Trump’s proposed Gold Card visa, which allows individuals to invest $5 million in exchange for a fast-tracked path to American citizenship, is an ambitious policy that aims to attract high-net-worth individuals looking for a foothold in the U.S. economy. However, while it may sound like a lucrative opportunity for wealthy investors, its practicality as a hiring tool for American businesses, particularly for foreign professionals such as Indians, remains highly questionable. The fundamental flaw in this proposal is that it attempts to use an investor-centric visa as a means to address a labor market issue. The existing employment-based visa system, primarily the H-1B visa, has long been the preferred choice for both employers and skilled professionals, offering a much more affordable and practical route for talent acquisition.
To understand the implications of the Gold Card visa, it is essential to compare it with the existing EB-5 investor visa, which has been available for decades. The EB-5 program requires individuals to invest at least $1 million (or $800,000 in targeted employment areas) and create a minimum of ten jobs in the U.S. in order to qualify for a Green Card. Over the past decade, around 3,800 Indians have used this pathway to secure residency in the United States. However, the Gold Card visa significantly raises the stakes, demanding a $5 million investment—five times more than the EB-5 requirement—without offering additional clarity on job creation requirements or benefits beyond a fast-tracked path to citizenship.
One of the biggest questions surrounding this policy is whether American businesses would actually opt to use an investment visa like the Gold Card to hire employees. The answer is almost certainly no. The H-1B visa remains the most viable and cost-effective pathway for skilled workers, particularly in fields like technology, engineering, finance, and healthcare. Every year, the U.S. issues 65,000 H-1B visas through a lottery system, with an additional 20,000 visas allocated to individuals holding advanced degrees from U.S. institutions. In the 2022-23 cycle, Indians dominated this category, securing 72% of all H-1B visas. This visa, despite its limitations, is relatively inexpensive for employers, with application costs ranging from $2,010 to $7,380—an amount that is negligible when compared to the staggering $5 million price tag attached to the Gold Card visa.
Trump has argued that the Gold Card visa would help retain talented foreign graduates from top-tier American universities, such as Harvard and the Wharton School of Business, who often receive job offers but face uncertainty regarding their ability to remain in the country due to immigration restrictions. His assertion that these students return to India, China, or other home countries and build billion-dollar enterprises that contribute to their local economies is not incorrect. However, the proposed solution does not effectively address the root of the issue. Instead of introducing an expensive investor visa, a more effective approach would be to expand the number of H-1B visas available or introduce policy reforms that offer a clearer path to permanent residency for highly skilled professionals.
The reality is that the demand for H-1B visas far exceeds supply, leading to an annual lottery system that leaves many qualified applicants without an opportunity to work in the U.S. This scarcity has led to calls for immigration reform, but instead of addressing these concerns, Trump’s Gold Card proposal introduces a high-cost alternative that is unlikely to be utilized by businesses. From an employer’s perspective, hiring talent is fundamentally a return-on-investment (RoI) decision. Companies in the tech sector, financial services, and other industries that rely on global talent typically seek skilled professionals at competitive salaries to maximize productivity and efficiency. If the cost of hiring one employee through an H-1B visa is less than $8,000, why would any rational business spend $5 million on a Gold Card visa for a single individual?
The proposal has also drawn humorous reactions from the Indian community. Comedian Atul Khatri pointed out that for a fraction of the cost, one could buy property in Dubai for $550,000, rent it out, and obtain a UAE Golden Visa, which offers residency without the need for a massive financial outlay. Meanwhile, comedian Danish Sait quipped that for those unable to secure a Gold Card or a Green Card, there is always the Aadhaar card in India. These reactions reflect the widespread skepticism toward Trump’s proposal, which many see as a policy that caters exclusively to ultra-wealthy individuals rather than addressing genuine immigration and workforce challenges.
Chris Hoffmann, a business strategist, has suggested that if the goal is to attract the most successful entrepreneurs and enterprising families, the cost of the Gold Card visa should be adjusted based on an applicant’s home country. He argues that while $5 million may be achievable for the top 0.1% of individuals in developed economies, it is an unrealistic threshold for professionals from many other countries, including India, where the primary motivation for seeking U.S. employment is career advancement rather than wealth migration.
Some proponents of the Gold Card visa, such as Indian-origin business development executive Ravinder Syal, have suggested that companies could use it as a tool to reward top-performing employees. Under this model, businesses investing in key U.S. industries could offer the Gold Card visa as an incentive for exceptional talent, effectively linking it to re-industrialization efforts. While this idea is interesting, it does not present a scalable or sustainable solution to the broader labor market needs of American companies. The vast majority of businesses seek efficient and cost-effective methods for talent acquisition, and a $5 million investment per employee is not a viable approach.
At its core, the Gold Card visa seems more like a rebranded, more expensive version of the EB-5 visa rather than a genuine alternative to employment-based immigration programs like the H-1B. While it may attract ultra-high-net-worth individuals who see value in securing U.S. residency for personal or business reasons, it does not offer any meaningful benefits to the vast majority of foreign professionals, including Indians, who are looking for employment opportunities in the U.S. The primary obstacle facing skilled workers is not the lack of an investor visa, but rather the limited number of employment-based visas and the bureaucratic hurdles associated with securing long-term residency.
In conclusion, Trump’s Gold Card visa is unlikely to provide any real benefits to either American businesses or Indian professionals. It is an expensive investor visa masquerading as a job-creation tool, but in practice, it does not address the key challenges faced by employers and skilled foreign workers. The policy is detached from economic realities and workforce demands, making it an impractical alternative to the H-1B system. If the goal is to attract and retain global talent, the focus should be on expanding and reforming employment-based visa programs rather than introducing exorbitantly priced investor schemes that serve a very limited audience.
