Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less