President Donald Trump unveiled plans to sell a “gold card” visa for $5m in his first cabinet meeting. The visa would offer wealthy buyers’ permanent residency in the US and a path to citizenship. While the plan aims to attract foreign investment and stimulate economic growth, it raises several concerns related to national security, potential housing market inflation, limited broad-based economic benefits, and inevitable political backlash; its impact falls short of expectations. Investment-based immigration programs, such as the EB-5 visa program, already offer pathways for foreign investors to contribute to the economy through job creation and infrastructure projects. Rather than introducing a high-priced visa that could exacerbate economic inequality, the U.S. could refine and enhance these existing programs to maximize their effectiveness.
Congress established the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program in 1990 to create jobs and foreign investment. Following the program, investors spend about $1 million on a company that employs at least 10 people who can qualify for a visa and a pathway to permanent residency. According to the Homeland Security Department’s most recent Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, about 8,000 people obtained investor visas in the 12 months. The U.S. economy fundamentally differs from the economies of smaller nations that have successfully implemented golden visa programs. Countries like Portugal and Greece used these visas to gain much-needed foreign capital during economic downturns. The U.S., however, is already one of the world’s largest and most stable economies, with an extensive system for attracting investors through various existing visas, such as the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. A neoteric gold visa won’t significantly increase foreign investment beyond its current programs.
While Trump views a gold visa as a tool to drive economic growth, such programs have historically presented several risks and unintended consequences. In 2025, the golden visa legislation existed in over 100 countries worldwide. These programs are popular in Europe, the Caribbean, Asia, and the Middle East. Countries like Greece, Spain, and the United Kingdom have implemented such programs to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into struggling economies, revitalizing real estate markets and increasing government revenues. Several programs have been scrutinized for enabling money laundering, tax evasion, and economic bubbles, particularly in real estate. “Granting nationality, and thereby EU citizenship, in return for pre-determined payments or investments without any genuine link to the member state concerned undermines the essence of EU citizenship.” The European Union has cracked down on golden visa programs, arguing that they grant undue influence on foreign investors while bypassing standard immigration protocols.
Many countries implementing these programs have struggled to ensure proper vetting, leading to concerns about money laundering and illicit activities. If U.S. gold visas were poorly regulated, it could open the door for foreign oligarchs, corrupt officials, or even criminal enterprises seeking legal residency in the United States. At Trump’s first cabinet meeting, he was asked if Russian oligarchs would be eligible; Trump added: “Yeah, possibly. I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people. It’s possible. They’re not as wealthy as they used to be. I think they can afford $5 million.” Concerns persist about the effectiveness of such background checks, particularly given past instances where individuals with questionable associations have invested in U.S. properties. For example, a 2017 Reuters investigation revealed that under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, 63 individuals with Russian passports or addresses invested nearly $100 million in Trump-branded properties in southern Florida. Experts like Professor Biswajit Dhar have highlighted that the specifics of the vetting process remain unclear, especially concerning applicants like Russian oligarchs. He also noted that similar “golden visa” programs in other countries have been associated with money laundering and attracting corrupt businessmen, underscoring the need for rigorous background checks to prevent misuse.
Trump’s brand is deeply tied to nationalism and “America First” policies, making a gold visa initiative a tough sell politically. His core supporters have largely backed his hardline immigration policies, often criticizing programs that allow wealthy foreigners to “buy” their way into the U.S. If Trump were to endorse a gold visa, it could be perceived as a contradiction to rhetoric against immigrants with financial resources to enter the country. While the EB-5 visa in the United States claims to create jobs, an audit of the program by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2020 found that nearly 20% of projects funded by the program didn’t create the required number of jobs. Given the existing difficulties with EB-5, implementing a gold visa program would encounter similar concerns about effectiveness and oversight. In certain countries, golden visa programs have contributed to housing market inflation, making real estate unaffordable for residents. If implemented in the U.S., a gold visa could exacerbate housing affordability issues in major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Miami.
Ultimately, the success of any immigration program depends on how it aligns with national priorities and public sentiment. Given Trump’s historical stance on immigration, his supporters may find it difficult to reconcile a program that grants special privileges to the wealthy. Unless adequately structured and regulated, a Trump-backed gold visa could become another controversial initiative with limited long-term benefits. Instead of introducing a new gold visa, the U.S. must refine existing investment-based immigration programs to ensure they effectively contribute to economic growth without creating undue risks or inequalities.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Anoussa is the Director, United Nations Representative for a UN Global Compact member organization. Her work at the UN allowed her to develop expertise in international relations and advocacy. She holds a BA in Political Science and History from Fordham and an MS in Global Affairs from New York University.
Read the full article here
