President Trump has long turned "unpredictability" into a family business model — and his latest immigration policy puts that instinct on full display. However， What came out isn’t a success story. It is a masterclass in how to talk up a storm while actual results shrink to almost nothing.
The story begins in February 2025, when President Trump took to social media to unveil a brand-new visa pathway for "extraordinary individuals willing to invest in America." The Gold Card — a golden ticket to U.S. residency — was initially priced at US$5 million. The market was unimpressed.
What followed was arguably the fastest presidential flash sale in history. Within a short time, the price plummeted 80%, settling at US$1 million plus a US$15,000 processing fee — one-fifth of the original ask. It was the immigration world's answer to a Black Friday mega-sale, though one wonders if any price-protection guarantee came with it.
The price dropped, but the promotional drumbeat could not stop. Just before the programme officially launched, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told the public in March 2025 that the administration had already "sold 1,000 Gold Cards." That declaration sent wealthy hearts racing across the globe — the vision of a cash-paved express lane to American residency suddenly feeling very real indeed.
Reality has a habit of throwing cold water on bold proclamations. At a House of Representatives hearing on April 23, 2026, Secretary Lutnick delivered a starkly different figure. He confirmed that since the programme began accepting applications in December 2025, precisely one applicant has been approved — just one.
From "1,000 sold" to "one approved" — a discrepancy of more than 999-fold — the programme has effectively created a brand-new unit of measurement in U.S. immigration policy spin. Faced with that awkward contrast, Lutnick's explanation was that the programme had only just launched, that the government wanted to "make sure they did it perfectly", and that the vetting process was "the most serious ... in the history of government."
He also attempted to salvage some face by noting that "there are hundreds in the queue." But the semantic pivot from "already sold" to "waiting in the queue" is precisely the sort of linguistic sleight-of-hand that would leave any linguist quietly marvelling.
Behind this farce lies fierce domestic controversy. Democrats and immigration advocates have condemned the programme for what it plainly is — the outright selling of citizenship, putting a price tag on the right to immigrate and grotesquely prioritising the wealthy above all others. Legal experts have questioned whether the president even has the authority to create such a scheme unilaterally.
American media commentary has been more direct. Against the backdrop of sluggish economic growth and a ballooning national debt, the Gold Card programme looks less like a bold policy initiative and more like a desperate bid to extract wealth from the global elite to ease the US fiscal pressure — a money-drenched gamble dressed up as immigration reform.
The programme's first report card is now in: a million-dollar price tag, the most rigorous vetting process in history, and one solitary Gold Card to show for it all. We do not know who that lone successful applicant is. One can only imagine what it feels like to hold the world's most exclusive limited first-edition — the only one of its kind.
As for those "hundreds" allegedly still waiting in the queue, they may be learning a new Washington lesson. "Sold" might simply mean "we have started taking enquiries." And "the most serious in history" might just mean "the slowest in history."
President Trump has long prided himself on being a successful businessman. But the Gold Card programme's journey — from grandiose blueprint to dismal reality — proves that running national policy like a business venture and selling citizenship like a luxury good yields not a flood of revenue, but a spectacular mess and endless ridicule.
So, as the old Cantonese saying goes: if you can trust an American politician, pigs can climb trees.
Beacon Institute
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
If there is one stage in today's world that delivers the most entertaining political theatre, it has to be the White House press briefing room. Lately, the show has taken a peculiar turn. There is more than one lead actor on stage, and each of them is working from a completely different script. This drama, titled "Oil Price Predictions," offers a vivid illustration of what it means to have one government operating in two separate realities.
The President and the Minister's "Battle of Arithmetic"
April 20th. The average price of gasoline in the United States was holding firm above four dollars a gallon, and drivers across the country were feeling the pain. Just the day before, Energy Secretary Chris Wright had delivered some sobering news: due to shipping restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz, gasoline prices might not fall below three dollars a gallon until next year.
Before the words had barely settled, President Donald Trump made his entrance with his trademark confidence. In an interview with The Hill, he delivered his authoritative verdict on his own minister's professional assessment: "I think he's wrong on that. Totally wrong." A reporter followed up: So when do you think oil prices will come down? The President offered an answer with a distinctly philosophical and strategic flair: "As soon as this ends" — referring to the war with Iran, ignited by the United States and Israel.
