Trump's Gold Card Visa, Explained
Touted as a way to raise revenue, a 'gold card' visa program announced by President Donald Trump last month would require a $5 million payment in exchange for permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship.
While the astronomical price tag is the most eye-catching aspect of the proposal, it diverges from similar offerings like the EB-5 investor visa in that the fee can be paid on behalf of somebody else and would also seemingly exempt recipients from having to pay taxes on income earned overseas.
The gold card's primary purpose is to create a new revenue stream large enough to offset the estimated $4.5 trillion increase in new deficits under the administration's proposed budget. Trump has set an ambitious goal to sell 1 million gold cards, which would generate $5 trillion for the government.
Apart from the fiscal benefits, during his March 4 address to Congress, Trump also touted the gold card as a way to ensure the U.S. attracts and retains wealthy immigrants despite the administration's sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration.
While details are sparse ahead of a tentative launch date in March, the information that is available bodes poorly for the gold card's chances of successful and speedy implementation.
The gold card was first presented as taking the place of the EB-5 investor visa program, which allocates roughly 10,000 visas—the first step to getting a green card that allows permanent legal residency—each year for individuals who make an $1.05 million investment (with a provision allowing for a lower $800,000 investment in 'targeted employment areas') that creates or saves 10 American jobs.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who appears to be one of the main architects of the gold card proposal, characterized the EB-5 in his remarks as 'full of nonsense, make believe, and fraud.' Since then, the administration has indicated that while the EB-5 will be restructured, it will remain in place alongside the new gold card program.
The EB-5 was most recently modified by Congress through the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, or RIA. The RIA gave the Department of Homeland Security better oversight tools, strengthened the vetting process by requiring background checks for a greater range of individuals involved in EB-5 investment projects, and created an 'EB-5 Integrity Fund' to support compliance investigations.
Criticisms of the EB-5's potential for fraud are thus not new, and while the EB-5 was an avenue for some high-profile fraud cases the overall rate of proven fraud was rare even before the reforms were passed. In the last quarter of fiscal year 2024 only 3 percent of EB-5 petitions filed after RIA were denied, indicating that even with increased scrutiny most applicants and investment projects meet the necessary criteria.
One reason the EB-5 program seems to be safe for now is that interest in it is on the rise. Fiscal year 2024 saw the greatest number of applications for EB-5 visas since 2020, and one analysis estimates that the EB-5 needs a 30 percent increase in the number of visas it has in order to keep up with demand. This excess demand could theoretically be diverted towards the gold card program instead.
The administration will struggle to balance its desired speed of implementation with the rigor of vetting necessary to ensure the gold card program does not create any national security risks—especially since a large number of applicants will be from China.
In 2024, about 70 percent of all EB-5 applications came from Chinese nationals. China also has the second largest number of millionaires in the world, surpassed only by the U.S. itself. The gold card will thus need to draw heavily from the Chinese business class to meet its fiscal targets.
This will become a significant complication for the program as it could become a way for China to skirt key U.S. restrictions. For example, the Senate is currently poised to advance a bipartisan bill banning Chinese enterprises and individuals from buying land near U.S. military bases. But with the gold card, wealthy Chinese individuals connected to the Chinese Communist Party would be able to evade these bans by first acquiring U.S. citizenship.
Unlike the EB-5, which requires a personal investment and gives visas only to the investor and the investor's spouse and minor children, the gold card can be purchased on behalf of someone else, so it will require more careful vetting of both the funder and the beneficiary.
On a domestic level, the gold card also seems poised to create a rift within the Republican Party. As the party turns increasingly skeptical of globalism and even legal immigration, selling American citizenship to the world's wealthy elite and granting them the ability to wield greater influence on American politics could be met with resistance. For example, a European millionaire could hypothetically secure a gold card and then use it to get around Federal Election Commission restrictions on political spending by foreign nationals to advocate for progressive causes.
If the gold card program does wind up providing tax exemptions for recipients on income earned outside of the U.S., it would also create a two-tiered system where gold card holders enjoy a more privileged level of citizenship than natural-born Americans, who are subject to tax on such income.
