Lawyers for the global elite aren’t buying Trump’s gold card visa 45%

By Meryl Kornfield0%

5/10/2026, 11:00:55 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.9% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 372 faulty-reasoning hits from 564 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.7% and a BS Rank of 45% (9,265 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.10% of the article peer group.

Immigration attorney Michael Wildes has represented first lady Melania Trump and her parents, who are naturalized citizens. 
He has secured visas for Miss Universe titleholders when President Donald Trump ran the pageant organization. 
He has done legal work for the Kushner family. 
Wildes is the kind of lawyer who caters to the global elite. 
His firm, Wildes & Weinberg, has offices in New York and Los Angeles. 
His clients have included celebrities, athletes and business executives. 
So when Trump announced his “gold card” visa program last month  a plan to sell permanent residency to wealthy foreigners for $5 million  Wildes was skeptical. 
“I would not recommend it to anyone,” Wildes said in an interview. 
“It’s a scam.” 
Wildes is not alone. 
A review by The Washington Post of interviews with more than a dozen immigration lawyers found widespread concern about the program’s legality and viability. 
Many said they were advising clients to avoid it. 
The gold card visa, formally known as the Trump Gold Card, is the latest in a series of Trump administration efforts to overhaul the U.S. immigration system. 
The program would allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way into permanent residency, bypassing traditional visa categories. 
Trump has said it would generate billions in revenue and create jobs. 
But lawyers say the program faces significant hurdles. 
It lacks congressional authorization, and critics argue it violates immigration law. 
The administration has not released details on how it would work, and no applications have been processed. 
“It's not a real program,” said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. 
“It's a publicity stunt.” 
The gold card visa is part of a broader Trump effort to reshape immigration policy through executive action. 
Last month, the administration also announced plans to raise fees for H-1B visas and impose new restrictions on student visas. 
Trump has long criticized the U.S. immigration system as broken and biased toward low-skilled workers. 
He has proposed replacing it with a merit-based system that prioritizes education and wealth. 
The gold card visa would allow foreigners to invest $5 million in the U.S. economy in exchange for permanent residency and a path to citizenship. 
The administration says it would create jobs and boost economic growth. 
But immigration lawyers say the program is unworkable. 
They note that similar proposals have been rejected by Congress for decades. 
The EB-5 visa, which allows investors to buy residency for $800,000, has been plagued by fraud and delays. 
“It's a recipe for disaster,” said Cyrus Mehta, an immigration lawyer in New York. 
“You're going to have a lot of rich people who are going to be disappointed.” 
Some lawyers worry the program could harm their clients. 
They say it could trigger lawsuits and congressional investigations, putting applicants at risk of deportation. 
“It's a minefield,” said Angela Kelley, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. 
“You don't want to be the test case.” 
The administration has not said how many gold cards it plans to issue or how it will vet applicants. 
It has also not addressed concerns about national security risks. 
Wildes, who has known Trump for decades, said he was surprised by the proposal. 
He said Trump had never mentioned it during their conversations about immigration. 
“I think it's a bad idea,” Wildes said. 
“It's not going to work.” 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
2.1%
Availability Heuristic
3.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0.9%
Framing Effect
9.9%
Loss Aversion
3%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
2.7%
Negativity Bias
12.9%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
3.7%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0.7%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
7.3%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
5.1%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
8.3%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
2.3%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
3.2%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0.5%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

564 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.