just as the United States prepares to implement expanded social media screening for all H-1B and H-4 applicants, President Donald Trump has unveiled a fast-track residency program—the “Trump Gold Card”—offering permanent residency in exchange for a $1 million contribution.
The timing is triggering widespread concern among Indian skilled workers, who dominate the H-1B category and now face a more restrictive and costlier pathway.
The programme’s official website, launched Wednesday, advertises “U.S. residency in record time” for applicants who pay a $15,000 Department of Homeland Security processing fee and, after background clearance, a $1 million contribution.
A parallel corporate route allows U.S. employers to sponsor high-skilled workers for $2 million per employee. Successful applicants will fall under EB-1 or EB-2 categories, traditionally reserved for those with “extraordinary” or “exceptional ability.”
“This is very exciting for me and for the country,” Trump said during a White House roundtable, calling the Gold Card a tool to retain high-end talent and generate “tremendous amounts of money” for the U.S.
The announcement lands just ahead of new rules confirmed by U.S. consular officials: from December 15, officers will begin reviewing the online activity of all H-1B and H-4 applicants. This digital-vetting expansion mirrors procedures already used for F, M and J visa categories and is expected to slow processing, especially in high-demand countries like India.
For many Indian workers, the pairing of increased scrutiny with a pay-to-accelerate residency pathway signals a fundamental shift in U.S. immigration dynamics: the traditional H-1B route is becoming slower and more tightly filtered, while wealthy individuals and corporates gain access to a fast lane.
According to the government site, Gold Card processing timelines are projected to be measured in “weeks”, pending interviews and document submission. Approved applicants will have direct green-card eligibility under EB-1 or EB-2. Corporates opting for the $2 million sponsorship track can transfer sponsorship between employees for an added fee. A $5 million “Trump Platinum Card” is also planned, offering holders the ability to spend up to 270 days a year in the U.S. without exposure to U.S. taxes on non-U.S. income.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the scheme will involve “the best vetting the government has ever done” and argued that companies serious about global talent will absorb the costs. He added that beneficiaries could naturalise in five years, enabling firms to sponsor new workers reliably.
Indians received 71% of all H-1B approvals in 2024, and both Indian IT majors—TCS, Infosys, Wipro, HCL Tech—and U.S. tech companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta rely heavily on Indian engineers. Any disruption to the H-1B system therefore carries immediate operational consequences.
Lutnick has characterised the existing H-1B pool as allowing in “the bottom quartile”, signalling the administration’s intent to drive up skill thresholds, tighten eligibility and reduce visa volumes. While mid-level professionals contend with stricter screening, higher fees and lengthy queues, the Gold Card introduces a parallel track that those with substantial resources can directly purchase—a move critics say turns U.S. residency into a commodity.
Consular officers expect the December 15 digital-vetting requirement to extend interview timelines further, particularly in India, where appointment availability is already strained.
For applicants who can afford it, the Gold Card offers accelerated residency within weeks, a direct EB-1/EB-2 path, independence from employer sponsorship, flexibility for corporates willing to pay and, with the upcoming Platinum tier, potential tax advantages.
Immigration experts warn that the system is drifting toward a two-tier structure: one for the wealthy who can buy expedited residency, and another for skilled professionals—largely Indian—who now face more obstacles, unpredictability and delays in getting their H1-B visas.
Indian IT firms are assessing whether the $2 million corporate sponsorship model is sustainable or whether they must reduce U.S. deployments, even as affluent individuals and multinational firms evaluate the programme despite the possibility of legal challenges ahead.
