Two defining features of Donald Trump’s second term have been his desire to put his name and image on virtually everything, paired with a willingness to sidestep established legal norms.
Today, the administration is combining these tendencies once more with the release of a $1 coin bearing the president’s likeness. Legal scholars argue the coin should not be allowed, yet production is moving forward regardless. How often have we heard that over the past 18 months?
The United States has a long-standing tradition of avoiding the depiction of living individuals on its currency. The practice dates back to the late 1700s, when the US Mint sought to feature George Washington on American money. Washington declined, arguing that placing a leader’s image on currency resembled the customs of a monarchy. In 1866, Congress enacted legislation prohibiting the likeness of living persons from appearing on currency.
That statute has not deterred the current administration. The new $1 coin, classified as legal tender, prominently displays Trump’s stern expression. Though the coin has a golden appearance, it is manufactured from zinc, manganese, nickel, and copper. A roll of 25 coins sells for $61, and approximately 9 million are being produced. According to the US Mint, the coin commemorates “250 years of great American heritage.”
That all sounds impressive, but what about the law?
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has defended the coin by pointing to a precedent from America’s 150th anniversary celebration, when President Calvin Coolidge appeared on a commemorative coin. He argues that a similar tribute is appropriate for the 250th anniversary.
The core issue is that US currency regulations are a patchwork of overlapping statutes. The 1866 ban on living persons arose from an unusual act of personal vanity. An incoming five-cent note was originally meant to honor the deceased explorer William Clark. However, a Treasury official named Spencer M Clark exploited the coincidence in surnames to place his own portrait on the currency instead.
Congress noticed and was unimpressed. Lawmakers passed an amendment restricting US money to depictions of deceased individuals, though the restriction applied only to paper currency.
“For me, I would consider it illegal,” said Gabriel Mathy, an associate professor of economics at American University who has studied American currency history.
“But the United States has all these laws, which really are norms because they’re not really enforceable.”
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
The coin’s release did not occur without opposition. In May, Democratic members of Congress wrote to the Treasury Department urging a halt to production, citing a 2005 law that imposed additional restrictions on which presidents could be featured on coins.
In March, James Rickher, a retired attorney based in Portland, filed a motion seeking to block the coin, contending it violated federal law. However, a federal judge denied the request in June, ruling that Rickher “failed to present evidence that clearly shows he will personally suffer concrete harm from issuance of the challenged coin,” according to Fox 12. The judge clarified that his ruling did not address the underlying question of whether the coin is lawful.
As a result, Americans will have the opportunity to celebrate 250 years of American heritage by purchasing a legally questionable one-dollar coin for approximately $2.44 each. Those curious about the architect of this commemorative design need only examine the coin itself.
