President Trump's $5 million Gold Card program represents precisely the kind of bold thinking that American economic policy has lacked for decades, but it needs to be part of a much larger transformation to deliver the results Trump promises his voters.

While Trump has correctly identified that America should monetize its appeal to wealthy global investors rather than treating immigration as a burden, his corporate tax proposals and enforcement policies remain incomplete. In this column, I propose the Enterprise Frontier Model that would build upon Trump's proven instincts by creating a broad framework to address the full scope of America's current competitive problems while generating the revenue needed to fund the transition.

The stakes could not be higher. American companies invested $847 billion overseas in 2024 compared to just $623 billion domestically, a reversal that reflects decades of policy mistakes that have made foreign countries more attractive than America for business expansion. Trump's approach offers the first realistic path to reversing this trend, but only if implemented as part of a broad overhaul rather than one-off reforms.

Consider the current EB-5 program, which generated a mere $1.8 billion in 2023 by charging just $800,000 and forcing investors to wait three years for processing, thereby sending thousands of wealthy individuals to Canada and Australia instead. The Gold Card would capture 10,000-15,000 wealthy buyers annually, generating $50-75 billion in federal revenue while attracting the kind of job-creating investors who built Silicon Valley and transformed American cities. Each wealthy immigrant typically creates 3-5 American jobs through business formation and personal spending, multiplying the economic benefits far beyond the initial investment. But Trump's immigration vision could generate even more revenue by expanding into adjacent markets that his Gold Card approach has proven viable. Successful business owners seeking to establish American operations encounter the same bureaucratic maze that the Gold Card eliminates for passive investors. As part of the Enterprise Frontier Model, a $500,000 Entrepreneur Visa would capture this market while requiring active job creation rather than passive investment. The visa would require recipients to create at least 25 American jobs within two years and generate $2 million in annual revenue within five years of operations, ensuring that the economic benefits extend far beyond the initial fee payment. Canada's similar program attracted 4,200 applicants in 2023 who paid $500,000 each, but America's larger market and stronger business environment could capture substantially more participants.

Similarly, the H-1B lottery system that received 780,884 applications in 2024 for just 85,000 slots represents a massive missed opportunity. Companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon filed 41,000 applications but received approval for only 18,000 workers, forcing them to establish overseas operations to access the talent they need. A $100,000 Skilled Worker Fast-Track would eliminate this lottery while generating substantial revenue from companies that desperately need predictable access to global talent.

Furthermore, the current corporation tax system can see significant improvements.

While Trump's proposal to reduce corporate tax rates to 15 per cent for domestic manufacturing companies acknowledges America's current challenges, it is insufficient to drive a significant change in business dynamics. The current 21 per cent federal rate plus state taxes averaging 5.2 per cent create a combined burden of 26.2 per cent that drives investment overseas. German companies pay 29.9 per cent, and French companies pay 25.8 per cent, but Singapore charges just 17 per cent, and Ireland charges a mere 12.5 per cent. The Enterprise Frontier Model proposes a three-phase expansion of Trump's manufacturing focus, maximizing competitive advantages while providing time for revenue replacement. The first phase, which can be implemented already in 2026, would apply Trump's proposed 15 per cent rate to all corporations, not just manufacturers, positioning America below every major European competitor while complying with international minimum tax agreements. This reduction from 21 per cent to 15 per cent would cost exactly $190 billion annually in lost federal revenue but would immediately make American companies more competitive than their European rivals. Take the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which chose Arizona for its $65 billion facility partly due to federal subsidies. Still, executives continue to cite the 25.9 per cent combined tax rate (21% federal plus 4.9% Arizona state) as a major concern when comparing American locations to Taiwan's 20 per cent rate. The 15 per cent federal rate would create a combined 19.9 per cent burden, making America competitive with Asian alternatives.