On top of these issues, the gold card will almost certainly falter in its core mission of creating a significant new stream of government revenue.
The gold card cannot be projected to generate $5 trillion in revenue—Trump's stated goal—under any reasonable set of assumptions.
According to the Henley & Partners 2024 Global Wealth Migration Report, an estimated 135,000 millionaires will move to a new country in 2025. If historical trends hold, the U.S. can expect to attract a little more than 3 percent of that flow, or about 4,000 millionaires.
Even if the U.S. somehow sold every single millionaire estimated to move in 2025 a gold card, this would come out to only $675 billion dollars, and many millionaires aren't wealthy enough to afford a $5 million flat payment. The gold card program would therefore need to rely on very high net-worth individuals and corporations willing to pay the fee on behalf of an applicant in order to drum up the target revenue, but both of these also have significant limitations. There are only 29,350 people in the world with a net worth of more than $100 million, and a third of them already live in the United States. For their part, corporations have little incentive to pay such a high amount for an employee who would otherwise be tied to working for them through a similar and far less expensive pathway like the H-1B visa.
While these financial obstacles are daunting, they pale in comparison to the ones the gold card faces for becoming law to begin with.
Creating the gold card visa would require an act of Congress. Under the U.S. Constitution and immigration laws, only Congress can establish new immigrant visa categories or modify the criteria for issuing green cards. The EB-5 program itself was created by statute as part of the Immigration Act of 1990.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets annual numerical limits and eligibility rules for immigrant visas. The EB-5 investor visa is part of the employment-based immigration quota (capped at roughly 10,000 visas for investors each year, out of 140,000 employment-based visas). Issuing 1 million gold cards would go far beyond these existing limits. Unless Congress amends the INA to create a separate uncapped category or significantly raise caps, the administration simply cannot issue unlimited green cards.
The Trump administration might attempt interim measures, but each faces legal limitations. For example, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does have authority to set certain regulations for the EB-5 program, such as adjusting investment amounts for inflation, and in 2019 DHS raised the minimum investment from $500,000 to $900,000 by regulation. However, transforming EB-5 into the 'gold card' by raising the minimum to $5 million, scrapping the job requirement, and redirecting funds to the U.S. Treasury would almost certainly exceed the statutory authority of DHS.Another option, as discussed by David Bier of the Cato Institute, would be for DHS to try to use its parole authority or other non-immigrant visa categories to approximate a gold card visa program. For instance, the administration might set up a parole program for investors who contribute $5 million, allowing them to live and work in the U.S. temporarily as a 'significant public benefit.' The Obama administration did something similar on a smaller scale with the International Entrepreneur Rule, using parole to admit startup founders. However, parole is not permanent residency and does not confer a path to citizenship or a green card, and would likely generate little interest as a result. The Trump administration also has abolished Biden-era parole programs by claiming that the use of categorical parole exceeds its intended purpose.
