Trump Administration Faces Lawsuit Over $1M ‘Trump Gold Card’ Visa Program For The Wealthy
The Trump administration is being sued over its controversial “Trump Gold Card” visa program, a new immigration initiative that allows wealthy foreign applicants to obtain U.S. permanent residency in exchange for large payments.
Critics say the program amounts to a pay-to-play scheme that bypasses decades of immigration law and disadvantages highly skilled professionals waiting in line for visas.
What the “Gold Card” Program Is
The so-called Trump Golden Card was introduced in 2025 through an executive order and later implemented by the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Commerce.
Instead of creating a new visa category, the program uses existing employment-based visa categories, the EB-1 “extraordinary ability” and EB-2 national interest waiver visas, and allows wealthy foreigners to qualify for them by paying at least $1 million (or $2 million if sponsored by a corporation).
Officials treat the payment as proof that the individual will “substantially benefit the United States,” effectively granting them a fast track to residency without the traditional merit-based criteria.
The program differs markedly from the longstanding EB-5 investor visa, which requires a qualifying capital investment and the creation of at least 10 full-time U.S. jobs.
What Is the Trump Gold Card?
The Trump Gold Card is a visa program based on an applicant’s ability to provide what the administration defines as a “substantial benefit” to the United States. To apply, individuals must first pay a non-refundable $15,000 processing fee to the Department of Homeland Security.
Once the fee is received, applications are handled on an expedited basis, provided all required documents and additional payments are submitted promptly.
According to program guidelines, applicants must make a $1 million “gift” after completing security and background vetting. This payment is treated as evidence that the applicant offers a substantial benefit to the U.S.
Depending on individual circumstances, applicants may also be required to pay additional fees to the U.S. Department of State during the visa adjudication process.
Unlike the existing EB-5 investor visa, the Trump Gold Card does not require job creation, nor does it mandate investment in specific economic development projects. Critics say this distinction makes the program fundamentally different from traditional investor-based immigration pathways.
Legal Challenge: Wealth Over Merit
On February 3, 2026, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) joined by immigrant professionals and advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the program as unlawful.
The plaintiffs argue that the Gold Card violates both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act because it was created without clear statutory authority from Congress.
The complaint contends that by converting existing EB-1 and EB-2 visa categories into a “paid fast lane,” the government circumvented the legal immigration framework established by Congress, which prioritizes applicants based on accomplishments and benefit to the U.S., not wealth alone.
The lawsuit also asserts that giving paid priority to these applicants will increase wait times for skilled professionals, including scientists, engineers, and researchers, who have been waiting for visas under the existing system.
In statements supporting the lawsuit, AAUP President Todd Wolfson called the Gold Card program a scheme that privileges the wealthy at the expense of immigrants, higher education, and the broader public interest.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that Congress clearly defined how EB-1 and EB-2 visas should be allocated and that substituting money for merit undermines those statutes.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Commerce, which helps administer the program, defended it as a way to ensure the immigration system “prioritizes those with a demonstrated track record of success and who will contribute to America’s economic resurgence.” However, the statement stopped short of directly addressing the lawsuit’s legal claims.
Broader Context and Impact
The lawsuit reflects wider concerns about how the Trump administration has reshaped immigration policy. Critics argue that the Gold Card program prioritizes financial capacity over merit, a departure from the traditional U.S. immigration system that favors extraordinary ability, job creation, and national interest.
They say this could deepen inequities and worsen visa backlogs, especially in categories already strained by demand.
The plaintiffs include professionals from a range of fields, from biomedical research to psychology, who argue they have followed legal pathways to permanent residence but now face extended delays because wealthy applicants are being given preferential treatment.
If the court agrees with the plaintiffs, it could block the program and set a legal precedent limiting executive actions that reinterpret existing visa categories without congressional approval.
What Happens Next
The case, American Association of University Professors v. Department of Homeland Security, is expected to proceed through federal court in the coming months. Plaintiffs are seeking a ruling that the Gold Card program is unlawful and an injunction preventing its further implementation.
