The Administration’s new “Gold Card” program has sparked wide interest in the immigration community. The concept is simple: individuals gift a contribution of $1 million to the U.S. government to receive a “Gold Card”, while corporations can contribute $2 million on behalf of an employee to secure a “Corporate Gold Card.” These contributions are non-refundable and are intended to serve as evidence toward EB-1A (extraordinary ability) EB-2 (exceptional ability), and EB-2 NIW.
At this point, however, many questions remain unanswered. It is unclear whether spouses and children will qualify as dependents or will each require an individual contribution. Processing details are also vague— what type of vetting process will be required, which government agency will oversee applications and how long applicants can expect adjudication. Applications are expected through a new portal, trumpcard.gov, but applications are not yet enabled.
When compared to the long-established EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, the Gold Card remains far more uncertain. EB-5 grants benefits to investors and their families who complete an at-risk investment—currently $800,000 in a Targeted Employment Area—that directly creates at least ten U.S. jobs. EB-5 investors expect to recover their capital at the end of the investment cycle with a possibility of returns, while Gold Card contributions are gifts to the government with no potential for repayment or profit. EB-5 is firmly rooted in U.S. law, originally created through the Immigration Act of 1990 and most recently strengthened by the Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA), which provides compliance requirements and investor protections. EB-5 investors who petition on or before September 30, 2026, are legislatively protected under the RIA from future actions. The Gold Card, by contrast, could be reversed or altered by a future administration without notice. There is also the looming possibility of litigation, since the program is based solely on executive order without statutory grounding.
The economic impact of the two programs also differs significantly. EB-5 has delivered measurable benefits by supporting infrastructure, real estate development, and local job creation across the country. The Gold Card does not have any job creation or development component—it functions as a revenue stream for the U.S. Treasury and Department of Commerce.
Furthermore, visa numbers remain subject to statutory limits with the Gold Card tying applicants into already backlogged EB-1 and EB-2 categories, particularly for investors from India and China. EB-5 operates under its own visa quota that can often provide more favorable timelines.
For families, EB-5 provides clear advantages. Spouses and minor children are included automatically as derivatives in the application, whereas it is still unclear how dependents will be treated under the Gold Card. From a cost perspective, EB-5 requires a lower outlay ($800,000 in a TEA) than the Gold Card’s $1 million to $2 million requirement, while also offering the potential to recover capital.
Ultimately, the Gold Card may prove to be a symbolic initiative. its immigration value remains uncertain and legally vulnerable. EB-5 continues to stand as the proven pathway for investors seeking U.S. permanent residency. It combines capital preservation, job creation, family security, and statutory stability, while ensuring that investor dollars contribute to local American communities and economic growth.
For investors evaluating their options, the bottom line is clear: the Gold Card is a donation with no guarantee of durability, while EB-5 remains a reliable program to achieve U.S. Permanent Residency.