On November 1, CNBC reported an unprecedented wave of affluent Americans preparing to leave the United States following the presidential election, driven by fears of political and social instability, regardless of the winner. This growing uncertainty has intensified interest in securing second passports or long-term overseas residency.
Dominic Volek, Head of Private Clients at Henley & Partners—a global consultancy specializing in residence and citizenship planning—revealed that Americans have become the firm's largest client base, now accounting for 20% of total clients. “We have never witnessed demand of this magnitude,” Volek stated, adding that the number of Americans making emigration plans has surged by at least 30% compared to last year.
David Lesperance, Managing Partner at Lesperance & Associates, a firm specializing in international tax and immigration law, observed a similar trend. He reported that inquiries from Americans about potential relocation have nearly tripled over the past year.
A recent survey by Arton Capital indicates that 53% of U.S. millionaires are considering emigration after the election, irrespective of the outcome. This inclination is notably stronger among younger millionaires; 64% of those aged 18 to 29 are highly interested in obtaining a “golden visa” through foreign investment programs.
Interest among wealthy Americans in acquiring second passports or overseas residency has existed since the COVID-19 pandemic, often for non-political reasons like retirement or travel convenience. However, CNBC emphasizes that the approaching election and a volatile political climate have accelerated the search for what many describe as a “Plan B.”
Lesperance, who has advised clients for nearly three decades, explained that while tax avoidance has historically driven emigration interest, current motivations now include political instability and fears of violence. Some clients have expressed reluctance to live in a “MAGAed America,” while others worry about potential unrest if former President Donald Trump loses or about Vice President Kamala Harris's proposed wealth tax policy.
Currently, the US levies capital gains taxes only upon the sale of assets. Kamala Harris's proposal seeks to tax unrealized capital gains for individuals with a net worth exceeding $100 million. Despite skepticism among tax experts regarding the likelihood of such legislation passing, even with a Democratic congressional majority, Lesperance stressed that the perceived risk has motivated high-net-worth individuals to seek financial “insurance” through alternative residency options.
Beyond political concerns, factors such as escalating school shootings, the potential for political violence, and rising instances of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia are also prompting affluent Americans to consider relocating. Concerns over ballooning federal debt have further fuelled this trend.
As for preferred destinations, Henley & Partners and Arton Capital noted that Europe remains the primary choice for wealthy Americans considering relocation. Popular destinations include European nations such as Portugal, Malta, Greece, Spain, and Italy. However, soaring property prices, driven by foreign investment, have led some governments to tighten rules and increase thresholds for citizenship-by-investment programs. As a result, Caribbean countries like Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Lucia have emerged as attractive alternatives. In Antigua and Barbuda, a $300,000 investment in approved real estate can grant citizenship, offering visa-free access to destinations such as Hong Kong, Russia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe.
Americans with ancestral ties to countries like Ireland or Italy can pursue “citizenship by descent,” a cost-effective option compared to investor visas. Additionally, nations like Portugal offer retirement visas, which provide residency and a pathway to citizenship.
Nevertheless, the process of acquiring foreign citizenship or residency can be protracted, involving extensive background checks and bureaucratic delays. CNBC noted that depending on the US election results, already considerable waiting periods may become even longer, potentially extending for months or years.
Deep Throat
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
After weeks of bluster and escalating threats of so-called "reciprocal tariffs" against China, US President Donald Trump has recently been signalling a "de-escalation" in the Sino-US trade war. However, US media reveals that White House officials privately admit Trump misjudged the situation and failed to accurately predict China's reaction. He apparently assumed China would be among the first countries to "request tariff exemptions," but reality proved otherwise. Media outlets worldwide concur that China, having spent years reducing reliance on American goods, building strong supply chains, and investing in advanced technology, holds multiple "negotiating aces," including US debt holdings and control over rare earth exports. Renowned economists even predict China will emerge victorious from this trade war.
Trump initially projected arrogance both domestically and internationally, not only imposing heavy tariffs on trading partners like China but also threatening to dismiss Federal Reserve Chairman Powell. Yet, after warnings from major US retail chains like Walmart about soaring import prices and panic buying, the Trump administration conceded that the 145% tariff on China is "unsustainable" and is seeking an "exit route" to avoid intensifying the trade conflict.
The New York Times reported on April 23rd local time that Trump demonstrated the political and economic costs of pursuing the most hardline approach. He initiated a trade war in early April, fantasizing that merely imposing "punitive tariffs" would compel global companies to relocate factories back to the US. By month's end, however, he discovered the world of modern supply chains is far more complex than imagined, and whether the tariffs could achieve the desired outcome remained highly uncertain.
The report cited some Trump administration officials privately admitting their failure to accurately predict China's response. Given the vast scale of Chinese exports to the US, Trump seemingly expected China to be among the first to "request (tariff) waivers."
The NY Times noted that while the White House continually hinted China was seeking talks, in reality Beijing adopted a wait-and-see strategy. The report described there were signs of “desperation” as the "call from China" failed to materialize, while Trump was reluctant to initiate the call himself.
Nicholas Mulder, an economic historian at Cornell University, believes "China has been preparing for a further escalation of the trade war for many years". Mulder added that China now possesses greater resilience and capacity to handle such an escalated conflict.
