Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Banning Dollar Coin Depicting Trump

News

A close up of American coins.

Congress debates whether Donald Trump should appear on new U.S. coins for 2026, as lawmakers introduce bills to ban living presidents from currency amid legal loopholes and political controversy.

Getty Images, Taalulla

In 1989, Donald Trump released a Monopoly-style board game featuring money depicting his own face. Now, that’s poised to imminently happen in real life.

What the legislation does


Trump is scheduled to appear on coins starting this summer, an unprecedented move in living memory. Democratic legislation in Congress would ban a sitting president or living ex-president from appearing on U.S. money.

There are currently four living ex-presidents: Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. The legislation would ostensibly apply to them too, although none are currently scheduled to appear on U.S. money, as Trump is.

In the House, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY15) introduced the TRUMP (The Restrict Ugly Money Portraits) Act last September.

In the Senate, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the similar Change Corruption Act two months later, last December. (“Change” in the bill’s title works as a double entendre, meaning both “alter” and the colloquial term for loose coins.)

Context: the news

In March, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts – consisting entirely of Trump appointees – approved a new coin design depicting him. Trump is shown glowering with his fists on a table, based on his picture displayed at the National Portrait Gallery.

Why is there a new coin design, anyway?

In 2020, Congress enacted the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act, authorizing a new dollar coin to honor the Declaration of Independence’s 250th anniversary in 2026.

However, the Congress of 2020 didn’t specify who or what this design would actually depict, instead leaving the decision up to the Treasury Department of 2026.

(The coin actually does contain some non-Trump elements more directly related to the Declaration’s anniversary, like a bald eagle and the phrase “Liberty: 1776-2026.”)

Is this legal?

Is this legal? Apparently, yes – due to a technicality dating back 160 years.

Back in 1866, a federal government official named Spencer Clark exploited a loophole to put an image of his own face on American money.

Congress enacted a law calling for a new money design to depict William Clark, of the explorer duo “Lewis and Clark.” But by referencing “Lewis and Clark,” they only implied his first name rather than saying it directly. Since the law technically only required the bill to depict someone with the last name “Clark,” Spencer Clark decided to put himself instead.

Many Americans were appalled, calling this too similar to the British monarchy from which the U.S. had broken away. (Indeed, the current monarch, King Charles III, appears on the £5, £10, £20, and £50 British banknotes.)

So Congress enacted a law banning any living person from being featured on “bonds, securities, notes, fractional or postal currency of the United States.” Essentially: bills.

But that left a loophole: a living person could still be featured on American coins.

What supporters say

The modern legislation’s supporters argue that no current or living president should appear on American money, whether it's Trump or even presidents Democrats support, like Obama.

“Like tattoos, presidents don’t always age well… regardless of anyone’s political party or viewpoint,” Rep. Torres said in a press release. “If you can’t appear on the U.S. dollar while you’re alive, you shouldn’t appear on any U.S. coins. Even North Korea doesn’t do that.”

(That’s true: the only real person currently on North Korean currency is the country’s founder, Kim Il-sung, who died in 1994.)

“President Trump’s self-celebrating maneuvers are authoritarian actions worthy of dictators, not the United States of America,” Sen. Merkley said in a separate press release. “We must reject his efforts to dismantle our ‘We The People’ republic and replace it with a strongman state.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that Trump’s depiction is perfect for the money.

“As we approach our 250th birthday, we are thrilled to prepare coins that represent the enduring spirit of our country and democracy,” U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said. “And there is no profile more emblematic for the front of such coins than that of our serving President, Donald J. Trump,”

Opponents also note history is on their side: 100 years ago, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge appeared on a coin while he was still in office. (Although it hasn’t happened since.)

What happens now?

The House version has attracted one Democratic cosponsor, Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-CA16), and was referred to the House Financial Services Committee.

The Senate version has attracted five Democratic cosponsors and was referred to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

In December, nine Democratic senators wrote to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, urging him to reject a potential Trump coin design. It’s unclear why four Democrats signed onto that letter but haven’t yet cosponsored the legislation: Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on The Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: Easter Monday Act, Federal Holiday

Congress Bill Spotlight: SERVE Act, To Undo Trump Renamings

Congress Bill Spotlight: MAMDANI Act, Blocking Funds to NYC

Congress Votes With Only One House or Senate Dissenter, 2025


Read More

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less