Pay to Enter America. Only Five Million Dollars. You’re Special, Most likely Ultra Privileged, too. The kind of Folks Trump Loves. The more Money You Got, the more Special you’ll be Treated. Trump lives him some Rich Folks.

TRUMP is acting like America is more Broke than a broken egg shell. Folks, you ain’t seen Broke Yet!

Broke is $4 Trillion Dollars of added National Debt for Passing Trump’s Big Beautiful Tax Bill.

(SMH)

President Donald Trump has indeed announced a “Gold Card” program, also referred to as the “Trump Card,” which offers a pathway to legal U.S. residency for wealthy foreign investors at a cost of $5 million. This program is intended to replace or function as a high-dollar alternative to the existing EB-5 visa program.

As of mid-June 2025, the program has a waiting list that has attracted a significant number of sign-ups. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has stated that nearly 70,000 people have signed up for the waitlist for the $5 million “Trump Card.” It’s important to note that these are sign-ups for a waitlist and not actual sales or issued cards, as the program is not yet fully available for purchase.

$5 million Trump Gold Cards times 70,000 is $350 billion (350,000,000,000).

The Trump administration has suggested that this initiative could generate substantial revenue, with Trump himself musing that selling a million cards could bring in $5 trillion. However, there are legal questions surrounding the program’s implementation, as any new visa program typically requires Congressional approval.

While there’s a confirmed waitlist of nearly 70,000 people for the “Trump Card” (Gold Card), specific numbers from each country are not publicly available.

The website for the program (Trumpcard.gov) does ask applicants to choose their region from a list of eight options:

• Europe
• Asia (including the Middle East)
• North America
• Oceania
• Central America
• South America
• Caribbean
• Africa

However, the administration has not released a breakdown of how many sign-ups have come from each of these regions, let alone individual countries. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has mentioned promoting the visa to foreign dignitaries in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, suggesting interest from those areas, but no specific figures have been provided.

A “Gold Card” (or “Trump Card”) as proposed by President Donald Trump would not grant immigrants privileges above regular American citizens. Instead, it is designed to offer a streamlined and expedited pathway to legal U.S. residency (similar to a green card) and eventually citizenship for wealthy foreign investors.

Here’s a breakdown of what the “Gold Card” is intended to offer, and how it compares to the rights of U.S. citizens:

Intended Benefits of the “Gold Card”:

• Permanent Residency: The primary benefit is obtaining legal permanent residency in the U.S., allowing the holder to live and work permanently in the country. This is similar to what a “green card” provides.
• Pathway to Citizenship: The program would offer a direct route to U.S. citizenship after a certain period (likely five years, similar to naturalization for green card holders).
• Simplified Process: It’s envisioned as a faster and less bureaucratic way to achieve residency compared to existing investor visa programs like the EB-5, which have more complex requirements for job creation and business investment.
• Potential Tax Benefits (Debated): Trump has suggested that Gold Card holders might only be taxed on income earned within the U.S., potentially exempting foreign income. However, this is a highly debated point and would likely require significant changes to existing tax law by Congress to be implemented. Current U.S. residents are subject to taxes on their worldwide income.
• No Job Creation Requirement (Potentially): Unlike the EB-5 visa, which requires creating a certain number of jobs, the Gold Card funds would reportedly go directly to the U.S. government (e.g., for deficit reduction) and may not have a job creation mandate.

Privileges of U.S. Citizens vs. Immigrants (including “Gold Card” holders):

U.S. citizens have fundamental rights and privileges that immigrants, even those with permanent residency, do not automatically possess:

• Voting Rights: Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections.
• Holding Federal Office: Only U.S. citizens can hold most federal elected offices.
• Unrestricted Travel (Passport): U.S. citizens have a U.S. passport, allowing for unrestricted entry and exit from the U country. Permanent residents may face more scrutiny upon re-entry and generally have less universal travel privileges.
• Protection from Deportation: U.S. citizens cannot be deported from the country. Permanent residents, while having many rights, can still be deported under certain circumstances (e.g., serious criminal offenses).
• Certain Government Jobs: Some government jobs are restricted to U.S. citizens.
• Jury Duty: U.S. citizens are eligible for jury duty.

In essence, the “Gold Card” is presented as a high-cost, fast-track method for wealthy individuals to gain legal permanent residency and eventually citizenship, thus gaining the rights and responsibilities that come with those statuses. It does not confer any “super-citizen” status or privileges beyond those of regular American citizens. Many experts also raise questions about the program’s legality and whether it can be implemented without Congressional approval, particularly regarding any proposed tax exemptions.

The stated purpose of the “Gold Card” program, as outlined by President Trump and his administration, is for the funds to go directly to the U.S. government.

Specifically, the revenue generated from the sale of these $5 million cards is intended to be used to:

• Reduce the national debt/budget deficit: This is a key objective frequently cited by President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. They envision the program as a way to raise substantial revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
• Fund other government programs or initiatives: While deficit reduction is the primary stated goal, the general idea is that these funds would become part of the U.S. government’s overall budget.

