The recent statements by Portugal’s Minister of the Presidency, António Leitão Amaro, have sparked significant controversy within the investment migration industry. The minister accused consultants of misleading investors by suggesting that Portugal’s Golden Visa program guarantees access to citizenship. These remarks come at a sensitive time, following major legislative changes that extended the naturalization period from five to ten years, fundamentally altering the expectations of foreign investors.

• Legislative Status

The package, passed on May 21, is now law and awaits formal promulgation by President Erdogan within 15 days and publication in the Official Gazette (Resmi Gazete). Since the proposal originated from the presidency, a veto is not expected, making implementation effectively certain.

• Government Position: No “Passport for Sale”

The Portuguese government has taken a firm stance that the Golden Visa program is not a pathway to automatically acquire citizenship. According to Leitão Amaro, any consultant who suggested that investors could “buy a Portuguese passport” has effectively deceived their clients. This reflects the government’s effort to redefine the narrative around the program as strictly a residency-by-investment (RBI) scheme rather than a citizenship route.

• Legal Backlash from Investors and Lawyers

In response, more than 500 Golden Visa investors are preparing a collective lawsuit against the Portuguese state, supported by a legal consortium. Lawyers strongly reject the minister’s claims, emphasizing that no one ever guaranteed citizenship, but the program was consistently promoted as a viable pathway toward naturalization after legal residence.

They argue that the government itself encouraged and benefited from this perception since the program’s launch in 2012, and is now attempting to shift responsibility onto consultants.

• Delays and Broken Promises

A central criticism from legal experts focuses on the government’s failure to process applications efficiently. Investors reportedly waited four to five years for residence permits, undermining the timeline required for citizenship eligibility.

Lawyers describe this as the real breach of trust, arguing that:

• The state invited investment worth millions
• Then failed to deliver timely residency
• And later changed the rules mid-process

• The Principle of Legitimate Expectations

A key legal argument revolves around the concept of “legitimate expectations”. Lawyers assert that the Portuguese state created a clear expectation that investors could apply for citizenship after a defined period of residence.

Although nationality was never guaranteed, they argue that:

• The law allowed naturalization through residency
• Government platforms explicitly referenced this pathway
• Investors relied on these representations in good faith

Therefore, changing the timeline from 5 to 10 years is seen as a violation of legal certainty and investor trust.

• Political and Legal Escalation

The dispute reflects a broader pattern of tension between the government and investors. Previous decisions, such as prioritizing other immigration categories over Golden Visa applicants, were criticized as discriminatory.

Despite legal challenges, the Portuguese parliament approved the law with a strong majority, and the Constitutional Court upheld the 10-year requirement, reinforcing the government’s position.

However, a transitional clause protects those who applied before May 18, 2026, while others remain unprotected, further intensifying the conflict.

Summary

There is a growing conflict between the Portuguese government and Golden Visa investors. While the government insists that citizenship was never guaranteed, investors and legal experts argue that the state itself created and promoted expectations of a clear pathway to nationality.

At the heart of the issue lies a combination of:

• Regulatory change (5 to 10 years)
• Administrative delays
• Shifting political narratives

Ultimately, the case raises critical questions about government accountability, investor protection, and the credibility of residency-by-investment programs in an evolving global regulatory environment.