The U.S. Gold Card Program: What It Changes, What It Does Not, and Why the Risk Still Matters
On September 19, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14351, creating what is now known as the Gold Card program. The order directs the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and State to establish a process allowing a foreign national to make a large unrestricted gift to the United States government and rely on that gift as evidence in support of an immigrant visa petition under the EB-1A Extraordinary Ability or EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) categories.
As of mid-December 2025, the Gold Card program is live. DHS has launched a public facing intake process, USCIS has released Form I-140G, and the Department of Commerce has begun accepting and certifying qualifying gifts. The open questions are no longer about whether the program exists, but about how adjudicators will weigh a financial contribution against statutory merit requirements, and whether the program can withstand legal and political challenge.
To understand what the Gold Card actually changes, and where uncertainty remains, it helps to follow one hypothetical applicant.
Meet Mr. Costa: A Technology Founder Evaluating U.S. Permanent Residence
Assume Mr. Daniel Costa is a Barcelona based founder of a successful artificial intelligence company. He holds advanced technical degrees, has developed patented technology, speaks regularly at industry conferences, and has built a product with commercial traction. A United States company wants him in the country in a senior leadership or research role.
Before the Gold Card, someone in Mr. Costa’s position would typically evaluate two self sponsored employment based options: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability or EB-2 NIW. The Gold Card introduces a third option, but it does not replace the others.
EB-1A Extraordinary Ability: High Bar, Subjective Review
EB-1A requires proof of extraordinary ability demonstrated through sustained national or international acclaim. The regulations require either a major internationally recognized award or evidence satisfying multiple listed criteria, followed by a final merits determination.
For Mr. Costa, this means assembling extensive documentation. Patents with measurable commercial or industry impact, peer reviewed publications and citation records, invitations to speak at major conferences, participation as a judge or reviewer in his field, and credible media recognition. Even strong cases frequently receive Requests for Evidence. USCIS officers have wide discretion, and outcomes are not always predictable.
The core point is that EB-1A is achievement driven. Financial resources play no formal role.
EB-2 National Interest Waiver: Merit Plus U.S. Benefit
Under Matter of Dhanasar, Mr. Costa must show that his proposed work has substantial merit and national importance, that he is well positioned to advance that work, and that it benefits the United States to waive the labor certification requirement.
This path requires a coherent, evidence backed narrative explaining how his work aligns with recognized U.S. priorities, such as competitiveness in critical technologies or national security related innovation. Like EB-1A, NIW adjudication is discretionary and fact intensive. The applicant bears the burden of persuasion.
Again, the emphasis is on merit and projected benefit, not on wealth.
What the Gold Card Actually Does
The Gold Card does not create a new immigrant visa category. It does not guarantee approval. It does not add new visa numbers.
What it does is introduce a new evidentiary lever.
Executive Order 14351 instructs the Department of Commerce to accept large unrestricted gifts under existing statutory authority and issue a certification. DHS and the Department of State are directed to treat that certification as evidence relevant to eligibility under EB-1A and EB-2, including National Interest Waivers.
The order establishes two contribution thresholds:
- An individual gift of $1 million
- A corporate gift of $2 million made on the applicant’s behalf
Once Commerce accepts the gift and issues its certification, the applicant files Form I-140G under EB-1A or NIW, relying in part on that certification as supporting evidence.
The order does not state that the gift is dispositive. It does not waive statutory criteria. It directs adjudicators to consider the gift as evidence. How much weight that evidence carries remains undefined.
For Mr. Costa, the threshold question shifts. The first issue is no longer only whether he can document extraordinary ability or national importance. It is whether he is prepared to commit a large, nonrefundable sum at the outset of the process under a legal framework that has not yet been tested.
How the Gold Card Process Works Right Now
As of December 2025, the Gold Card process follows a general sequence.
The applicant initiates the process through a DHS managed intake system. A substantial DHS fee is paid for vetting and processing. The Department of Commerce reviews and accepts the qualifying gift. Commerce issues a certification. The applicant then files Form I-140G under EB-1A or NIW.
What remains unclear is how agencies will handle adverse findings after funds have been accepted, whether any escrow or refund mechanisms will exist, and how USCIS officers are being instructed to weigh the Commerce certification against traditional achievement based evidence.
Legal and Policy Fault Lines
The Gold Card rests entirely on executive authority, and that creates real pressure points.
First, statutory tension. EB-1A and EB-2 were created by Congress as merit based categories. Courts may be asked whether directing agencies to treat a financial gift as probative evidence crosses from interpretation into substantive rewriting, which would ordinarily require formal rulemaking.
Second, administrative law risk. Because the program requires irrevocable payments, litigants could plausibly seek injunctions arguing that agencies implemented a major policy change without adequate procedural safeguards.
