Trump ‘Gold Card’ Visa Approved for Just One Applicant So Far, Lutnick Tells Congress
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trump administration’s flagship “Gold Card” visa program has approved just a single applicant since its launch late last year, a strikingly slow rollout that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged Thursday in testimony before Congress — even as hundreds of applications remain under review.
Speaking before the House Appropriations Committee, Lutnick confirmed that only one foreign national has successfully cleared the program’s rigorous screening process and secured U.S. permanent residency through the initiative, which requires a $1 million contribution to the federal government. The identity of that applicant has not been disclosed. “This is a new program, and they’ve just set it up,” Lutnick told lawmakers. “They wanted to make sure they did it perfectly… it’s a DHS program conducted with rigorous, rigorous vetting.”
The program, formally launched through Executive Order 14351 signed by President Donald Trump in September 2025, is designed to offer a fast-track pathway to U.S. residency for wealthy foreign nationals willing to make a substantial financial contribution. It has been positioned by administration officials as a modernized, more flexible alternative to the long-standing EB-5 immigrant investor visa program.
Under the structure outlined by the administration, applicants must first pay a nonrefundable $15,000 processing fee to the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees vetting under Secretary Kristi Noem. Only after passing extensive background checks — which Lutnick has described as “the most rigorous vetting that’s ever been done on new people coming to America” — are candidates permitted to proceed with the $1 million contribution required for final approval.
Despite early expectations of strong global demand, the program’s pace has raised questions on Capitol Hill and among immigration experts. By mid-2025, Lutnick had indicated that nearly 70,000 individuals had joined a waitlist expressing interest in the program. The gap between that initial demand and the lone approval disclosed Thursday underscores the complexity of building a new immigration pathway largely from scratch within existing legal frameworks.
The administration has structured the Gold Card program to operate within current visa categories — specifically EB-1 (extraordinary ability) and EB-2 (national interest waiver) classifications — rather than creating an entirely new statutory visa class. The executive order directs agencies including Commerce, Homeland Security, and the State Department to treat a large financial “gift” to the United States as supporting evidence for eligibility under those categories.
That legal architecture has become a central point of contention. Critics argue that the executive branch may be overstepping its authority by effectively redefining congressionally established immigration standards. Tammy Fox-Isicoff, an immigration attorney at Rifkin & Fox-Isicoff PA, said bluntly: “Congress makes laws, not the President. Nothing about this program was done lawfully, including the application form.”
Other legal experts echoed similar concerns. Ronald Klasko, a founding partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, warned that the program could face significant judicial risk if courts determine plaintiffs have standing. “There is a good chance that the Gold Card will be found to be unlawful… including the lack of a statutory amendment passed by Congress,” Klasko said, also pointing to the absence of formal regulatory procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association has also weighed in. Shev Dalal-Dheini, the group’s director of government relations, emphasized that structural changes to visa categories require legislative action. “Whether you create a new category or get rid of a different category, you need a statute to do so,” she said.
Legal challenges are already underway. A federal lawsuit filed in February by the American Association of University Professors, joined by immigrant researchers, argues that the program unlawfully prioritizes wealth over merit and circumvents congressional authority. The case is expected to test the limits of executive power in immigration policy — particularly whether financial contributions can substitute for statutory eligibility criteria.
The program also introduces a corporate sponsorship tier, allowing companies to back foreign employees. Under this structure, firms pay a $15,000 processing fee per applicant and a $2 million contribution upon approval, along with ongoing maintenance and transfer fees. Administration officials have framed this feature as a tool to attract top global talent and strengthen U.S. competitiveness.
At the same time, the Gold Card initiative has stirred concern within the existing EB-5 ecosystem. The EB-5 program, established by Congress in 1990 and reauthorized in 2022 through the Reform and Integrity Act, includes investor protections — including a grandfathering provision for applicants filing before September 30, 2026. The Gold Card program, created via executive order, does not offer the same statutory safeguards.
For now, the administration is defending the slow pace as a deliberate choice rather than a flaw. Lutnick reiterated that the program’s revenue and broader economic impact will ultimately be determined by how funds are deployed. “Its terms are for the betterment of the United States of America,” he told lawmakers. “It needs to be for commerce and the betterment of the United States of America.”
Still, with only one approval against a backdrop of tens of thousands of prospective applicants, the program’s future may hinge less on demand and more on legal durability. As Congress intensifies oversight and the courts begin to weigh in, the Gold Card initiative is shaping up to be not just an immigration experiment — but a defining test of how far executive authority can stretch in reshaping the U.S. economic immigration system.
JBizNews Desk
