A Million-Dollar Fast Track to Bypass Congress

President Trump launched his “Gold Card” visa program this week, offering foreign nationals expedited permanent residency for a $1 million “gift” to the Department of Commerce—or $2 million if sponsored by a corporation.

The program raises a fundamental constitutional question: Can a president simply bypass Congress to rewrite immigration law if you have enough money to pay?

This isn’t just about immigration policy. It’s about whether we still have separation of powers, or whether presidents can unilaterally create major federal programs whenever it suits their agenda.

The Founders would have called this monarchical behavior. The question is whether the Supreme Court will stop it.

The Program: Pay-to-Play Immigration

The Gold Card program, established through Executive Order 14351 and now accepting applications through TrumpCard.gov, offers a straightforward transaction: pay $1 million (plus a $15,000 processing fee), pass background checks, and receive permanent resident status.

The administration claims applicants qualify for existing EB-1 or EB-2 visa categories—which are normally reserved for individuals with extraordinary abilities or advanced professional degrees. The executive order argues that the million-dollar payment serves as “evidence” of extraordinary ability.

This stretches statutory language beyond recognition. Nothing in the EB-1 or EB-2 statutes suggests that writing a check to the government demonstrates exceptional professional ability or serves the national interest.

The program also includes a forthcoming “Platinum Card” allowing holders to spend 270 days per year in the U.S. without paying federal income tax on foreign earnings—raising additional constitutional questions about executive authority to rewrite tax policy.

The Constitutional Crisis

Here’s the fundamental problem: only Congress has the constitutional authority to create new immigration categories and set visa requirements.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to establish naturalization rules. The Immigration and Nationality Act already comprehensively regulates visa categories, quotas, and eligibility criteria.

As immigration attorney Richard Herman stated: “A new visa program needs to go through Congress and be authorized by a statute.”

This executive action falls squarely within what Justice Robert Jackson called the “lowest ebb” of presidential authority—when the President’s actions contradict Congress’s expressed will. The Court established this framework in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the steel seizure case that limited Truman’s emergency powers.

Presidents don’t get to unilaterally rewrite immigration law just because Congress hasn’t given them what they want. That’s not executive power—it’s executive overreach.

The Precedent This Sets

If a president can create a million-dollar visa category through executive order, what other major policy changes can be implemented through similar maneuvers?

  • Tax policy? The Platinum Card already tries this.
  • Healthcare access? Why not an executive order creating premium healthcare for wealthy foreigners?
  • Voting rights? Education policy? Environmental regulations?

The logic has no limiting principle. Once presidents believe they can unilaterally rewrite major policy areas through “creative interpretations” of existing law, the separation of powers becomes meaningless.

This is exactly the kind of executive overreach the Founders designed the legislative and judicial branches to prevent.

A Pattern of Presidential Power Grabs

The Gold Card isn’t happening in isolation. Trump has faced multiple legal challenges to executive orders on immigration, including:

  • Suspension of refugee resettlement - Blocked by federal courts as likely violating the Refugee Act of 1980
  • H-1B visa fee increases - From $2,500 to $100,000 without congressional authorization
  • Various asylum restrictions - Courts found they exceeded executive authority

Each represents what one immigration expert called the administration’s belief that “the immigration system is [Trump’s] personal playground and can be weaponized against individuals and communities.”

The Gold Card is the latest—and most brazen—example of this pattern.

Equal Justice Under Law?

Beyond constitutional questions, the Gold Card creates profound fairness problems.

While wealthy applicants can buy their way to the front of the line, nurses, engineers, scientists, and family members who have been waiting years through legitimate channels continue to wait. The U visa program for crime victims who aid law enforcement has years-long backlogs and annual caps—but unlimited spots apparently exist for those with seven-figure bank accounts.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s comment that the U.S. should only take “the top of the best” and not “people who are below average” reveals the troubling assumption underlying this program: wealth equals worth.

This commodification of citizenship contradicts fundamental American values about equality and merit. It says that immigrants with extraordinary abilities matter less than immigrants with extraordinary bank accounts.

Where Is the Supreme Court?

This is where an independent, functioning Supreme Court becomes critical.

The Court has historically served as a check on executive overreach. From the steel seizure case limiting Truman’s emergency powers to cases limiting presidential immigration actions in recent years, the Court has enforced constitutional boundaries on executive authority.

But the current Court’s composition and recent decisions raise a critical question: Will the same justices who expressed concern about executive overreach during the Biden administration apply the same scrutiny to Trump’s unilateral creation of a pay-for-citizenship program?

The Trump v. United States immunity decision suggests the answer may be no. That ruling gave presidents sweeping immunity for “official acts”—which could easily be interpreted to shield executive orders like the Gold Card from meaningful judicial review.

If the Court allows this program to stand, it will signal that presidents can bypass Congress to rewrite major federal programs as long as they claim to be acting within their official capacity.

International Comparisons: A Failed Model

Similar “golden visa” programs in Spain, Malta, and the United Kingdom were discontinued due to concerns about:

  • Housing cost inflation
  • National security risks
  • Money laundering
  • Corruption

The Trump administration has not adequately addressed any of these problems. Instead, it’s charging ahead with a program that other democracies abandoned as too problematic to maintain.

What Happens Next

Legal challenges are already being prepared by civil rights groups. Immigration lawyers warn that applicants risk losing their million-dollar contributions if courts later rule the program illegal—a risk the administration has not disclosed.

The program’s legality will likely be litigated through 2026 and beyond. The question is whether the courts will enforce constitutional limits on executive power or allow the presidency to continue expanding its unilateral authority over major policy areas.

Why This Matters for Court Reform

The TrumpCard program is a stress test for our constitutional system. It forces us to confront whether we still believe in:

  • Separation of powers
  • Equal justice under law
  • Limits on executive authority
  • Congressional control over immigration policy

Or whether those principles bend when enough money is at stake.

For anyone concerned about Supreme Court reform and judicial accountability, this case demonstrates exactly why we need courts that will faithfully enforce constitutional constraints regardless of partisan considerations.

The question before us isn’t just about immigration policy. It’s about whether presidents can bypass Congress to rewrite major federal programs whenever it suits their agenda.

If the Supreme Court allows this program to stand, it will have signaled that the separation of powers is optional—enforceable against Democratic presidents, ignored for Republican ones.

That’s not impartial judging. That’s partisan enablement of executive overreach.

Conclusion: Monarchy in a Republic

The Founders created a republic specifically to prevent monarchical behavior—executives who could unilaterally rewrite laws to benefit themselves and their allies.

The Gold Card program is precisely the kind of executive overreach they feared: a president creating a new immigration category through executive fiat, selling access to permanent residency, and bypassing the legislative process entirely.

The question is whether our current Supreme Court will enforce the constitutional limits the Founders established, or whether it will allow unchecked presidential power as long as the right party wields it.

The answer will tell us whether we still have a republic—or whether we’re watching it slip away, one million-dollar transaction at a time.