Editors at National Review Online criticize the Trump administration’s latest bad idea.
The United States has a long history of declining to put living people on its currency. This history dates back to the early republic, when, having learned that the U.S. Mint intended to add his face to the money, George Washington condemned the idea as unrepublican. In 1866, Congress formalized Washington’s instinct with the passage of a law that barred the “portrait or likeness” of any living figure from being featured on paper notes. Since then, this norm has held, with one narrow exception: commemorative coins.
Care to guess whether President Trump is more interested in the norm or the exception?
That’s right. Citing language in the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020, the Trump administration has issued a new one-dollar coin featuring the president’s scowling face. While, technically, the coin is a collectible, the administration has been keen to insist nevertheless that they “may be still used as legal tender.” Which is to say that the president of the United States has found a legal loophole that, in a departure from two centuries of tradition, has allowed him to put his own likeness on the money. Is this draining the swamp?
Given the many overlapping laws that govern the realm, the legality of this move is unclear — as is the matter of whether anyone would have standing to sue. But, frankly, its legality is the least crucial part of the story. More important than the “how” is the “why.” Why would the president want this? For whom is this being done? In what possible way does this make America “great”? Defending the move, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that the coin “celebrates the strength of American values, and the promise of a nation dedicated to preserving freedom for all.” Does it? How?
