On September 19, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order officially creating the “Gold Card” program, a new immigration pathway that allows wealthy individuals and corporations to secure accelerated U.S. residency in exchange for large financial contributions. The move has already sparked debate, as it combines elements of economic policy, immigration reform, and political strategy.
What the Gold Card Program Offers
Under the newly launched initiative, individual applicants can obtain permanent residency in the United States by investing $1 million (approximately R$5.32 million). For corporate entities, the minimum investment is doubled to $2 million (R$10.2 million).
While the program promises faster visa processing compared to traditional immigration channels, applicants will still undergo background checks and eligibility reviews by the Department of Homeland Security. This ensures that individuals admitted under the Gold Card framework meet basic national security and legal requirements.
Announcing the program on his social platform, Truth Social, Trump framed the Gold Card as a long-overdue reform to a “broken” immigration system.
“For too long, millions of illegal immigrants have entered our country, overwhelming our system. Now it is time for the American people and American taxpayers to finally benefit from our legal immigration process,” Trump wrote.
His statement reflects a dual approach: restricting unauthorized migration while creating opportunities for high-net-worth individuals who can directly contribute to the U.S. economy.
The Gold Card bears similarities to investment-based immigration models in other countries, such as Portugal’s “Golden Visa” or Canada’s Investor Visa Program. The United States has long had its own EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, which requires foreigners to invest at least $800,000 in job-creating projects.
However, the Gold Card program differs by presenting a simpler and more direct framework, without the same emphasis on job creation. Instead, the program focuses primarily on the financial commitment itself, making it potentially more attractive to global elites seeking residency rights in the United States.
Economic and Political Implications
Economically, the program is designed to attract billions of dollars in foreign investment. Analysts expect the Gold Card to boost demand for U.S. real estate, business ventures, and financial markets as wealthy applicants seek qualifying investment opportunities.
Politically, the initiative underscores Trump’s long-standing stance on immigration: tough restrictions on illegal entry, combined with preferential treatment for those who can pay. This dual message appeals to his conservative voter base while signaling to international investors that the United States remains open for business.
Critics, however, argue that such programs create an unequal immigration system, favoring the wealthy while leaving ordinary migrants at a disadvantage. Advocacy groups have warned that the Gold Card may deepen perceptions of immigration as a privilege reserved for elites, rather than a process rooted in fairness.
The Gold Card is not Trump’s only recent immigration policy announcement. Earlier this year, he proposed a $100,000 annual fee for H-1B visa holders, a move that alarmed the tech sector. Together, these policies reflect a broader attempt to reshape the U.S. immigration landscape around economic contributions and national interests.
Whether the Gold Card program will face legal challenges or congressional opposition remains uncertain. What is clear is that it positions the United States as a more aggressive competitor in the global market for high-net-worth migrants.
Trump’s Gold Card initiative signals a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy. By placing a price tag of $1 million on permanent residency, the administration is seeking to generate revenue, attract foreign investment, and reinforce the principle that legal immigration should benefit the American people first.
As the program rolls out, it will likely spark both enthusiasm from investors and criticism from those who view it as deepening inequalities within the immigration system.
