New Lawsuit Challenges Trump's Pay-to-Play Gold Card Visa Program

On 3rd February, 2026, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and a coalition of diverse professionals filed a federal lawsuit contesting the Trump administration’s controversial “Gold Card” visa program.

The group has called the initiative a pay-to-play scheme that privileges wealth over merit and threatens the essential principles of U.S. immigration law.

Our EB-1A consultants have analysed this news in great detail and rendered the claims of the lawsuit comprehensive for every reader.

Why has the Gold Card program become a pay-to-play controversy?

The gold card program was officially introduced via an executive order issued on September 19, 2025. It authorizes wealthy foreigners to obtain U.S. permanent residency and a fast lane to eventual citizenship. However, it is acquired by making a large financial gift to the federal government. Individuals must contribute at least $1 million to get the Gold Card, while corporations can sponsor foreign nationals with $2 million contributions.

In contrast to traditional immigration pathways, the Gold Card doesn’t require applicants to demonstrate career accomplishments or investment-generated employment. Instead, the amount of money given becomes the criterion for eligibility, which the critics believe is fundamentally at odds with merit-based immigration categories like EB-1A green card and the EB-2.

According to a Bloomberg Law report on the lawsuit, the program “violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and was enacted without statutory authority.”

Grounds of the lawsuit: Statutory and constitutional challenges

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the complaint argues that the Gold Card program unlawfully uses existing visa categories like EB-1 “extraordinary ability” and EB-2 “exceptional ability”, in place of a new, statutory category created by Congress.

AAUP President Todd Wolfson made the stakes clear, stating:

“The Gold Card, which privileges wealthy immigrants over others, is part of a larger attack on immigrants, research, and higher education… This unlawful program directly harms our members and the public.”

The lawsuit describes the program as a pay-to-play system that not merely circumvents statutory eligibility criteria but also diverts limited visa numbers intended for highly skilled and meritorious applicants (For instance, EB-1A green card).

Sarah Wilson (litigation counsel representing the plaintiffs) emphasised this conflict in the following terms:

“Congress created a clear, merit-based framework for employment-based immigration… The Gold Card program attempts to bypass that system by treating wealth as a substitute for statutory eligibility… it harms the scientists, researchers, and professionals who have played by the rules and waited their turn.”

Impact on skilled professionals and visa backlogs

Traditionally, employment-based categories like EB-1A have helped bring top scientists, artists, and leaders to the United States based on demonstrated “extraordinary ability.” These visas are capped annually and are filled on a first-come, first-served basis.

Under the Gold Card program, however, paying applicants might leapfrog these queues simply by virtue of their wealth. This is an undesirable outcome that the lawsuit calls discriminatory and detrimental to merit-based immigration principles.

A related report notes that some critics also worry the Gold Card could increase wait times for deserving professionals who do not have deep financial resources.

Unlawful and unfair?

Legal experts say that foundational immigration policy is governed by laws passed by Congress, not executive orders. The AAUP lawsuit highlights that by redefining eligibility through monetary contribution, the Trump administration may have exceeded its authority under both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. These two statutes were designed to guarantee fair and legislatively sound immigration processes.

Ambassador Norm Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Fund (a plaintiff-backing organization), condemned the initiative as fundamentally antithetical to American values:

“Forget ‘give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses’ … when it comes to his Gold Card program, that is illegal. Once again, the President is overstepping his authority and attempting to reshape our country to serve the wealthy rather than the people."

Why does this lawsuit matter for prospective EB-1A applicants?

The outcome of this lawsuit could have long-lasting effects on how employment-based immigration pathways function. Pathways like EB-1A require extraordinary ability that is anchored in rigorous evidence and substantive contributions, and never on purely financial capacity. However, alarmingly, the Gold Card is cutting away at the already limited opportunities available for the EB-1A green card. Hence, the lawsuit holds real importance for EB-1A applicants whose future endeavours will depend on the availability in the category.

The AAUP’s lawsuit challenging the Gold Card visa program constitutes a pivotal moment in U.S. immigration policy. It alleges and spotlights a conflict between executive innovation and statutory authority.