Epigraph
Money often costs too much.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 19th-century American philosopher and essayis
Money is not only a medium of exchange but also a roster of those whom a nation chooses to remember
Greetings, dear readers. As someone fascinated by history, politics, and numismatics, I occasionally stumble upon topics that seem tailor-made for a deep and engaging discussion. One such topic has recently surfaced in the news: could the sitting U.S. President, Donald Trump, appear on a national banknote?
https://dzen.ru/b/aOkuChYSmW5dQ_o1
Let us ponder a hypothetical $250 bill bearing the portrait of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is a figure debated not only by politicians but also by the guardians of America's monetary traditions.
For the uninitiated, and especially for a foreigner, this question is far from simple, as it conceals a tangled knot of circumstances and facts: the national laws of the issuing state, centuries-old traditions, and the unprecedented political persona of the current 47th President of the United States. Let us unravel this together.
"No, Because It's Just Not Done?" Law, Tradition, and Political Games
First and foremost, we must understand the core issue: the question of Trump's portrait on currency is not a matter of taste or personal preference. It is a matter of law and established tradition.
Where It All Began: A 19th-Century Scandal in the U.S.
The history of American currency tradition starts with a curious scandal in the 1860s. An official named Spencer Clark, who headed the Currency Bureau, took the liberty of placing his own portrait on a 5‑cent "fractional note" of the 3rd series, dated 1864.
Imagine Congress's reaction. This act of self‑promotion led to a provision being inserted into the 1866 Treasury appropriations bill, prohibiting the use of images of living persons on federal bonds, securities, banknotes, and so‑called "postage currency" of the United States.
That wording laid the foundation for a strict practice: living individuals would no longer appear on U.S. banknotes. In the years that followed, this principle was repeatedly reaffirmed by decisions of the Treasury and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Living People on U.S. Money: Rare but Significant Exceptions
The law bans "the living" from U.S. currency, yet history stubbornly tries to inscribe them anew. One often hears the categorical claim: "There have never been living people on American money." It sounds compelling, but historically, it is not entirely accurate. Let us examine the details carefully.
Even before this restrictive practice was codified into law, there were early examples of living persons on federal paper money issued during the Civil War. Numismatic literature references, in particular, the following figures: the sitting President Abraham Lincoln on the 1861 $10 bill, as well as high‑ranking officials and military leaders Winfield Scott, William H. Seward, and Salmon P. Chase.
Thus, Lincoln was not the "only" living person on paper money but is undoubtedly the most famous example of a sitting president whose portrait appeared on a national note during his lifetime.
After the 1870s, as the ban solidified and legislation evolved, portraits of living persons vanished from federal banknotes and have never returned.
Living People on U.S. Coins
The situation with coins is different. There is no single, formal law that explicitly and permanently bans depictions of living people on U.S. coins; instead, what governs is a strict tradition and the administrative policy of the Treasury and the Mint, modeled on the practice for paper money. Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, exceptions have occurred.
Specialized sources highlight the following instances of living people appearing on official U.S. coins:
- 1921 – A commemorative half‑dollar for Alabama's state centennial. The obverse features two busts: the state's first governor, William Bibb, and the then‑sitting governor, Thomas Kilby. This made Kilby the first living person ever to appear on an official U.S. coin. No formal violation of law was found, as the 1866 ban was understood to apply primarily to banknotes and paper securities.
- 1926 – A half‑dollar commemorating the 150th anniversary of American independence. It depicts George Washington alongside the sitting president, Calvin Coolidge. This makes Coolidge the only sitting U.S. president officially portrayed on a U.S. coin during his lifetime.
- 2016 – The "First Spouses" program. The coin honoring Nancy Reagan was designed and announced while she was still alive; her death in March 2016 occurred when the design was already under active discussion and had been approved.
Thus, the faces of sitting Governor Kilby, President Coolidge, and First Lady Nancy Reagan became rare exceptions to the unwritten rule against placing living people on coins.