The irony runs deep on two counts. First, the minister's assessment — grounded in shipping disruptions and real market supply data — wilted instantly before the President's instinct-driven dismissal. The implication was clear: economic laws and market data don't matter. What matters is when the President decides prices should drop.
Second, consider the causal loop. Oil prices are high because of the war and the blockade. The United States started the war and the blockade. So the solution is to end the war.
This is rather like someone who personally sets their house on fire, then reassures the family choking on smoke: "Don't panic — once the fire's out, the smoke will clear." As for when the fire goes out? That depends entirely on how negotiations go. Perfectly circular logic, airtight and unassailable.
The President and the General's "Memory Maze"
Just as the public was trying to navigate between "the minister's next year" and "the president's post-war," a third script quietly surfaced. Reuters reported that Pakistani Army Chief of Staff Asim Munir told Trump that the American blockade of Iranian ports was the primary obstacle to negotiations. Munir suggested easing the blockade to facilitate peace talks — a pragmatic diplomatic proposal.
Yet when reporters asked Trump to confirm the exchange, the President's memory seemed to have undergone a remarkable transformation. He flatly insisted: "Munir didn’t recommend anything on the blockade." He then pivoted smoothly to praising the very blockade that the "non-existent" suggestion had targeted: "The blockade is very powerful, very strong. They lose $500 million a day with the blockade up." A single proposal — reported by a third-party outlet and flatly denied by the President — appeared to exist in a state of quantum superposition: simultaneously made and not made. The one certainty was that the blockade continued, and the President was proud of it.
The administration's negotiating "sincerity" deserves scrutiny. On one hand, it claims to want a successful negotiation and an end to the war to bring oil prices down. On the other, it is strangling Iran's economy through the blockade and boasting about it as an achievement. This is rather like sitting across a negotiating table with a gun to your counterpart's head, then saying with complete sincerity: "Let's reach a mutually beneficial agreement in a spirit of goodwill." Even Iranian parliament speaker Ghalibaf could not stomach the contradiction. He bluntly stated that the Americans want to turn "the negotiating table into a surrender table."
Poll Numbers and Oil Prices Deliver a "Double Slap"
The competing voices inside the White House ultimately need reality to act as referee. Reality has not been kind. Three verdicts have come in simultaneously — from polls, from markets, and from politics.
The polling verdict is clear. Data from the Pew Research Center shows that approximately 61% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the conflict. Those who believe the military operation is going poorly outnumber those who think it is going well by nearly two to one. The public has registered its dissatisfaction with this chaotic management.
The market verdict has been equally brutal. Since the war broke out on February 28th and the Strait of Hormuz was disrupted, US gasoline prices breached four dollars a gallon for the first time since the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Following the American seizure of an Iranian vessel on April 19th, prices surged sharply. The market, in cold hard numbers, has confirmed the immediate economic devastation wrought by the blockade and the war.
The political verdict may be the most consequential of all. As fuel prices climb and economic frustration deepens, Trump's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in his second term, directly threatening Republican prospects in the midterm elections. This may well explain why the President is so eager to predict the war will end before the November midterms. Votes, in the end, are the most honest poll of all.
A Ship with Too Many Captains
The contradictions have stacked up into a clear pattern. The Energy Secretary offers a cautious, reality-based outlook — prices may not fall until next year. The President issues an optimistic political declaration — prices will fall once the war ends. The administration claims to have received and considered an ally's proposal; then flatly denies the proposal ever existed. It loudly calls for peaceful negotiations while flaunting the blockade as a trophy of strength.
The reality is this: a major world power is now a great vessel with multiple captains, each issuing orders by a different compass. The cabinet reports speed and risk according to one instrument; the President announces imminent landfall according to another entirely. The actual storm — the consequences of war, the economic cost — and the reefs ahead — diplomatic isolation, the collapse of credibility — appear on no compass at all.
The ones paying the price for this "art of command" are ordinary American families forced to pay sky-high prices at the pump. They are citizens left bewildered about the direction of their own country. They are people around the world caught in the geopolitical undertow of an erratic and unpredictable policy. This White House "Rashomon" reads like a vivid diagnosis: this nation's course can only drift along in confusion and uncertainty — unable to move forward, let alone sail in the right direction.
