U.S. Citizenship Route Offered By Trump’s Gold Card Proposal

President Donald Trump’s recent proposal for a $5 million “Gold Card” has reignited the immigration debate, promising to attract wealthy investors seeking a road to U.S. citizenship while raising significant legal and ethical concerns. Announced with little substantive detail, the initiative aims to replace the EB-5 visa program, which has long provided a pathway to permanent residency for foreign investors willing to invest a minimum of $800,000 to $1.05 million in U.S. job creation. Trump’s plan envisions issuing 200,000 of these high-priced gold cards, theoretically generating $1 trillion in revenue, which his administration claims will be used to reduce the national debt. Yet, the proposal runs into a series of fundamental challenges, particularly regarding the separation of power between Congress and the executive branch, the practical feasibility of enacting such a program, and its potential to benefit foreign elites with ties to Trump himself.

Congress Controls Citizenship and Immigration Policy

While the president can influence immigration enforcement, he cannot unilaterally create or eliminate immigration pathways. The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate immigration under Article I, Section 8. The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed this plenary power, meaning that Trump’s attempt to establish a new immigration pathway without Congressional approval is not only legally questionable but also unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.

The EB-5 visa program, which Trump seeks to replace, was created by Congress in 1990 and reinforced through the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. This law secured the program until September 30, 2027, ensuring stability for investors and businesses reliant on foreign capital. Any attempt to dismantle or replace it would require legislative action, something Trump cannot achieve through executive order alone. The American Immigration Council underscores this point, “Congress holds the ultimate authority in setting and amending immigration laws, and any executive action that seeks to override existing statutes would face significant legal challenges.”

Republican Control Doesn’t Guarantee Passage

Even with a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House, Trump’s proposal faces an uphill battle. Immigration remains a divisive issue within the GOP, with many Republican lawmakers historically supporting the EB-5 program for its role in job creation and economic development. Securing the necessary votes to pass an entirely new immigration initiative is far from guaranteed.

Senate rules also present a significant hurdle. Even if a bill to enact the “Gold Card” program were introduced, it would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Given that Senate Republicans hold only a slim majority, passage would likely necessitate bipartisan support—something unlikely given the polarized nature of immigration policy. Moreover, House Republicans are not universally aligned with Trump; while some embrace his hard line stance on immigration, others prioritize business interests that favour the existing EB-5 framework.

Undermining Investor Confidence and Economic Stability

Trump’s abrupt proposal risks undermining the stability of the U.S. investment immigration system. The EB-5 program has historically provided foreign investors with a structured and reliable route to residency, incentivizing long-term capital investment in American businesses and infrastructure. A sudden shift to a radically different system, particularly one announced with little policy detail or legal framework, could deter investors from choosing the U.S. altogether.

Organizations like the American Immigration Lawyers Association warn that such policy uncertainty damages America’s credibility as an investment destination. Investors making multimillion-dollar commitments seek legal certainty, and the prospect of arbitrary changes to immigration policy discourages participation. Countries like Canada, Portugal, and Australia offer alternative investor visa programs with clear, consistent rules, which would be made more attractive if the U.S. appears unpredictable or politically unstable. Several such countries offer residency or citizenship to foreign investors willing to make substantial financial contributions. While a $5 million investment is high, New Zealand and Australia are similar.

Potential Benefits for Trump’s Business Associates

Beyond legal and economic concerns, the “Gold Card” proposal raises questions about its beneficiaries. Notably, Trump has suggested that Russian oligarchs could be eligible, stating, “I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.” This remark, coupled with his past business dealings and resistance to financial scrutiny, has fueled speculation that the program may serve as a gateway for the ultra-wealthy—particularly those with connections to Trump—to secure U.S. residency with minimal oversight.

Trump’s business empire has a long history of transactions with Russian investors. Investigative reports have highlighted how Russian elites purchased Trump-branded properties, some under opaque financial arrangements. The possibility that the “Gold Card” could provide these individuals with a legal foothold in the U.S. raises national security concerns and invites scrutiny from lawmakers and watchdog organizations.

The intertwining of immigration policy with Trump’s personal and business interests is not without precedent. During his first term, he faced allegations of using his office to benefit his real estate ventures, including efforts to secure foreign investment in his properties. Critics argue that the “Gold Card,” by allowing large, unvetted sums to flow into the U.S. in exchange for residency, could open the door for similar conflicts of interest.

A Legally and Politically Contentious Proposal

The “Gold Card” proposal is emblematic of Trump’s governing style—headline-grabbing, disruptive, and legally tenuous. However, without Congressional approval, it remains more of a political talking point than a viable policy. Even within a Republican-controlled Congress, its passage is far from assured, given the complex intra-party divisions on immigration policy. Moreover, the legal and economic uncertainties surrounding the proposal risk damaging America’s reputation as a reliable destination for foreign investors. True, it is early for the proposal since the details have yet to come. Indeed, in introducing the idea to reporters, Trump indicated that further details would be made available in two weeks. Perhaps a final judgement of the proposal will need to await the publication of these details.

Still, Trump’s plan to offer a road to U.S. citizenship raises more questions than it answers. Is this an earnest attempt to reform investment-based immigration or a politically motivated maneuver to benefit a select few? Given the president’s track record, skepticism is warranted. Investors, lawmakers, and the American public should demand transparency and legal adherence in any future immigration proposals—qualities that this initiative conspicuously lacks.