The second phase, which could be implemented in 2027, would offer 10 per cent federal rates to companies in five strategic sectors: semiconductor manufacturing, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, artificial intelligence, aerospace, and defense manufacturing. Companies would qualify by meeting three specific requirements within 18 months of claiming the rate reduction. First, the domestic investment requirement would stipulate that companies must invest a minimum of $2 million if they have annual revenues of under $1 billion, and at least $15 million if their yearly revenues exceed $1 billion. This investment must be allocated towards new manufacturing facilities, research and development centers, or equipment purchases in the United States. Additionally, the investment must be over and above any existing planned spending and cannot involve acquiring existing American companies to ensure job creation and sustainable growth. Secondly, companies must generate a minimum of 100 new full-time jobs in the United States if their annual revenues are below $1 billion. Conversely, if their annual revenues exceed $1 billion, they would be required to create at least 500 new full-time positions. These positions would require permanent full-time employment with health benefits and wouldn't include temporary or contract workers. Thirdly, companies must commit to producing at least 60 per cent of their goods sold in the United States at American facilities within three years of receiving the tax benefit, in order to prevent companies from using lower rates to subsidize overseas production for American markets. Consider Apple, which invested $430 billion overseas in 2023 while spending only $270 billion domestically, a 61-39 split that the sector-specific rates would help reverse this disadvantage to the US market. Under the 10 per cent rate, Apple would save $8.7 billion annually on its American operations while facing requirements to increase domestic investment and employment that would shift the investment ratio toward American facilities. Similarly, Intel's recent decisions illustrate the extent of the current problem, as the company announced $100 billion in overseas expansion in 2024 while cutting $3 billion from American operations, citing cost considerations that include tax rates as a significant factor. The 10 per cent rate would save Intel $2.1 billion annually on American operations while requiring domestic investment and new American jobs to qualify.

The third phase, which can be implemented in 2028, would create a 10 per cent base rate for all companies that follow the conditions of the second phase, while offering zero corporate tax for companies that would meet further domestic investment and production requirements. This hybrid structure maintains revenue from multinational corporations while rewarding companies that commit fully to American operations. Zero tax qualification would require meeting four specific criteria maintained for five consecutive years. First, domestic companies must maintain at least 85 per cent of their global production capacity in American facilities, measured by both employment and capital investment. Second, companies must increase American employment by 10 per cent annually for three consecutive years, with all new positions paying at least 120 per cent of local median wages and including full health benefits. Third, companies must conduct at least 80 per cent of their research and development activities in American facilities with American employees, preventing the common practice of using American tax benefits to subsidize overseas innovation. Fourth, companies must source at least 70 per cent of their product inputs from American suppliers, creating incentives for entire supply chains to relocate to America rather than just final assembly operations. Companies meeting these requirements would pay zero federal corporate tax. This structure encourages companies like Pfizer, which earned $58 billion in 2023 but conducted 67 percent of its manufacturing overseas, to expand their operations in the United States, creating new jobs, supporting American suppliers, and the domestic economy, instead of rewarding overseas production.

In addition, Trump's focus on immigration has already proven beneficial to the American economy and safety in the United States; however, the current enforcement emphasizes costs rather than revenue opportunities. In this way, the Enterprise Frontier Model identifies a massive untapped income source through meaningful employer penalties. Current fines average just $2,847 per illegal worker, according to 2023 Immigration and Customs Enforcement data, amounts so small that companies treat them as business expenses rather than deterrents.

The construction industry employs an estimated 2.5 million illegal workers earning average wages of $28,000 compared to $47,000 for legal workers, while agriculture employs 1.2 million illegal workers earning $22,000 compared to $35,000 for legal workers. These wage differentials create powerful incentives for illegal employment that current penalties cannot overcome. Consider Tyson Foods, which exemplifies the issue. The company paid $1.5 million in fines in 2023 for employing illegal workers at 15 facilities while saving an estimated $47 million annually through below-market wages. Under current penalties, illegal employment remains highly profitable for companies willing to risk modest fines. Thus, the Enterprise Frontier Model recommends $50,000 fines per illegal worker, which would transform Tyson's calculation entirely. The company would face $23 million in penalties for employing 460 illegal workers, making compliance economically necessary rather than optional. This approach would generate $30-40 billion annually from enforcement against just 600,000-800,000 workers, a fraction of the estimated 8-11 million unauthorized workforce. The beauty of this approach lies in its self-enforcing nature. Companies that follow immigration laws and support the American labor force would gain immediate competitive advantages over those exploiting cheap, illegal labor, creating private sector allies for enforcement efforts rather than the adversarial relationships that characterize current policy.

