- Commerce Secretary Lutnick confirmed only one approval for the program by April twenty twenty-six.
- The million-dollar program faces significant tax hurdles for investors with worldwide assets.
- A federal lawsuit challenges the legal foundation of prioritizing wealth over established merit-based criteria.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told lawmakers that only one Trump Gold Card had been approved by April 2026, despite hundreds of applicants waiting in the queue. The program requires a $1,000,000 payment from an individual, a $2,000,000 contribution from a corporate sponsor and a $15,000 nonrefundable processing fee.
Applicants who receive the card are treated as U.S. permanent residents. That status generally subjects worldwide income to U.S. taxation, creating a barrier for investors whose businesses, accounts and assets span several countries.
Free toolCSPA Age-Out Calculator Online
The tax burden has become the program’s central selling problem. The proposed alternative, a $5,000,000 Platinum Card, has been marketed as allowing up to 270 days in the United States without tax on non-U.S. income.
The contrast is stark. One card demands a direct, unrecoverable payment and creates tax residency; the other promises extended stays without the same treatment.
Lutnick defended the slow rollout during testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on April 23, 2026. “The process was recently resolved with DHS. they do the most serious vetting and analysis of any potential applicant in the history of government.”
The administration has publicly launched and marketed the program through its Trump Card materials. Yet uptake remained weak through July 27, 2026, with one confirmed approval and limited evidence of completed applications.
The program asks investors to give cash, not build a recoverable investment
The payment structure differs from the established EB-5 model. Under the new program, an individual makes a direct cash “gift” to the Department of Commerce. A company can make the larger contribution to sponsor an employee.
Neither payment functions as a conventional investment that might later be recovered. That makes the upfront cost harder to justify for applicants already weighing U.S. tax exposure.
| Applicant or tier | Required payment | Stated feature |
|---|---|---|
| Individual card | $1,000,000 | Direct “unrestricted gift” to the Department of Commerce |
| Corporate card | $2,000,000 | Contribution to sponsor an employee |
| All petitioners | $15,000 | Nonrefundable processing fee |
| Proposed Platinum Card | $5,000,000 | Up to 270 days in the United States without tax on non-U.S. income |
The administration designed the program to bypass the traditional EB-5 investor visa, which requires an investment of $800,000 to $1.05 million in job-creating enterprises. The new structure instead treats a government payment as “conclusive evidence” of eligibility under existing EB-1 and EB-2 categories.
Officials argue that the approach can use existing visa numbers without new legislation. Critics say it could displace merit-based researchers and professionals because both groups draw from the same capped pools.
Applicants paid fees, but approvals remained rare
The program opened applications on December 10, 2025, after President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14351 on September 19, 2025. By May 2026, the program had received 338 requests.
Of those requests, 165 applicants had paid the $15,000 fee, while 59 had advanced to Department of Homeland Security paperwork. Only one applicant had received official approval.
The figures conflicted with Lutnick’s earlier public sales claim. In December 2025, he said the administration had “sold” $1.3 billion worth of cards in days.
Lutnick has also said the program could raise $1 trillion to pay down the national debt. His April testimony offered a different measure of progress: one completed approval and a queue of hundreds.
President Trump had addressed the tax issue in a speech to Congress on March 4, 2025.
“They (investors) won’t have to pay tax from where they came, the money that they’ve made, you wouldn’t want to do that. But they have to pay tax (in the US) and create jobs.”
The tax concern extends beyond income tax. Immigration practitioners have warned that holders could face Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act reporting and FBAR obligations involving assets outside the United States.
For tax year 2026, taxpayers generally report income and residency consequences under the rules applicable to that year. The program’s permanent-resident treatment can affect people with foreign income, accounts and investments, even when those assets remain abroad.
A proposed higher tier exposes the tax objection
The Platinum Card has not solved the concern. Instead, its marketing has highlighted it by offering a $5,000,000 contribution and a promise of up to 270 days in the country without tax on non-U.S. income.
Tax experts from Green & Spiegel and RJS Law have warned that such an exemption would require an Act of Congress. They say an executive order cannot grant that tax treatment by itself.
That leaves wealthy applicants comparing a current program with a proposed benefit whose legal basis remains disputed. The proposal also makes the ordinary card’s worldwide tax treatment more visible to potential buyers.
Michael Wildes, an immigration attorney who previously represented Melania Trump and her family, advised against retaining clients for the program.
“It would be unethical of me to retain [clients for this]. It is legally dubious. there is no congressionally established visa.”
Aaron Grau, executive director of Invest In the USA, described the program’s standing among established EB-5 professionals at a Washington conference in May 2026.
“It’s a percolating question that people talk about when they grab a beer. It’s not really a serious conversation.”
A federal lawsuit challenges the program’s legal foundation
The American Association of University Professors filed a federal lawsuit on February 3, 2026. The case, AAUP v. DHS, No. 1:26-cv-00300-RJL, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The association argues that the program unlawfully prioritizes wealth over merit-based criteria established by Congress. The challenge also targets the administration’s use of existing visa categories and numbers.
Judge Richard J. Leon was considering the government’s motion to dismiss as of June 2026. The litigation adds uncertainty to an arrangement built on executive action rather than a long-standing congressional visa category.
Practitioners have recommended that clients consider established routes such as the O-1 or EB-5 while courts or Congress address the program’s legal and tax status.
The administration’s rollout therefore faces two separate tests. It must convert applications into approvals, and it must persuade investors that a permanent-resident card justifies an irreversible seven-figure payment alongside U.S. tax exposure.
The program had 338 requests by May, but only one official approval by April testimony and limited confirmed uptake by late July. The court’s handling of the dismissal motion will shape whether that gap narrows.