All together, the gold card is a creative proposal with ambitions that far exceed its practical, political, and legal constraints.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
GOP megabill takes aim at universities — except for this conservative Christian college
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are angling to use their megabill to turn the screws on elite liberal colleges that take millions in taxpayer funds while sitting on endowments worth tens of billions of dollars. But a single college that's a paragon of conservative higher education has managed to secure a carveout after finding itself in the crossfire. Hillsdale College, a Christian liberal arts school of fewer than 2,000 students located in southern Michigan, is one of a slew of smaller institutions that had been working to avoid being swept up in the GOP effort to raise taxes on the seemingly bottomless endowments of household names like Harvard, Princeton and Yale. But Hillsdale stands apart from those schools: For one, it's a rare institution of higher learning that the modern Republican Party applauds. Just as uncommon, Hillsdale accepts no funding from the federal government: 'The founders of our nation chose independence. As do we,' the college boasts in advertisements. That formed the crux of its argument that, on principle, Hillsdale and schools like it should not be subject to a federal tax on endowments. Senate Republicans heeded that logic in their version of the reconciliation bill that the party hopes to send to Trump's desk next week by including an exemption for schools that fit Hillsdale's profile. The reprieve is by no means guaranteed, as Hillsdale found out eight years ago. Democrats that year seized on the university's unique position, branding the exemption as an earmark for a political ally and ultimately getting it stripped from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act with the help of a handful of Republican senators. That's why Hillsdale turned earlier this year to professional advocates for help with the latest endowment tax proposal. In April, the college retained Williams and Jensen to lobby on 'specific threats to the institutional and financial independence of the college, primarily related to the higher education endowment tax,' according to a disclosure filing. The team of lobbyists working on the account includes Dan Ziegler, who served as House Speaker Mike Johnson's top policy aide before returning to the lobbying firm in March, and who previously served as executive director of the conservative Republican Study Committee. In its meetings with policymakers, Hillsdale has reiterated its general opposition to using the tax code as a blunt force object — reaching often for the declaration from former Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall that 'the power to tax involves the power to destroy.' Beyond that, it has stuck to its insistence that schools that have sworn off taxpayer money should be left out of the endowment tax scheme altogether. That could end up incentivizing more institutions to follow in Hillsdale's footsteps — especially with the Trump administration taking aim at colleges' federal funding — whereas a tax hike might throw up financial roadblocks for schools who might be eyeing a move toward independence. Hillsdale's message has landed favorably on the Hill, according to a person familiar with those discussions who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations. The person noted that the school hadn't encountered much opposition to its position on principle. Failing to exempt schools that don't accept federal funds 'penalizes most severely those institutions that have chosen the harder path of independence' from the federal government and the conditions of accepting that money, Hillsdale President Larry Arnn wrote in an op-ed in May. 'Worse still,' he added, 'this tax turns the incentives backward; it rewards dependence and punishes self-reliance. It encourages institutions to seek the shelter of government aid, where subsidies can offset tax burdens.' Hillsdale declined to comment on the record. Hillsdale has proudly touted its independence for refusing direct government funds since its founding by abolitionists in 1844. In the 1980s, Hillsdale was faced with a Supreme Court civil rights ruling that would've required universities to track admissions by race and bar sex-based discrimination in order to accept federal financial aid from students. In response, the school declared that it would no longer accept such assistance. Hillsdale's break from what it calls governmental overreach has made it at home with the right. Conservative luminary William Buckley donated much of his lifetime of writings to the school in the early 2000s. In 2016, Hillsdale hosted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as its commencement speaker. More recently, Republican leaders like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have sought to recreate versions of Hillsdale in their home states and to integrate its curriculum in K-12 classrooms. Hillsdale graduates are scattered throughout Washington, including in the offices of the top Republicans in Congress. Michael Anton, who joined Hillsdale's D.C. outpost after working in the first Trump administration (though he's not a Hillsdale grad himself), was tapped in April to lead the U.S. technical team in nuclear negotiations with Iran. The university regularly advertises its free online courses on subjects like ancient Christianity and the Biblical book of Genesis