In popular political rhetoric, one sometimes hears that "America has never had portraits of living presidents on its money." Yet the 1926 half‑dollar with Coolidge clearly shows this to be a historical inaccuracy.
In summary, the picture is as follows:
- For banknotes, a strict ban and firmly established practice of not depicting living persons has been in place since the 1860s, following a few isolated Civil War‑era exceptions.
- For coins, a strong tradition exists in the same spirit, but Congress and the Mint have, on several documented occasions in numismatic history, consciously made exceptions.
This practice and its rare exceptions form a crucial backdrop for understanding the current debates surrounding Trump's image and the upcoming U.S. semiquincentennial.
Why Is This Topic Resurfacing Now?
The reason lies in the approaching milestone—the 250th anniversary of the United States, traditionally marked by the issuance of commemorative coins and other numismatic items. Against this backdrop, the idea of Trump's likeness on U.S. currency naturally re‑emerges in media and political discourse.
On one hand, conservative circles have floated ideas and symbolic initiatives—up to and including a $250 bill with Donald Trump's portrait and calls to revisit the longstanding ban on living portraits on banknotes. On the other hand, voices from the liberal camp and some experts argue for precisely the opposite: not to weaken but to reinforce the tradition, effectively "locking in forever" the principle that living presidents and current leaders should not appear on either banknotes or coins. Their argument is straightforward: "America is not a monarchy, and we cannot have kings on our money."
For now, all these proposals remain in the realm of political and media debate. It would be premature to speak of any actual legislation being passed to create a "$250 Trump bill."
So, Can Trump Actually End Up on U.S. Currency? A Brief Legal Verdict
Setting emotions aside and looking strictly at the law and current practice:
- On a banknote (that hypothetical $250 bill): NO. As long as the tradition and the 19th‑century ban on living persons on federal banknotes remain in force, the appearance of a portrait of a sitting or still‑living former president is impossible. There are no legal "loopholes" in the standard framework for banknote issuance.
- On a commemorative coin: THEORETICALLY YES, but not without a monumental scandal. For coins, there is no single, universal, legally enshrined prohibition. Congress could, in principle, pass a special act, as it did for Kilby and Coolidge. However, today such a move would represent a conscious departure from a century‑old taboo and would trigger immense political controversy.
In short, the obstacle between Trump and a banknote is not some vague "tradition" but a well‑established 19th‑century ban on living portraits on paper money, backed by longstanding practice. To overturn it would require more than political will—it would necessitate a rethinking of the very concept of money as a national symbol.
The Trump Phenomenon: A Leader Who Rewrote the Rules
Let us now step away from statutes and articles and look at the man at the heart of this debate. Why does his persona provoke such heated arguments about his place in history that we are even discussing bills and coins?
Not a "System Error," But a Hard Reset
One may view Trump in vastly different ways, but one thing is hard to deny: he emerged as a response to a potent demand that had long been simmering within a significant portion of American society. A demand for pragmatism, for prioritizing national interests, for a politics that speaks plainly rather than in polished but empty formulas. Trump did not arise from the political elite, and this defined his style: a focus on results over procedure, on personal leadership over bureaucratic consensus. In this logic, the president of the world's largest economy cannot be a "grey mouse"—he must be a figure who is heard and reckoned with. Yes, Trump is ambitious and extraordinarily vain, but expecting modesty from a U.S. president is perhaps unrealistic.
Domestic Policy: Tangible Actions
It was within the United States that Trump's approach manifested itself most distinctly.
- Economy and Energy. Early in his first term, emphasis was placed on supporting domestic industry and traditional energy, which, by many analysts' accounts, contributed to employment growth and helped restrain fuel prices. For many Americans, this felt not like abstract statistics but like everyday reality: steady jobs, predictable costs, and a relative sense of security about the future.
- Border and Order. A cornerstone of his agenda was a stricter immigration policy and enhanced control of the southern border—from the construction of barriers to changes in the rules themselves. Supporters saw this as a matter of security and the rule of law; critics pointed to humanitarian consequences and the harshness of the measures. Regardless, immigration became one of the central axes of his domestic policy.