It’s important to understand that this program is presented as a government revenue-generating initiative, not a personal fundraising effort for President Trump. The $5 million fee for the “Gold Card” is described as a payment to the U.S. government, unlike the EB-5 program where funds are invested in private businesses.

However, there are ongoing legal and practical questions about the program’s implementation, including whether the President has the authority to create such a visa category without Congressional approval. Also, the actual demand for a $5 million non-returnable payment for residency is a subject of debate among experts.

While the “Gold Card” program is designed to attract wealthy individuals from around the world, including from countries like Russia and China, there are specific U.S. immigration laws and, in some cases, additional executive actions that can affect eligibility for nationals of certain countries.

General Principles:

• Vetting: All applicants for any U.S. visa or immigration benefit, including the proposed “Gold Card,” must undergo comprehensive background checks by Homeland Security. As discussed, this includes screening for criminal records, national security concerns, and other grounds of inadmissibility.
• No “Super-Citizen” Status: The ability to pay $5 million does not exempt an individual from U.S. immigration laws, nor does it grant them privileges above regular American citizens.

Specific to Russia, China, and North Korea:

• Russia and China: There are no explicit blanket bans on Russian or Chinese nationals applying for investor visas. In fact, Chinese nationals have historically been the largest group of applicants for the existing EB-5 investor visa program due to the large number of wealthy individuals in China. Similarly, wealthy Russians could theoretically be eligible. However, individuals from these countries, especially those with ties to their governments or certain industries, may face enhanced scrutiny due to national security concerns, human rights issues, or other foreign policy considerations.
  • For example, the U.S. has imposed visa restrictions on certain Chinese officials due to actions related to human rights or censorship.
  • Similarly, U.S. sanctions against certain Russian oligarchs and entities due to the conflict in Ukraine could complicate their ability to participate in such a program.
• North Korea: North Korea is a highly sanctioned country, and its citizens face significant restrictions on travel to and immigration to the United States. While the recent “travel ban” proclamation by President Trump (effective June 9, 2025) did not include North Korea, the U.S. generally maintains very limited diplomatic relations with North Korea, and the entry of North Korean nationals is heavily restricted. It is highly unlikely that a North Korean national, even a wealthy one, would be able to successfully obtain a “Gold Card” given the comprehensive sanctions and national security concerns surrounding the regime.

In summary:

The “Gold Card” is theoretically open to wealthy individuals from any country who meet the financial requirement and pass the stringent background checks. However, geopolitical considerations, national security concerns, and specific U.S. laws and sanctions can create additional hurdles or outright bars for individuals from certain nations, particularly those considered adversarial or highly scrutinized by the U.S. government. The program is explicitly designed for “world-class global citizens,” implying a vetting process that goes beyond just financial capacity.

You’ve hit on a common and significant criticism of programs like the “Gold Card.” Many people, including immigration advocates, legal experts, and even some politicians, find such “pay-to-play” immigration schemes deeply concerning and potentially “creepy” for several reasons:

1. Undermines the principle of fairness: For millions of “legitimate” immigrants who have navigated complex, lengthy, and often financially burdensome processes based on family ties, employment skills, or humanitarian grounds, the idea that someone can simply “buy” their way into the country for a large sum of money feels inherently unfair. It suggests that wealth is a more valued criterion than other contributions or needs.
2. Creates a two-tiered system: Critics argue that it establishes a system where citizenship or permanent residency becomes a commodity for the rich, while those without vast sums of money face increasing barriers and restrictions. This can deepen societal divisions and undermine the ideal of equal opportunity.
3. Devalues the concept of citizenship: When residency or citizenship can be purchased, it can be seen as reducing these statuses to a transaction rather than something earned through contributing to the community, abiding by laws, or demonstrating a commitment to the country.
4. Moral and ethical concerns: Beyond fairness, there are moral and ethical questions about whether a nation should “sell” access to its society. It can be perceived as prioritizing financial gain over other values, such as humanitarian concerns, family reunification, or the integration of diverse communities.
5. Potential for abuse: While background checks are stated, critics worry that programs focused solely on wealth could be more susceptible to illicit funds or individuals seeking to evade legal scrutiny in their home countries.
6. Ignores existing immigration challenges: Many argue that the focus should be on fixing the existing, often backlogged and inefficient, legal immigration pathways, rather than creating new, exclusive ones for the ultra-wealthy.
7. Impact on existing programs: The “Gold Card” is positioned as a replacement or alternative to the EB-5 visa, which is also an investor visa but has more stringent job-creation requirements and a lower investment threshold. The shift to a much higher price point and potentially no job creation requirements is seen by some as a step backward in terms of economic benefit to communities.

While proponents argue that such programs can bring economic benefits by attracting wealthy individuals who will invest and pay taxes, the criticisms regarding fairness and the potential for a commodified immigration system are strong and widely voiced.