Third, source of funds and compliance concerns. Investor visa programs such as EB-5 require extensive documentation of lawful capital. The Gold Card begins with a large gift before immigration admissibility is fully resolved. The executive order does not explain how financial vetting is sequenced or what happens if problems emerge after funds are accepted.
Fourth, visa number pressure. The Gold Card does not create additional EB-1 or EB-2 visas. Donation based applicants draw from the same capped pools. Significant uptake could influence Visa Bulletin movement even for countries that historically have not faced backlogs.
Finally, policy volatility. A future administration can narrow, suspend, or revoke the program. Courts can intervene at any stage. Applicants who commit capital early bear that risk.
Practical Takeaways for Someone Like Mr. Costa
For someone with Mr. Costa’s profile, the traditional EB-1A or NIW routes remain viable precisely because they are designed to evaluate achievement and impact. His entrepreneurial success, with patents under his name, public-facing industry recognition, and demonstrated ability to advance complex projects, aligns with the kinds of evidence these categories were meant to assess. While these paths require time, careful documentation, and patience, they involve limited financial risk and rest on well established statutory standards that have been applied and refined over many years.
The Gold Card may reduce evidentiary friction at the margins for an applicant like Mr. Costa, particularly where speed or signaling seriousness has strategic value. But it does not eliminate the need for an underlying credible EB-1A or NIW case. Instead, it substitutes traditional evidentiary record with substantial upfront capital exposure and unresolved legal risk. It is therefore not a shortcut so much as a tradeoff.
At least for now, the Gold Card is best understood as an optional overlay rather than a replacement for merit-based strategies. Until adjudication patterns stabilize and anticipated legal challenges are resolved, applicants should assume that money alone will not carry the case and that the overall risk profile differs materially from conventional EB-1A or NIW filings.
Who the Gold Card Is Not For
The Gold Card is being marketed broadly, but in practice it is a narrow tool.
It is not for applicants who lack a credible EB-1A or NIW profile. The executive order does not eliminate statutory requirements, and USCIS officers cannot approve petitions based on money alone. If an applicant could not plausibly qualify without the gift, the Gold Card is unlikely to rescue the case.
It is not for risk averse applicants. The gift is made early, appears to be nonrefundable, and the program rests entirely on executive authority. Applicants who require certainty should assume the worst case scenario.
It is not for applicants sensitive to policy volatility. A future administration could suspend or terminate the program, and courts could intervene mid process. Applicants must be comfortable with that possibility.
It is not for applicants seeking a lower cost or simplified option. The Gold Card replaces evidentiary work with capital risk and adds significant government fees.
Finally, it is not for applicants who view the contribution as a purchase of immigration status. That framing misunderstands both the law and the adjudication process.
Choosing Between EB-1A, EB-2 NIW, and the Gold Card
For founders, executives, and technical leaders, the decision is less about baseline eligibility and more about risk tolerance, timing, and strategy.
EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
This path makes sense when the applicant has a strong public record of achievement and prefers to invest time and effort rather than capital. It offers long term durability because it rests squarely on statute and decades of case law. The tradeoff is subjectivity and unpredictability.
EB-2 National Interest Waiver
NIW is often the most flexible option for founders and innovators whose work aligns with U.S. priorities but whose acclaim is still emerging. It allows a forward looking narrative and can be highly effective when well supported, though it remains discretionary.
Gold Card Overlay
The Gold Card is not a separate path but an overlay on EB-1A or NIW. It may reduce evidentiary friction or signal seriousness, but it introduces substantial upfront financial exposure and legal uncertainty.
This option makes sense only when three conditions are met. The applicant already has a credible EB-1A or NIW case. Speed or strategic positioning has material value. The applicant can absorb the loss of the gift if the petition fails or the program changes.
For everyone else, the Gold Card is a high risk instrument that should be approached with caution.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Gold Card Program
Does the Gold Card guarantee approval of an EB-1A or EB-2 NIW petition?
No. The underlying statutory requirements remain in place. The gift is evidence, not a waiver.
Is the $1 million or $2 million gift refundable if the petition is denied?
There is no published refund or escrow mechanism. Applicants should assume the gift is nonrefundable.
How is the Gold Card different from the EB-5 investor visa?
EB-5 is a statutory program enacted by Congress that requires an at risk investment tied to job creation. The Gold Card involves an unrestricted gift and operates entirely within existing EB categories through executive action.
Is the Gold Card likely to face legal challenges?
Yes. Statutory authority and administrative law challenges are plausible and should be expected.
When is the gift made in the process?
Commerce acceptance and certification occur early, before final immigration adjudication. The precise sequencing and safeguards remain unclear.
Does the Gold Card create new green cards?
No. It draws from existing EB-1 and EB-2 visa numbers.
Who should seriously consider the Gold Card?
Applicants with strong underlying credentials who value speed or signaling and who can tolerate capital risk and policy uncertainty. It is not well suited for applicants relying on the gift to compensate for weak merit evidence.