The BBC published an article on the 24th titled, "Five cards China holds in a trade war with the US". First, as the world's second-largest economy, China can withstand the impact of tariffs better than smaller nations; its vast domestic market can cushion some of the pressure exporters face. Second, China has consistently invested in future technologies, pouring funds into indigenous advancements like renewable energy, chips, and artificial intelligence. While US companies attempt to move supply chains out of China, they struggle to find comparable infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.
The third ace is the experience China gained from the "Trump 1.0" era. In recent years, it has further strengthened ties with Global South countries, expanding trade with Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The fourth card is China's awareness that the bond market can influence US decisions. The fifth is China's near-monopoly position in the extraction and refining of rare earths.
On April 22nd US local time, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned of Sino-US trade tensions in a closed-door speech, frankly telling investors the current stalemate is "unsustainable". He insisted the purpose of US tariffs on China "was not to decouple from China," but admitted that negotiations with China had not yet begun and would be a protracted battle.
On the same day, Trump also signalled from the White House his reluctance to further increase tariffs on China, claiming the rates on Chinese imports would not remain at current levels and would drop substantially, though not to zero.
However, Bessent denied on the 23rd that the US would unilaterally cut tariffs on China. He reiterated that neither the US nor China viewed the current tariff levels as sustainable, stating, "A trade disruption between the two countries is not in anyone's interest."
Also on the 23rd, The Wall Street Journal "leaked" information, citing sources familiar with the matter, that the Trump administration was considering a significant reduction in tariffs on China, possibly by more than half. The news triggered a surge in US stock markets. The report indicated that tariffs on Chinese goods might be reduced to a range of 50% to 65%. However, Trump has not made a final decision, and several options remain under consideration. Among these is a "tiered tariff" scheme, which would apply different rates depending on the type of goods imported from China.
Trump himself stated that day he might announce new tariff amounts for some trading partners, "possibly including China," within the "next two to three weeks." Yet, White House spokesperson Leavitt claimed the US would not unilaterally lower tariffs on China before a new trade agreement was reached.
As The New York Times described it, the White House sent yet another "ambiguous message" regarding the status of negotiations.
On the afternoon of April 24th, addressing recent US messages suggesting ongoing trade talks and even an impending agreement, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun stated this was false information. He clarified that China and the US had not held consultations or negotiations on tariffs, let alone reaching any agreement. Guo asserted that the tariff war was initiated by the US, and China's stance remains consistent and clear: “We will fight, if fight we must.” He also said, if the US wants to talk, the doors are open, but dialogue must be based on equality, respect, and mutual benefit.
That same day, Ministry of Commerce Spokesperson He Yadong responded to the US narrative of "tariff cooling," stating that the US's arbitrary imposition of tariffs violates basic economic and market principles. He argued that it not only fails to solve America's own problems but also severely disrupts the international economic and trade order, interferes with normal business operations and consumer life, and has faced strong opposition internationally and within the US. He invoked the saying, "Whoever tied the bell must untie it," implying the unilateral tariffs were initiated by the US, and if the US genuinely wants resolution, it should heed the rational voices internationally and domestically, completely abolish all unilateral tariffs against China, and find ways to resolve differences through equal dialogue.
He Yadong stated that China urges the US to correct its erroneous practices. If talks are desired, the US must show sincerity and return to the correct path of equal dialogue and consultation to jointly promote the stable, healthy, and sustainable development of Sino-US economic and trade cooperation.
Numerous foreign media outlets covering the globally watched Sino-US trade war have cast a vote of confidence in China. The Times of India reported on the 23rd that signs indicate the US is seeking an exit, with the White House seemingly softening its previously tough stance on tariffs. While some see Washington's recent rhetoric as strategic, many experts and investors perceive it more as anxiety.
William Yang, Senior Analyst for Northeast Asia at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that China will firmly maintain its current position and will only consider starting negotiations after seeing credible actions from the US government. He believes China views the outcome of this tariff standoff as a precursor to how bilateral relations will unfold over the next four years.
Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao commented that the US tariff war against China struggles to achieve its objectives primarily because the US overestimated its leverage and underestimated China's resilience and capacity for countermeasures.
Germany's Stern magazine interviewed Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz on the 23rd. He stated that China did not back down in the face of US tariff actions, nor did it proactively push for a deal. China concluded it holds the initiative. "If the US reduces purchases of German and Chinese goods, it will face supply problems and higher inflation levels." When asked if China would win the trade dispute with the US, Stiglitz replied, "I think so. China's economic position is solid, while the US is weakening. The Chinese want to be the most reliable trading partner internationally."
The UK's Financial Times reported on the 24th that US companies are calculating the costs of the White House's tariff war. Executives in transportation, energy, telecommunications, and construction have warned about the consequences of the comprehensive tariff actions. Data showed that as of Tuesday, less than one-fifth of the S&P 500 blue-chip companies had held their Q1 financial conference calls,. Over 90% of these calls mentioned tariffs, and 44% mentioned the word "recession."
Domestically in the US, a Pew Research Center poll released on the 23rd showed 59% of American respondents disapproved of the US government raising tariffs, while 39% approved. Another recent Reuters/Ipsos poll indicated only 37% of US respondents were satisfied with the government's handling of economic issues. Concurrently, attorneys general from 12 US states filed a lawsuit demanding that courts declare the federal government's "reciprocal tariffs" illegal and block their implementation.