on Fox News, and rents various conservative email lists. Arnn, a co-founder of the conservative think tank the Claremont Institute, was even considered for Education secretary in Trump's first administration. Trump's eventual Education secretary, Betsy DeVos, has her own familial and financial ties to Hillsdale. In Trump 2.0, the universityhas partnered with the White House and the Education Department on an educational video series to promote the 250th anniversary of America's founding. The most recent installment, focused on the founding of the U.S. Army, featured Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Even with those credentials, as the GOP continues tinkering with the bill ahead of final passage, there's one hitch that could complicate things: At least right now, there aren't believed to be any other schools besides Hillsdale that don't accept federal cash and have large enough endowments that they're at risk of being hit by the endowment tax. Wealthy universities were first hit with a 1.4 percent excise on their endowments as part of the 2017 GOP tax bill. Given that the relationship between Republicans and higher education has only crumbled in the years since, colleges across the country had already been bracing for Republicans to take another swing at the excise tax in negotiations to renew expiring provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There's a tranche of smaller colleges that would be hit hard by an endowment tax hike and are trying to distance themselves from the Ivies in conservatives' crosshairs. But even though Hillsdale would likely benefit from some of the endowment tax changes those schools have pitched lawmakers on, including sparing schools smaller student bodies, the college has thus far declined to take other schools up on overtures to join their coalitions as it leaned on its more unique messaging. Hillsdale isn't in the clear yet. There are questions about whether several of Republicans' changes to the endowment tax are allowed under the arcane procedural rules of the reconciliation process. The exclusion was not included in the House version of the bill, and not much is set in stone amid horsetrading within the conference. The specter of the last Republican tax debate also looms large given Hillsdale's distinctive position. Earlier versions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would have subjected schools with endowments of at least $250,000 per student to the excise tax. But during floor debate in the Senate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — who received an honorary degree from Hillsdale in 2013 — and then-Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced an amendment that would have exempted from the tax any otherwise-eligible schools that don't take federal funding. The amendment triggered an outcry from Senate Democrats, who pointed out that the only university that would apply to was Hillsdale. Four Republican senators ended up voting with all Democrats to sink the amendment. Hillsdale still managed to luck out, but only temporarily, thanks to language in the final bill that raised the threshold for the tax to $500,000. The House reconciliation bill retains that threshold for the 1.4 percent tax, but neither measure indexes it to inflation, effectively lowering the threshold as time goes on. Hillsdale's endowment finally reached eligibility a few years ago, and much further down the line, other schools that have sworn off federal funding may eventually join it. If the Senate version prevails, however, Hillsdale would pay nothing. In Arnn's May op-ed, he wrote that the House-passed reconciliation bill leaves 'untouched the vast web of colleges and universities sustained by taxpayer dollars, often bloated with bureaucracies committed to fashionable ideas, far removed from the purposes of education.' Ironically, some of the biggest winners out of the Senate's version of the endowment tax — aside from Hillsdale — were schools with the biggest endowments, like Harvard, that would have seen their tax rate soar to 21 percent under the House bill. Senate Republicans softened the tax hike to less than 10 percent for the wealthiest universities.
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump isn't ready for a ceasefire with Massie
Just as President Donald Trump appears to have hit pause on a major conflict in the Middle East, he is intensifying one at home. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is the chief target of the president's powerful political operation, which is looking to oust the outspoken congressman in the GOP primary next year. The congressman has been a thorn in the president's side in the past, but Massie's latest threat to introduce a resolution aimed at reining in presidential war powers comes as Trump was already seething about Massie's multiple attempts to thwart the 'big, beautiful bill' ahead of Republicans' self-imposed July 4 deadline. Massie has easily beat back challenges before, including a raft of money from pro-Israel donors. But this time, the six-term Congressman's strong independent political brand may not withstand the blitz that the president's allies appear ready to unleash. Not only has Trump vowed to campaign 'really hard' against Massie next year, his political operation has launched a super PAC dedicated solely to defeating the Kentuckian. 'He's probably more vulnerable than he's been since he first won in a primary because of all this,' said GOP strategist and former Kentucky state Rep. Adam Koenig. 