- Sovereignty in Decision‑Making. The Trump administration revisited U.S. international commitments, withdrawing from organizations and agreements it deemed unfavorable or one‑sided. This approach can be termed hard‑nosed national pragmatism: "America First" not as a mere slogan, but as a filter for decision‑making.
Foreign Policy: Strength and Dialogue
On the world stage, Trump acted sharply and at times paradoxically, combining pressure with a readiness for direct contact with opponents.
- On one hand, sanctions pressure was intensified, trade agreements were renegotiated, and allies were presented with demands for a "fair" sharing of burdens.
- On the other hand, Trump demonstrated a willingness to engage in direct dialogue where many expected only confrontation, thereby breaking accustomed diplomatic patterns.
Criticism and Polarization
It would be dishonest to gloss over the fact that Trump is a figure who profoundly polarizes society. His bluntness strikes many as rudeness; his tough border measures are condemned by human rights advocates; his foreign policy steps are often called risky. Polling has consistently shown a deep schism: for some, he is a savior from a "weary elite," for others, a source of threat to democratic norms.
Perhaps this is the essence of his political phenomenon. He does not strive to be "palatable to all," does not smooth over edges, but instead lays bare contradictions and forces society to make a choice.
Bringing It All Together
Ultimately, we are looking at two parts of a single story.
On one side is a strict, historically rooted ban on living portraits on banknotes and a powerful tradition that nearly excludes them from coins. This approach protects the dollar and official coinage from becoming a gallery of transient politicians and fleeting idols. Yet, as we have seen, this tradition has its historical "cracks"—from Lincoln and Chase on early paper money to Kilby, Coolidge, and Nancy Reagan on coins.
On the other side is a vivid political phenomenon: a reformist president who, in the eyes of his supporters, rebooted American domestic and foreign policy by recentering the principle of "America First." His role in amplifying the theme of national interests and revising old approaches has already become part of history, irrespective of one's personal opinion of him.
Returning to the banknote question: the mere fact that a hypothetical Trump bill is being discussed in the public sphere speaks volumes about the stature of the man. The question "Is he worthy?" arises only for those who have left a mark deep enough to claim a place in the symbolic pantheon.
Personally, I see a crucial point in all this. I have neither the right nor the inclination to advise Americans on whose faces to mint on their currency—that is their exclusive prerogative. But as an outside observer, I see that in today's world, clarity, pragmatism, and a readiness to defend national interests are once again in high demand. And Donald Trump has become one of the most vivid and uncompromising embodiments of this trend. His era has already proven to be a turning point—whether we approve of that turn or not.
Therefore, in my view, Trump's figure at least deserves to have the question of its symbolic commemoration raised. Even if we never see a $250 bill with his portrait, the very fact of a serious debate on this subject says something essential: the Trump era has already become one of the most notable chapters in American history—a chapter that will be reread and reevaluated for a very long time.
To end up on currency, it is not enough merely to govern a country—one must outlive one's own era. I do not know what coin or bill may or may not appear someday, but I find it easy to imagine the kind of monument that might one day be erected to President Trump. His demeanor during the attempt on his life has already provided the world with images that seem like a ready‑made sketch for a monument.
Realistically, however, the history of U.S. money shows one more thing: a president must first depart this life before he can appear on its currency—be it on a bill or a coin.
P.S.
But laws are not dogma, and traditions sometimes need a fresh perspective. If the path to banknotes and coins is closed, why not imagine Donald Trump as the symbol of a new ‘cryptocurrency’? It’s tech‑savvy, timely, and—for now—outside any legal prohibitions. Although, if we’re speaking purely of aesthetics, my heart leans toward another option: a ‘TRUMPCOIN’ bearing Melania’s portrait. Now that would be a design!
P.S.S.
По просьбе англоязычных товарищей переведено и несколько адаптировано для "западного уха" на английский язык.