EB5

Trump Gold Card Legal Basis: Does It Need Congress?

09/10/2026 EB5 5 min read

Trump Gold Card Legal Basis: Can a President Create a US$5 Million Green Card Route?

February 26, 2025 · EB-5 · 10 min read

What is the Trump Gold Card legal basis? This is a legal reading of President Donald Trump’s proposal to sell a “Gold Card” green card for a US$5 million fee.

From a legal standpoint, President Donald Trump’s proposal to sell a “Gold Card” for a US$5 million fee — granting permanent residence status or a path to citizenship to foreign nationals — raises a fundamental question: can the President decide an immigration policy of this kind on his own, without approval from Congress?

The analysis below looks at three dimensions:

The constitutional basis and the immigration legal framework.
Historical precedent on executive authority over immigration.
Challenges from Congress and the courts.

Legal basis of the Trump Gold Card: analysis of presidential authority over a proposed US$5 million immigration route

Trump Gold Card Legal Basis: Can a President Create a US$5 Million Green Card Route?

1. The constitutional basis and the immigration legal framework

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to decide questions of immigration and naturalization. Article I, Section 8 provides that Congress has the authority to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The President, by contrast, holds executive power only: the duty to carry out the laws Congress enacts, not to act against them or to issue new policy that goes beyond the statutory framework.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the legal foundation governing every visa and green card (permanent residence) category. The details — the EB-5 investment category, the minimum investment amount, the annual numerical limits — are all set by Congress. So if the White House wanted to create a new category that in substance “sells” permanent residence to collect money for the government, it would need either approval from Congress or a pre-existing provision authorizing it. No provision currently gives the President authority to sell green cards directly for money, without the investment and job-creation requirements of the existing EB-5 framework.

2. Historical precedent on executive authority over immigration

Several presidents have issued executive orders touching immigration, but these have mostly been deferred action on removal (DACA, for example) or temporary bars on entry for certain groups (the travel ban). Where such orders significantly expanded who could remain in the country, the federal courts have generally examined whether the White House had exceeded its authority.

DACA and DAPA: The Obama administration deferred removal for undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. as children (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA), and for parents of U.S. citizens (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, DAPA). These programs did not grant green cards or permanent citizenship; they only deferred enforcement of removal orders. Even so, DAPA was blocked in court on the view that it went beyond what the INA permits.
The travel ban: In 2017, President Trump issued an order barring entry from several Muslim-majority countries. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld it, resting on the authority to suspend entry on national security grounds — a power already written into the INA. That action restricted immigration, however; it did not expand or rewrite the criteria for granting permanent residence.

There is no precedent for a U.S. President creating a program that “sells” permanent residence to collect money. Executive policies that reached beyond the statutory framework have typically been enjoined by the courts or become the subject of sustained legal and political controversy.

3. Challenges from Congress and the courts

If a President tried to stand up a “Gold Card” without authorization from Congress, several avenues would be available to stop it:

Response from Congress:

Congress holds supreme authority in setting immigration rules. It could pass legislation immediately, or attach language to appropriations bills to prohibit the program or invalidate its federal funding.
Oversight committees could open hearings and apply political pressure, even threatening not to confirm significant bills or nominations if the White House pressed ahead against Congress’s wishes.

Challenges in court:

States, or private parties with standing, could sue the federal government on the argument that a “Gold Card” program conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act and exceeds the authority the statute confers.
Because the “Gold Card” fits within no existing provision, it would easily be seen as creating a new immigration category — something properly for Congress to decide.
Federal courts could issue an injunction halting the program while litigation proceeds, as they have with immigration executive orders under both Obama and Trump in the past.

Conclusion

As a matter of principle, the President holds only the power to enforce and administer immigration within defined limits, and not the power to write new rules that conflict with or reach beyond what Congress has provided. A “Gold Card” priced at US$5 million would, in substance, establish a residency category with no precedent and no authorization under the INA or any other statute. For Trump or any President to formalize a program of this kind, Congress would have to agree — by amending or enacting the relevant immigration legislation.

If a US$5 million “Gold Card” were enacted, it could reshape the current EB-5 category, and in particular the US$800,000 investment level now in effect. That would matter directly to investors planning a U.S. green card through EB-5. The proposal may open a new investment migration route, but its feasibility and timing both need careful assessment, and implementation would likely take months even if it were approved. Investors weighing a U.S. green card should follow how the proposal develops and review their options with an independent immigration attorney.

IMM Group

| Related reading: