President Trump’s “Gold Card” program

 

Executive Order and Timeline 

On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order to create a “Gold Card” program for high-net-worth individuals, with implementing processes to be established within 90 days. If agencies meet that deadline, initial procedures could be in place by late December 2025. Actual launch will depend on rulemaking, interagency coordination, and operational readiness.

Costs 

• ·     $1 million for an individual applicant.
• ·       $2 million for a corporate nomination of an individual.
• ·       $5 million for a special tax designation. Note: this figure is described as appearing on the White House’s Gold Card website rather than in the Executive Order itself.

Open Questions

1. What are the procedures for expedited processing based on a monetary gift or contribution to the United States?
2. Which existing immigration processes will be modified, and what new processes (if any) will be created?
3. Will the Gold Card be a temporary (nonimmigrant) classification or an immigrant pathway to permanent residence?
4. How will Gold Card holders be taxed at the federal and state levels, and will any special tax regime apply?

Likely Process Flow:

If structured as an immigrant pathway: file an immigrant petition with USCIS: applicants in the U.S. could file adjustment of status, while those abroad would complete consular processing for an immigrant visa.

If structured as a non-immigrant classification: file a petition with USCIS and apply for a visa abroad (or change status in the U.S.), with any future green card step requiring a separate immigrant process.

“Immigrant Visa” Considerations

An immigrant visa is issued to an applicant outside the U.S. for entry as a lawful permanent resident (LPR). Upon admission, the individual becomes an LPR and later receives a green card by mail.

Immigrant visa benefits attach to individuals; companies cannot receive immigrant visas. If a corporate “nomination” is contemplated, it would likely mean a corporate payment or sponsorship mechanism supporting an individual applicant, not the issuance of status to a company.

Corporate Payment on Behalf of Individuals

Corporations could choose to fund an individual’s application for retention or control reasons. However, under current U.S. immigration law, LPR status belongs to the individual, not the employer. While employers can sponsor and later withdraw certain petitions, they cannot “own” or control a person’s permanent resident status. Any corporate nomination framework that effectively conditions or controls LPR status would require significant legal changes.

Feasibility and Legal Changes

An individual-based immigrant option could potentially be implemented within existing statutory categories if the Executive Order directs agencies to interpret existing criteria (subject to legal limits) rather than create new rights. A corporate nomination mechanism that confers special immigration or tax outcomes would likely require statutory amendments.

A “special tax designation” would almost certainly require legislation and coordinated regulatory updates to the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury regulations, in addition to immigration rules.

Potential Immigration Categories

EB-2 (including National Interest Waiver): The Executive Order reportedly states that an unrestricted gift of at least $1 million can demonstrate “exceptional ability” and support a national interest waiver. If adopted, that points toward EB-2 NIW as the likely vehicle. However, EB-2 has significant visa backlogs for some nationalities and periods.

EB-1A (extraordinary ability): Generally has shorter or no backlogs (except for certain countries at times), but the statutory standard is high. Recasting a monetary contribution as evidence of extraordinary ability would be a substantial departure and likely require legal change.

EB-5 (immigrant investors): EB-5 is statutory and administered under detailed congressional mandates. Using EB-5 for a non-investment gift/contribution model would require congressional action and structural changes to the program.

Backlogs and Attractiveness

If routed through EB-2, backlogs could diminish the program’s appeal. EB-1A would be more attractive from a timing perspective but is harder to fit without statutory or regulatory overhaul.

Tax Implications

Unless a new statute creates a distinct regime, LPRs and residents for tax purposes are generally taxed on worldwide income. Any “special tax designation” for gold card holders to avoid taxation on worldwide income would need legislative authority and detailed implementing rules. State tax treatment may vary. However, without such special tax designation, the gold card would be a lot less attractive.

Bottom Line

A Gold Card pathway grounded in existing immigrant categories (most plausibly EB-2 NIW) is conceivable but would be constrained by backlogs and statutory standards.

Corporate nomination and any special tax status appear to require significant statutory and regulatory changes.

Timelines beyond initial procedural announcements are uncertain and depend on rulemaking, interagency guidance, and potential litigation.