A version of this article first appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

By slashing the price of the Gold Card from $5 million to $1 million, President Donald Trump has created one of the most coveted deals in the global visa market, with demand already surging among the world’s wealthy, according to immigration attorneys.

Last week, Trump signed an executive order announcing the official launch of the Gold Card, which will cost $1 million and grant residency in “record time,” he said. When he first announced the Gold Card in February, the price was $5 million. While the Gold Card website also touts a future $5 million Platinum Card, with added tax benefits, the Platinum Card wasn’t in the executive order and wasn’t mentioned in the press event.

With its new discounted price and promise of speedy approvals, the Gold Card has instantly become one of the most sought after “golden visas” in the world, with a price below many other countries. Singapore’s investment visa program, for instance, costs nearly $8 million, while New Zealand’s new program is just under $3 million. Even Samoa is more expensive, requiring a $1.4 million investment.

“The Gold Card is almost too cheap,” said Reaz Jafri of Withers. “You get access to the U.S. education system, health-care system, banking system and financial markets, all for $1 million. It’s a pittance for many of these families. I think they should have kept it at $5 million to make it special.”

The global wealthy are ready to write the checks. Jafri said he was speaking at a family office conference in Singapore this week and was approached by three families — two based in China and one based in India — who immediately expressed interest in buying a Gold Card. He said he expects his firm alone will help process “hundreds” of applications once the program is off the ground and proven.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the government plans to issue 80,000 Gold Cards. Together with potential Platinum Card and the new H-1B fees, which were raised to $100,000, he said the programs are expected to raise $100 billion in federal revenue.

The Gold Card still faces obstacles. Despite the announcement at the White House Friday, there is no way to apply for the visa yet. The website announcing the Gold Card that went live in June asks for basic information from potential applicants, including their name and country of residence. So far, people who registered on the site said they haven’t received any updates.

The program is also likely to be challenged in the courts and potentially by Congress. Because immigration law is set by Congress, the president created the Gold Card through several legal workarounds, including using the existing EB-1 and EB-2 programs as the infrastructure or basis for the Gold Card. The $1 million fee is officially labeled an “unrestricted gift” to the government rather than an official fee change.

The tentative legal status may also give the overseas wealthy pause at first, according to immigration attorneys. Many applicants will likely wait to see the first Gold Cards awarded and granted before spending the $1 million. And some may wait even longer.

“These things always take a little bit of time to ramp up,” said Dominic Volek group head of private clients at Henley & Partners. “People don’t want to be the first one to try it. The majority of our clients like to see the program up and running for three to six months and see the outcomes before they commit.”

Volek said he’s already had a number of inquiries from clients and expects the program to attract at least 5,000 to 10,000 applications a year.

“From a price point perspective, it’s definitely more attractive at $1 million instead of $5 million,” Volek said. “And if it’s as quick as they say, it becomes even more attractive.”

The Gold Card also comes at an opportune moment in the global visa market. As geopolitical uncertainty, wars and political tensions rise across the world, the ultra-wealthy are buying alternative citizenships and residencies for a “Plan B” or hedge against their home countries.

An estimated 142,000 millionaires are expected to relocate to another country in 2025, according to a report from New World Wealth and Henley & Partners. The U.S. is one of the top destinations, with 7,500 millionaires expected to move to the U.S. this year, ranking only second to the UAE, according to the report. Most of the millionaires coming to America are from Asia, the U.K. and Latin America.

Demand for the Gold Card is likely to come mainly from China and India, according to immigration advisers. Yet applicants from those countries may be disappointed. The EB-1 and EB-2 programs (which form the basis for the Gold Card) already have large backlogs from applicants from China and India, stretching for years. If Gold Card buyers are allowed to skip to the front of the line because of their $1 million donation, the applicants who have been waiting could file lawsuits. At the same time, Gold Card buyers won’t be willing to spend $1 million if they’re forced to wait years for approval.

Dramatically expanding the number of visas available through the EB-1 and EB-2 programs would also likely require approval from Congress, advisors said.

“India and China are actually excluded in a way from the Gold Card,” Volek said. “The EB-1 and EB-2 routes already have significant backlogs for China and India. So immediate access to the Gold Card may not actually work if you’re born in one of those two countries.”

The Gold Card also has some downsides compared with other golden visa programs around the world. The $1 million donation isn’t refundable, while visas in other countries are structured as investments that could generate returns. And unlike most other countries, the U.S. taxes its citizens and residents on their worldwide income, even if it’s earned overseas.

