'Unethical': Melania's former lawyer tears apart new Trump program

U.S. first lady Melania Trump participates in a House Ways and Means Committee roundtable on Capitol Hill to discuss legislation "protecting America's foster care children”, in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 15, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

Immigration lawyers representing the global elite are warning their clients to steer clear of Trump's "gold card" visa program, calling it legally dubious, financially risky, and potentially worthless, according to a report in the Washington Post.

The program, which Trump has promoted as a fast-track to residency for wealthy foreigners willing to invest $1 million to $2 million, has become a cautionary tale in the immigration law community. Seven immigration attorneys told the Washington Post they have either steered clients away from applying or refused to help clients who already have applied, citing fundamental legal problems with the program.

The skeptics include Michael Wildes, the immigration lawyer who represented first lady Melania Trump and her parents, and secured visas for Miss Universe contestants when Trump ran the pageant. When potential clients call about the gold card visa, Wildes has made his position clear.

"It would be unethical of me to retain them," Wildes said.

The core problem: the gold card visa has no congressional authorization and exists only through an executive order that faces ongoing litigation. That means it could be eliminated with a single presidential signature—or struck down by courts at any moment.

The numbers tell the story. Out of 338 requests for the gold card visa, only 165 people have paid the nonrefundable $15,000 filing fee to proceed. Just 59 have advanced to filling out Department of Homeland Security paperwork. And despite Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's claim in late April that "one person" had been approved, administration officials have provided no details—leading immigration attorneys to speculate whether Lutnick was referring to rapper Nicki Minaj, who posted a photo of a gold card visa as a "memento." An official confirmed that was the case: it wasn't a real visa.

Immigration attorney Mona Shah, who has two clients applying for the gold card, said court filings revealed that Trump administration promises of speedy processing were "false advertising." The filings also showed that gold card applicants won't necessarily get approval ahead of people applying for the established EB-1 or EB-2 visas—meaning wealthy applicants could wait just as long as everyone else, while having paid $15,000 for the privilege.

"They want me to say 'Yes, you are going to get it,' and I can't say that to them," Shah said.

Ron Klasko, one of the few attorneys who has taken a gold card case (for a Ukrainian businessman), created a comparison chart for clients. His conclusion: the existing EB-5 visa—requiring an $800,000 investment and providing family residency—is far safer because it's grounded in statute. The gold card, by contrast, requires $1 million per person, can be eliminated by executive order, and faces litigation risk because no statute or regulations validate it.

When clients see the chart, they typically choose EB-5. "Typically they get back to me and say 'We decided to go EB-5,'" Klasko noted.

At the Invest In the USA conference last week in Washington, the gold card visa "barely came up at all," according to conference organizers. Members have been "met with eyerolls" by lawmakers when raising the program, and told there is no interest in codifying the executive order into law.

Immigration attorney Rosanna Berardi summed up the professional consensus: "As immigration counsel, our obligation is always to protect our clients' interests, and we do not believe it is appropriate to recommend a program with such significant legal uncertainty and financial risk, even when clients express a desire to proceed."

From Your Site Articles