High price for Trump $1 coin at the US Mint

Chabed Sathi
Earlier this year, to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States, the Department of the Treasury issued a $1 coin featuring the portrait of Donald Trump. While a coin bearing the image of an incumbent president might seem innocuous, it sets a dangerous precedent: the U.S. Mint is being used as a tool for personal political campaigning.
Historically, the United States has had a complex, often ambivalent, relationship with the $1 coin. The Coinage Act of 1792 established a federal mint for the production of U.S. currency. Later, to cover the costs of the Civil War, paper notes known as "greenbacks" were introduced. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 marked the inception of the nation’s central banking system, and in 1914, the Federal Reserve Board issued its first $10 Federal Reserve Note. Even as paper currency became the standard, the government has repeatedly attempted to revive the use of metal coins.
Driven by an ill-conceived plan to phase out the $1 paper note, the "Native American $1 Coin Act" of 2009 led to an increase in the production of $1 coins for general circulation. By 2011, approximately 1.4 billion of these coins were sitting in Federal Reserve vaults. Because the argument that $1 coins would be more cost-effective for everyday transactions proved flawed—and due to low public demand—many of these coins remain in the Federal Reserve’s vaults to this day.
In the United States, the $1 coin has never gained widespread acceptance. Regardless of how much its purchasing power may have declined, Americans continue to prefer their $1 paper notes. In contrast, Canada phased out its $1 paper note in 1989, replacing it with a $1 coin known as the "loonie." In 1996, Canada also replaced its $2 paper note with a coin, dubbed the "toonie." Similarly, the lowest-denomination banknote in the European Union is the 5-euro note, while in the United Kingdom, it is the 5-pound note. While countries like the United Kingdom and Canada feature the portraits of living heads of state on their currency, this reflects their status as constitutional monarchies. The United States, by contrast, is a constitutional republic.
The United States Mint previously issued $1 coins under the "Presidential $1 Coin Program," which has since concluded. It has been succeeded by the "American Innovation Dollars" program, which will run until 2032. According to established rules, at least two years must pass following an individual's death before their portrait can appear on a coin. For instance, a coin featuring George H.W. Bush was released in 2020—two years after his passing. Given that Jimmy Carter passed away on December 29, 2024, we can anticipate the release of a $1 coin bearing his likeness sometime after December 29, 2026. Such coins are generally not intended for daily circulation but are instead produced for numismatists—coin collectors.
The U.S. Mint has effectively tapped into this collector market. In 2024, the agency sold $469 million worth of collectible coins and related items—most of which will never enter general circulation. Furthermore, it sold over $2.3 billion worth of bullion coins minted from silver, gold, or platinum; these serve as a vehicle for investing in the underlying precious metals.
Will a coin featuring Trump alter the public's general lack of interest in $1 coins? Certainly not. Although legally categorized under a program intended for general circulation, the Mint primarily distributes these coins to collectors. Collectors may purchase them as keepsakes to add to their collections, but beyond that, the coin serves no practical purpose.
This absence of economic utility reveals the coin's true intent. Since it fulfills no functional need, its creation becomes an entirely political endeavor. In truth, the issue extends well beyond the coin itself. For a long time, the United States has avoided featuring the portraits of living individuals on its currency. There are sound reasons for this policy. Countries that do include the images of living presidents on their currency tend to be either authoritarian states or monarchies. For instance, North Korea’s 5,000-won note bears the portrait of Kim Jong-il, and during Saddam Hussein’s presidency, his image appeared on Iraqi currency. In contrast, nations like France and South Korea deliberately refrain from placing the images of living leaders on their currency, ensuring that the national currency represents the enduring state rather than any transient ruler.
Using the image of a sitting president on U.S. currency would set a poor precedent, aligning the nation with the company of undesirable regimes. This practice is also associated with monarchy—a system opposed by those who participated in the "No Kings" protests.This trend extends beyond mere financial matters. The administration’s initiative to construct a 250-foot-tall triumphal arch also reeks of an attempt to cultivate a personal image. Just as the Treasury Department exploited legal loopholes to feature the incumbent president’s likeness on currency, the executive branch relied on a 1925 law to justify the construction of an architectural monument—all without the consent of Congress. In response to this overreach, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction, halting the project.
Given the Treasury Department’s apparent readiness to fulfill almost any request from the president, the ‘Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act’ of 2020 was leveraged to issue a $1 coin featuring Donald Trump, ostensibly to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary. By placing Trump’s portrait on the obverse, the requirement that an individual must be deceased for at least two years was effectively bypassed. The Treasury’s legal justification hinges on a single precedent: a half-dollar coin minted in 1926 for the U.S. sesquicentennial, which featured the portrait of the then-incumbent president, Calvin Coolidge.
Ultimately, this move is about projecting a personal political image—hardly the conduct of a public servant acting for the greater good of the nation. This instance of executive overreach serves as a cautionary signal regarding the agenda for the new Congress, which should include a permanent ban on featuring living politicians on currency.
Regardless of their party affiliation, when the legislative branch abdicates its responsibility to set boundaries on executive power, the foundations of our system of government begin to erode—one dollar at a time.
Chabed Sathi: A U.S.-based writer, journalist, and political analyst. Editor, Bangla Press.
* Copyright 2026 Bangla Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
BP/SM