Can a ‘gold card' program visa spur investment in the U.S. economy?
NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump is planning a 'gold card' visa with a potential pathway to U.S. citizenship for $5 million.
The program would replace an existing program that offers U.S. visas to investors who spend about $1 million on a company that employs at least 10 people. And it echoes similar 'golden visa ' programs in countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Malta and others that have allowed participants to pay a fee or make an investment in order to secure a pathway to residency in desirable places.
'Golden visa' programs all have different frameworks and paths to permanent residency and have had mixed results in spurring investment in a country's economy.
Who will qualify for a 'gold card'?
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said Trump's gold card would replace an existing program in two weeks, so details about who would qualify and what the application process would look like should be available before then. For now, all Trump has said is they will cost $5 million.
Of recipients, he said, 'They'll be wealthy and they'll be successful and they'll be spending a lot of money and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people, and we think it's going to be extremely successful.'
What does the U.S. already offer?
Congress created a program called EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program in 1990 to create jobs and encourage foreign investment. Under that program, investors who spent about $1 million on a company that employs at least 10 people can qualify for a visa and a pathway to permanent residency.
About 8,000 people obtained investor visas in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2022, according to the Homeland Security Department's most recent Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.
What do other countries offer?
Henley & Partners, which advises both governments and people on residence or citizenship by investment programs, says more than 100 countries around the world offer or have offered 'golden visas' to wealthy individuals and investors. That list includes the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Greece, Malta, Australia, Canada and Italy, although some countries have tightened their restrictions or ended programs.
Under different programs in different countries, requirements include buying a house, making a financial investment or creating a certain number of jobs.
Basil Mohr-Elzeki, managing partner Henley & Partners North America, said the programs often help countries meet investment goals. But they don't always last.
Spain's government scrapped its program to allow people from outside the European Union to obtain residency permits if they invested more than half a million euros ($520,000) in real estate. The program was criticized for causing soaring housing prices. The U.K. ended its program in 2022 over security concerns.
Will Trump's 'gold visa' program be e
ffective in spurring U.S. investment?
Mohr-Elzeki of Henley & Partners said despite the high price tag, there may be an appetite for the program, but it remains to be seen what the parameters are.
'We don't have that much information aside from the investment threshold and the intention,' he said. But generally these kind of programs can help countries meet investment goals, depending on the goal, he said.
'We do think that there will be significant demand in this program,' he said. 'We are just waiting on on the details of what frameworks that they're going to be outlining.'
The key to whether it will be a success or not will less likely be the $5 million investment threshold and more to do with the process.
'Typically speaking, the lower the residency requirements, the more popular the program as those wealthy individuals globally, they like options,' he said. 'So they may be investing in the United States, but they may invest elsewhere as well — to have access to live in the States, access to live in Europe, access to live in the UAE. So all of these come into play. '
What comes next?
If the new program replaces the existing EB-5 program in two weeks, there are questions over what will happen to people in the existing program. Typically those people get grandfathered in to the new program but there's a possibility they might not be, said Mohr-Elzeki.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GM to invest US$4 billion to increase US output
General Motors (GM) announced it plans to invest around US$ 4 billion in the next two years to strengthen its US vehicle production operations, in response to the recent import tariff hikes by the Trump-led US government. This new investment plan, which will result in the transfer of some production from Mexico, is in addition to the recently-announced US$ 888 million investment in the company's Tonawanda engine plant in New York State. GM confirmed it plans to increase its annual production capacity in the US to over two million battery-powered and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. The plants that will benefit from the new investment include: Orion, Michigan, which will begin production of a ICE full-size SUVs and light duty pickup trucks in early 2027. The Detroit-Hamtramck plant will become the dedicated assembly location for the Chevrolet Silverado EV, GMC Sierra EV, Cadillac Escalade IQ, and GMC Hummer EV pickup and SUV. Fairfax, Kansas City, will produce ICE-powered Chevrolet Equinox from mid-2027 in response to strong demand for the recently redesigned model. The plant is also scheduled to produce the new Chevrolet Bolt EV by the end of 2025, with additional 'affordable' EV models set to follow later on. Spring Hill, Tennessee: GM plans to add the ICE-powered Chevrolet Blazer to the plant's line-up from 2027, to be produced alongside the Cadillac Lyriq and Visiq EVs and the Cadillac XT5. GM's CEO, Mary Barra, said in a statement: 'We believe the future of transportation will be driven by American innovation and manufacturing expertise. Today's announcement demonstrates our ongoing commitment to build vehicles in the US and to support American jobs. We're focused on giving customers choice and offering a broad range of vehicles they love.' The company pointed out that it currently has around fifty vehicle and parts manufacturing plants in 19 US states, including eleven vehicle assembly plants, employing a COMBINED one million people directly and indirectly, including at parts suppliers and dealers. GM's capital spending guidance remained unchanged at between US$ 10 billion and US$ 11 billion for 2025, rising slightly to between US$ 10 billion and US$ 12 billion in 2026 and 2027 to 'reflect increased investment in the US, the prioritization of key programs, and efficiency offsets.' "GM to invest US$4 billion to increase US output" was originally created and published by Just Auto, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs resolutions killing California's zero-emissions rules
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. President Donald Trump moved to sever California's EPA waivers by signing a series of joint resolutions Thursday, rolling back the Golden State's strict truck and auto emissions policies. The president's signing of joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act reverses the Biden administration's approval of California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. That earlier rule called for requiring 75% of Class 8 trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. Another resolution also prevents the state's low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions rule for heavy-duty trucks from being implemented, per a statement by the president. The NOx rule intended to regulate emissions from manufacturers by cutting heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90% and overhaul engine testing procedures. The Trump administration has described his predecessor's environmental policies as overreach and unjustified mandates. Trump said the congressional moves he signed further restrict California from implementing a similar policy in the future. "Under the Congressional Review Act, the EPA cannot approve any future waivers that are 'substantially the same' as those disapproved in the joint resolutions," Trump said in a statement. "Accordingly, the joint resolutions prohibit the EPA from approving future waivers for California that would impose California's policy goals across the entire country and violate fundamental constitutional principles of federalism, ending the electric vehicle mandate for good," the statement said. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared the federal measures illegal and moved to sue the federal government, seeking to pursue the state's zero-emission vehicle policy. Newsom signed an executive order on Thursday for the state to continue regulation requiring that 100% of sales of new vehicles be zero emission by 2035 for cars, pickup trucks and drayage trucks and by 2045 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Trucking leaders applauded Trump for the measures. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the news was a big win for both men and women behind the wheel. 'Our 150,000 small-business members have been saying it all along—electric trucks just aren't a realistic option right now. They're too expensive, the charging infrastructure isn't there,' OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in an emailed press release to Trucking Dive. Industry advocates, including the American Trucking Associations and the Washington Trucking Associations, also warned that electric truck technology and charging infrastructure were not caught up to accommodate California's ambitious EV policies. 'We've done our part to reduce carbon emissions while keeping America's economy moving,' ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said in a press release. 'But what we need is federal leadership to set realistic and achievable national emissions standards. And today brings us one step closer toward that goal,' he added. Werner Enterprises truck driver Gina Jones shared a similar sentiment, speaking as part of the signing ceremony at the White House. 'We cannot allow one state's regulations to disrupt our entire nation's supply chain,' Jones said. 'Allowing California to do so would have [negatively] impacted the hundreds of thousands of truck drivers who deliver critical goods across the country each and every day.' Recommended Reading Congress revokes Advanced Clean Trucks waiver, creating ambiguity for refuse fleets Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