Similarly, Trump's infrastructure instincts are sound, but the Enterprise Frontier Model would focus spending on three specific bottlenecks that constrain business competitiveness rather than general economic stimulus. Three targeted programs would address the most critical infrastructure constraints limiting American business expansion. First of all, the program must address the 39 million Americans lacking high-speed internet access, concentrated in rural areas where private companies avoid investment because installation costs $3,000-$5,000 per household while generating only $600-$900 annual revenue. The $75 billion Universal Broadband Program would deploy fiber-optic networks to every American address within four years, enabling remote work that pays average salaries of $65,000 compared to the current rural median household income of $52,000. Secondly, the $150 billion Freight Transportation Program would upgrade 15,000 miles of freight rail networks and expand capacity at the 25 busiest American ports. American freight rail moves just 40 per cent of long-distance cargo compared to 76 per cent in Russia and 54 per cent in China, which currently forces a reliance on trucking that costs $1.75 per ton-mile compared to $0.45 for rail transport. The upgrades would reduce shipping costs across the United States by $23 billion annually while eliminating port congestion that currently costs American businesses $87 billion annually. Finally, current energy grid constraints limit manufacturing expansion in ways that directly contradict Trump's industrial policy goals. For example, Texas grid operators rejected 67 gigawatts of renewable energy projects in 2023 due to transmission limitations, while data centers requiring 30-50 megawatts each face 3-5 year waits for grid connections in major markets. A $100 billion grid modernization investment would eliminate these bottlenecks while supporting the domestic manufacturing expansion that Trump promises.

The Enterprise Frontier Model's most important proposition is a $100 billion government co-investment platform that would address market failure in startup financing while supporting Trump's pro-business agenda. Private investors demand high returns reflecting substantial risks, while successful startups generate economic benefits extending far beyond investor profits through job creation, technology development, and industry transformation. Consider Israel's government co-investment program as the template. Since 1993, the program has deployed over $2.4 billion in investments and generated $78 billion in returns through successful companies, including Waze, Mobileye, and Check Point Software. The program matched private investment dollar-for-dollar and achieved 23 per cent annual returns through convertible loans rather than equity stakes that create political complications. Similarly, Singapore's program invested $8.7 billion from 2010 to 2023, creating 47,000 jobs and generating $12.3 billion in tax revenue from successful companies. This was achieved by focusing on biotechnology and advanced manufacturing sectors, which are crucial for economic competitiveness and align with the industries where America needs to maintain technological leadership. In this way, the United States government's co-investment would capture broader economic benefits while reducing private sector risk, creating more efficient capital allocation toward high-potential ventures. The program would rely on private sector investment decisions rather than bureaucratic judgment for market evaluation, ensuring public funds support only ventures that attract private capital and demonstrate market validation. Convertible loan structures would provide government participation in successful ventures while avoiding equity ownership complications that create political problems. Failed companies would result in loan forgiveness, recognizing innovation risks, while successful ones would repay principal plus modest returns, funding future investments, creating a self-sustaining program growing through reinvestment of returns. The program's $20 billion annual deployment could support 2,000-4,000 startups annually, with historical data suggesting 10-20 percent achieve significant success, generating job creation and innovation benefits, justifying public investment, compared to the current Small Business Administration lending of $28 billion to 61,000 traditional small businesses. Economic impact would extend beyond direct beneficiaries because successful startups create supplier networks, attract complementary companies, and generate spillover effects, driving regional economic development. Furthermore, the program would address the problem of geographic concentration that currently sends 73 per cent of venture capital to California, New York, and Massachusetts. Government co-investment could expand funding to underserved regions while maintaining market discipline through private sector co-investment requirements.

This is a choice between managing decline and winning again. Match the Gold Card with a 15 percent rate for all firms, 10 percent sector rates tied to jobs and investment, strong enforcement that raises revenue, modern freight and broadband, and a national co-investment fund. If Washington wants results, it should start now.