🔗 Share this article

The former president’s family business increased its hiring of overseas employees on temporary visas this period, even as his administration was creating barriers for other businesses attempting to do the same, an analysis released recently claimed.

Based on information from the US Department of Labor, the business sought to bring in at least nearly 200 foreign workers in the coming year for temporary positions at the US president’s Mar-a-Lago resort, golf facilities and his Virginia winery.

The number of requests for temporary work visas covering staff including waitstaff, clerks, housekeepers, kitchen staff and agricultural laborers was the highest ever submitted by the company, and increased from over 120 in 2021, when his presidency concluded.

It was also the fifth time in 10 years that the former president had sought to bring in more than 100 foreign employees for temporary positions at Mar-a-Lago, according to available data.

The revelation coincides with a crackdown on immigration laws by his government that has involved the introduction of a $100,000 fee on skilled worker visas; increased review of the actions of the 55 million people who possess American work permits; and tighter regulations for foreign students and journalists.

Overall, the Trump Organization sought to employ 566 overseas workers over the period Trump has been in the presidency, from 2017 to 2021 and during 2025.

Notably, Trump was criticized by certain in the GOP this period for remarks justifying the necessity for overseas employees when a business was unable to find people with “specific talents” to occupy certain positions.

“You can’t just say a country is coming in, going to invest $10bn to construct a plant, and going to recruit individuals off an unemployment line who haven’t worked in five years, and they’re going to start making their defense systems. It doesn’t work that effectively,” he stated to a interviewer after it was implied that overseas employees lower the pay of American employees.

The administration refused a inquiry for comment, and the business did not immediately respond to an request for information.