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

By Meryl Kornfield0%

5/10/2026, 4:00:55 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% (12,081 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.20% 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.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.6%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Meryl Kornfield: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias2.1%This article: 3.2%Meryl Kornfield: 2.3%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Meryl Kornfield: 2.1%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.9%This article: 9.9%Meryl Kornfield: 16.1%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 3.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion3.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 5.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Meryl Kornfield: 2.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias2.7%This article: 12.9%Meryl Kornfield: 10.6%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 2.7%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Meryl Kornfield: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.5%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Meryl Kornfield: 0.2%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.7%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.3%Meryl Kornfield: 3.3%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority7.3%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.1%Meryl Kornfield: 2.5%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope5.1%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.3%Meryl Kornfield: 8.6%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization8.3%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.3%Meryl Kornfield: 5.4%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon2.3%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 3.7%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.5%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.2%Meryl Kornfield: 1.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal3.2%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.5%Meryl Kornfield: 0.7%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.5%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 6.2%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 3.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.3%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

564 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers18%attributed speech464writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wildes • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wildes • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Leopold • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Leopold • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCyrus Mehta • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCyrus Mehta • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAngela Kelley • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAngela Kelley • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wildes • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wildes • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cyrus Mehta

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words29% of attributed speech52% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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