The Platinum Card is designed to partially avoid the taxation issue in exchange for a higher price. According to the White House, the Platinum Card would allow holders to remain in the U.S. for 270 days a year without paying taxes on their overseas income. Currently, overseas nationals are subject to worldwide tax if they are in the U.S. for 183 days during a three-year period using a complex IRS day-counting formula known as the “substantial presence” test.

Some advisors say the Platinum Card will be a tougher sell than the Gold Card, since it doesn’t lead to a green card or citizenship and has limited benefits for the ultra-rich who already spend time in the U.S.

“It will not sell well,” said David Lesperance, of Lesperance Associates. “Few will consider it worth $5 million just to spend an additional 91 days in the U.S.”

Others say the Gold and Platinum cards will appeal to different types of overseas rich. The Platinum Card may be appealing to the ultra-wealthy — say, billionaires from Asia or the Middle East — who want to be in the U.S. but want to shield their companies and income from U.S. taxes. Jafri said he’s already received inquiries about the Platinum Card from four Brazilian family offices.

The Gold Card is more fitting for the sons and daughters of the overseas rich who want to go to college in the U.S. and become more competitive in the U.S. job market after graduating.

“A lot of the kids of these overseas billionaires don’t want to run the family business and want to be architects or doctors or engineers and have regular jobs,” Jafri said. “Or maybe they want to create a startup in America. The Gold Card is very attractive for that group.”

Given the relatively low price of the Gold and Platinum cards, Jafri said the White House should consider eventually issuing a Black Card.

“They could charge $20 million or $25 million and exempt the buyers from the estate tax,” he said. “That would be a game-changer. I bet 1,000 people would do it and they would bring all their assets to the U.S.”

More than a dozen pages on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website related to sexual and gender identity, health equity, and other topics have been taken down, CNBC has learned. 

The CDC received a directive from the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees the agency, to remove certain webpages by the end of the day Sept. 19, according to an internal CDC email viewed by CNBC, which was sent that day to some employees whose work is related to the pages.

The pages include one about sexually transmitted infections and gay men, another about healthy equity for people with disabilities, and additional fact sheets on asexuality and bisexuality. Some health equity advocates say removing such resources could create gaps in access to critical health information, especially for marginalized groups, and undermine efforts to promote equitable care.

The removal of “critical materials from trusted government resources endangers the health of patients and the public,” a spokesperson for the LBGT PA Caucus, a nonprofit promoting LGBTQ+ health-care equity, said in a statement.

“Stripping away resources on gender identity does not erase the need, it only erodes trust, creates confusion, and places patients at greater risk,” the spokesperson said. “Clinicians and the communities they serve rely on accessible, accurate, and inclusive guidance to deliver safe and effective care.”

The email did not provide details on why HHS directed the CDC to remove the pages or why it targeted certain topics. But the topics of some of the resources taken down are longtime targets of the Trump administration, which has issued a series of executive actions that limit transgender and nonbinary people’s rights and rolled back efforts to increase diversity, equity and inclusion. 

HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The CDC directed CNBC to HHS for comment.

It’s not the first time that the administration has targeted health resources on federal agency websites.

Thousands of pages across websites for the CDC and Food and Drug Administration, among other agencies, were abruptly pulled down beginning in late January under President Donald Trump‘s executive order barring references to gender identity in federal policies and documents. In February, a federal judge ordered HHS, the CDC and FDA to temporarily restore public access to the pages while litigation moves forward. 

That same judge ruled in July that the government unlawfully ordered the mass removal of health resources from federal sites and required agencies to review and restore the affected pages. Following that ruling, the Trump administration reported to the court on Sept. 19 that most agencies have finished restoring the pages, with 185 back in compliance and only 11 CDC pages still under review, according to court documents. It is unclear how many of the pages taken down this month were at issue in the lawsuit.

It is unclear which pages were still under review as of Sept. 19, and why the CDC took down more pages on that same day following the ruling.

Attached to the internal CDC email was a spreadsheet of more than a dozen pages that the agency said had been taken down as of Sept. 19. A separate spreadsheet compiled by agency employees and viewed by CNBC included an additional site that appears to be offline.

CNBC verified that the following pages are now offline. The digital archive site Wayback Machine also shows when they were last active. Several pages were online as recently as early September, according to Wayback Machine, but it is unclear when the CDC officially removed all of them. 

Some pages listed on the spreadsheet attached to the internal CDC email are still online. That includes a page that monitors laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations among children and adults associated with respiratory syncytial virus.