemed economically valuable.

The website also promotes additional tiers. A Corporate Gold Card allows companies to pay $2 million per employee for expedited visas, while a proposed Platinum Card may eventually cost $5 million and offer additional tax benefits. Together, these options signal an effort to scale the program beyond individuals and into corporate workforce planning.

How the Program Fits Within Existing Immigration Law

Despite its branding, the Gold Card is not a new visa category created by Congress. Immigration attorneys say the administration has effectively layered new fees onto existing employment-based visa programs, primarily EB-1 and EB-2. Only Congress has the authority to create or eliminate visa categories, meaning the executive branch must operate within current statutory limits.

The EB-1 program, often referred to as the “Einstein Visa,” is designed for individuals with extraordinary abilities and sustained national or international acclaim, including scientists, artists, athletes, entrepreneurs, and professors. The EB-2 program targets professionals whose advanced skills serve the national interest, such as researchers working on medical breakthroughs or energy infrastructure.

White House officials argue that the ability to pay $1 million demonstrates success and qualifies applicants as exceptional contributors. According to the administration, entrepreneurs who built companies overseas can bring their capital and ideas to the U.S., create jobs, and stimulate economic growth across multiple sectors.

The Administration’s Economic Case for the Gold Card

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been one of the program’s most vocal advocates. He told Reuters that approximately 10,000 people signed up during a pre-registration period and predicted far greater demand ahead. “I would expect over time that we’d sell, you know, thousands of these cards and raise, you know, billions, billions of dollars,” Lutnick said.

Lutnick has argued that Gold Card holders would be a net benefit to the economy, contrasting them with what he described as “average” green card holders. He claimed that traditional green card recipients earn less than average Americans and are more likely to rely on public assistance, though he did not provide evidence to support that assertion.

The administration has portrayed the program as a fiscal tool similar to Trump’s tariff policies. By generating large sums of money from foreign applicants, officials say the program can bolster the U.S. Treasury without imposing new burdens on American taxpayers.

Legal and Ethical Criticism From Immigration Attorneys

Immigration attorneys have pushed back strongly against the idea that wealth should substitute for demonstrated ability. Emily Neumann, an immigration attorney with Reddy Neumann Brown PC, said, “Having $1 million has nothing to do with your value as a person of extraordinary ability. It doesn’t mean you are able to provide value to the United States of America.” She emphasized that EB-1 and EB-2 categories were meant for people who foster innovation and create jobs, not simply those who can write a check.

Critics also warn that the program risks sidelining genuinely accomplished professionals. Neumann cited a client from India who is a leading expert in artificial intelligence and machine learning and is working on applications to help doctors diagnose patients. Although approved for an EB-1 visa, he remains stuck waiting years for a green card.

“They’re using up a limited number of green cards meant for people who have done wonderful things,” Neumann said. “It’s a very different standard.”

Visa Caps, Country Limits, and Queue Concerns

Structural limits may further constrain the Gold Card’s reach. EB-1 and EB-2 visas are capped at roughly 28,000 per year, with no country allowed more than 7% of the total. These caps have already produced multi-year backlogs for applicants from countries such as India and China.

Immigration attorneys say demand for Gold Cards would likely be strongest in those same countries, creating a potential bottleneck. Reaz Jafri, an attorney with the international law firm Withers, warned that prioritizing Gold Card applicants could trigger lawsuits. “If ‘Gold Card’ holders will be allowed to jump the queue, there will likely be lawsuits from those currently on the wait list,” he said.

Jafri added that without guaranteed fast approval, wealthy applicants may hesitate. “And if not, who will want to pay the $1 million and then wait for three years?” he asked.

Uncertainty Around Payments and Legal Risk

Beyond wait times, uncertainty around the $1 million payment itself has made some potential applicants cautious. Attorneys say it remains unclear whether the payment is refundable, whether it is held in escrow, or when exactly it must be transferred. These unanswered questions raise concerns about financial risk.

There is also anxiety about political durability. Some wealthy applicants fear paying the fee only to see the program overturned by a court or reversed by a future administration. Dominic Volek of Henley & Partners said many clients in Taiwan, Vietnam, and Singapore are interested but waiting for legal clarity.

“They want to see the dust settle and see if there are any major legal challenges,” Volek said.

A High-Dollar Experiment With an Uncertain Future

The Trump Gold Card visa program’s rapid $1.3 billion launch underscores both the global demand for U.S. residency and the power of monetized immigration policy. For supporters, it represents a bold, business-minded approach that turns access into revenue. For critics, it is a fundamental distortion of a system meant to reward skill, innovation, and contribution rather than wealth alone.

As legal challenges loom and political scrutiny intensifies, the program’s long-term viability remains unclear. Whether the Gold Card becomes a lasting feature of U.S. immigration or a short-lived experiment will depend on court rulings, congressional response, and whether the promised economic benefits materialize. For now, it stands as one of the most striking examples of how immigration policy can be reshaped by money, power, and executive interpretation.