Trump Business Sought to Hire Nearly 200 Workers on Visas in 2025
The former president’s corporate entity accelerated its recruitment of foreign workers on temporary visas this year, even as his administration was creating barriers for other companies attempting to do the identical, an analysis published recently claimed.
According to information from the federal labor department, the business aimed to hire at least nearly 200 foreign workers in 2025 for short-term roles at the US president’s Florida property, two golf clubs and his Virginia winery.
The number of applications for temporary work visas for workers including waitstaff, office assistants, housekeepers, culinary employees and farm workers was the highest ever submitted by the company, and up from 121 in 2021, when Trump’s first term concluded.
It was also the fifth time in 10 years that the former president had sought to hire more than 100 overseas workers for temporary positions at Mar-a-Lago, according to available data.
The revelation coincides with a tightening on legal immigration by his government that has included the implementation of a $100,000 fee on H1-B visas; extra scrutiny of the activities of the millions of people who possess American work permits; and tighter regulations for international scholars and reporters.
Overall, the business aimed to hire over 560 overseas workers over the five years Trump has been in the presidency, from 2017 to 2021 and during 2025.
Notably, the former president was questioned by some in the GOP this period for comments defending the need for overseas employees when a company was unable to find people with “particular skills” to fill certain positions.
“You cannot just say a nation is coming in, going to spend billions to build a plant, and going to recruit individuals off an unemployment line who haven’t worked in five years, and they’re going to start producing their defense systems. It doesn’t work that well,” he told a host after she suggested that foreign workers undercut the pay of US workers.
The administration refused a inquiry for comment, and the business did not provide an answer to an request for information.