'There's money outside of Trump world ready to go after Massie.' Trump's political apparatus began ramping up its efforts to boot Massie after the representative voted against the party's massive tax-and-spending package for the president's domestic policy priorities when it first went through the House last month. It went public with its plans — a super PAC dubbed Kentucky MAGA led by two of the president's most-trusted lieutenants, Chris LaCivita and pollster Tony Fabrizio, first reported by Axios — as Massie pushed to reassert congressional authority over Trump's military actions in Iran. 'He has established himself as a contrarian for contrarian sake,' LaCivita said in a text message to POLITICO. 'He should be a man and switch parties instead of posing as a Republican.' The president and his advisers have viciously attacked Massie on social media in recent days, with Trump marshalling his MAGA base to dump 'LOSER' Massie and 'GET THIS 'BUM' OUT OF OFFICE.' Trump and Massie have had a contentious relationship dating back to the president's first term, when he pushed to 'throw Massie out of the Republican Party' after the Kentucky Republican erected a roadblock to Trump's Covid-19 relief package in March 2020. Trump later endorsed Massie's 2022 reelection bid and Massie backed Trump in 2024 — but only after initially supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the presidential primary. But now that Trump is back in the Oval Office, Massie has attempted to cripple the president's legislative agenda multiple times, including becoming the only Republican to vote against a stopgap government funding bill in March. Unlike in the past, the president appears to be making good on his threats to try getting Massie out of office by putting a super PAC on the case. 'I think there's a real opportunity…they're going to spend upwards of $30 million to defeat Thomas Massie,' said one Kentucky GOP political operative who, like many interviewed for this story, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive intraparty matters. The operative, who did not vote for Trump, also heard rumblings that AIPAC, one of the most prominent pro-Israel groups, is also ready to spend big in the May 2026 Kentucky primary — suggesting Massie's anti-war efforts may be met with resistance on multiple fronts. Some Republican strategists estimate combined spending could reach as high as $45 million, an unheard of total for a primary contest in the 4th Congressional District. (The only outside spending against Massie in last year's primary was about $320,000 from AIPAC's super PAC, United Democracy Project.) Even Speaker Mike Johnson hedged Tuesday on whether he would support Massie next year — despite acknowledging it's his job as the top House Republican to protect his party's incumbents. 'I certainly understand the president's frustration' with Massie, Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. 'If you're here and you're wearing one team's jersey and every single time you vote with the other team, people begin to question … why you're so consistently opposed to the platform, the agenda of your party.' But Massie appears unfazed by Trump and his allies' electoral threats. 'In 2020 I got my Trump antibodies from a natural infection when he came after me, and I survived,' Massie quipped to reporters on Tuesday. 'It will deplete his political capital if he doesn't succeed, and he knows that. So that's got to be part of his calculus.' In fact, Massie is embracing the fight. On Twitter, he teased an interview with podcaster Theo Von, a sign that he's seeking to widen his exposure in a format that favors Massie's unique brand of an isolationist budget hawk. He's fundraising off the social-media sparring with Trump, telling Hill reporters Monday evening that he'd raised roughly $120,000 in 24 hours. And he's still pledging to move ahead with his war powers resolution if the ceasefire between Iran and Israel doesn't hold, saying in television interviews and to Hill reporters it's 'not clear the war is over.' Overhanging the primary threat is the question of exactly which candidate Trump's allies have in mind to run against the incumbent. Already, some think first-term state Rep. Aaron Reed, a retired Navy Seal and gun shop owner who is rarely seen without his cowboy hat, would be a possible challenger. Another option is state Rep. Kimberly Moser, who is not thought of as traditionally MAGA, but has over the years made inroads with the Trump wing of the party. There are some potential outsiders who might have the means to self-fund a campaign as well, like political pundit Scott Jennings or former gubernatorial candidate Kelly Craft. 'I think it's too soon to know if his outright opposition to what Trump has done – and I think it's pretty horrible what [Massie's] done – will make a difference,' said Ellen Williams, a former chair of the Kentucky GOP. 'You can't just put anybody up against him and spend a shitload of money. I just think it emboldens him.' Members of Kentucky's congressional delegation say Massie's sprawling district, which runs along the northern border along Ohio and Indiana and stretches from the southern Cincinnati suburbs to the outer bands of the Louisville metro area, is a unique cross-section of the state that appears to relish Massie's independent streak. It's home to some of the most prominent members of the 'liberty faction' of the Kentucky Republican Party, a group that embraces Trump while also gravitating toward libertarian-leaning Republicans like Massie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. The senator has weathered his own barrage of attacks from Trump for voicing opposition to the megabill and defended Massie to POLITICO on Tuesday. Massie is 'very popular in Kentucky,' Paul said. 'I will continue to support him.' 'His district is different,' Rep. James Comer, a fellow Kentucky Republican, said Tuesday on Capitol Hill, though he declined to weigh in on the conflict between Massie and Trump. 'That's a unique congressional district.' Former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson believes Trump, as much as he is the undisputed leader of the Republican Party, may be overplaying his hand when it comes to Massie's district. 'As popular as Trump is in Republican politics, as popular as Trump is in Kentucky, as popular as Trump is in the 4th District, on the substance, on the policy, Thomas wins those arguments over Trump,' Grayson said. 'Until you see someone step up, Thomas is still pretty formidable.' He also warned of repercussions for Trump, who — constitutionally barred from seeking office again — is a lame duck. If the representative is able to fend off a primary challenge, it could open the floodgates for others who have private misgivings about the president's actions. 'It will make a difference if Massie were to overcome this,' Grayson added. 'If he wins, if you're a member, you'd be more likely to speak out in the future.' Massie's never been in serious jeopardy in the GOP primary. His closest primary contest was when he first ran for Congress in 2012 when he defeated Alecia Webb-Edgington, a state representative, to succeed the retiring Rep. Geoff Davis by roughly 7,000 votes. In subsequent primary contests, Massie cruised to victory in otherwise low-turnout primaries where he won with no less than 60 percent of the vote. Many operatives believe Trump would need to juice primary turnout considerably to succeed in his quest to topple Massie. Some cautioned that Trump's popularity 11 months from now could shift considerably. Massie was matter-of-fact about the challenges before him Tuesday afternoon when addressing reporters. 'I just have to spend more money if he gets in the race,' Massie said, when asked his thoughts on Trump meddling in his primary. He then laid out a pair of scenarios, one in which Trump endorses someone and then backtracks on the endorsement — as the president has done before. He floated another in which Trump's allies lay down a lot of money and groundwork, only to abandon its efforts down the line. 'They're gonna try to talk to somebody in the them that the Trump endorsement is coming, and then they'll wait to see if that person can get close. And if that person can get close, then Trump may get in,' Massie said. 'If that person can't, they'll leave that person hanging on the bone.'
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices rise despite fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel
Investors kept an eye on the Middle East on Wednesday as a fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel appeared to hold after initial shakiness. Both sides claimed victory; Iran's president said Israel had suffered a 'historic punishment', while Israel's prime minister argued the offensive had removed 'the Iranian nuclear threat'. A new US intelligence report nonetheless found that Tehran's nuclear programme had only been set back by a few months by US strikes. Washington denied the findings of the leaked report. Early in Europe, Brent crude had risen around 1.15% to $67.91 a barrel, while WTI was 1.21% higher at $65.15. The prices suggest the market has still not fully calmed after the conflict in the Middle East, with investors continuing to monitor the shaky ceasefire. US President Trump rebuked both countries for violating the announced ceasefire on Tuesday. Related Why the Strait of Hormuz remains critical for the global economy The dollar sees a rebound after US strikes Iran, but can it continue? 'Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before, the biggest load that we've seen,' he said. On his social media platform, Truth Social, he wrote: 'Israel, do not drop those bombs. If you do, it is a major violation. Bring your pilots home, now!' Trump claimed that neither Iran nor Israel "know what the f*** they're doing". Stocks, meanwhile, rose modestly on Wednesday. France's CAC 40 was up 0.4% at 7,647.07 in morning trading, Germany's DAX rose 0.08% to 23,660.55, the UK's FTSE 100 increased 0.35% to 8,790.03, and Italy's FTSE MIB rose 0.24% to 39,568.10. The STOXX 600 jumped 0.35% to 542.88, while the STOXX 50 rose 0.21% to 5,308.40. Looking to the US, Dow Jones futures were 0.06% higher at 43,452.00, while S&P 500 futures gained 0.05% to reach 6,149.25. In Asian trading, the Shanghai Composite index climbed 0.44% to 3,435.60, the Nikkei 225 rose 0.31% to 38,910.93, Hong Kong's Hang Seng jumped 0.78% to 24,364.79, while South Korea's Kospi was almost flat, rising 0.01% to 3,104.20. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 notched up 0.09% to 8,563.20. The US Dollar Index was up 0.13% at 97.98 although the currency has still failed to recover from losses seen earlier this year. The euro rose less than 1% against the dollar while the Japanese Yen dropped around 0.12% against its US safe-haven alternative. 'The situation in the Middle East is fluid. While the downside risks have subsided, the situation can change quickly and the balance of risks remains weighted toward higher oil prices,' said Ryan Sweet, Chief US Economist at Oxford Economics, on Tuesday. Sign in to access your portfolio
