It’s a tremendous honor to have your portrait on U.S. currency, but it comes with an extremely limiting condition. To be selected, you need to be deceased. Makes it a bit difficult to enjoy the moment, right?
At least, that’s the way it’s been for the past 160 years. President Donald Trump announced he planned to break that tradition by having himself cast on the face of a 24-carat gold coin minted by the U.S. Mint. While the commemorative coin would have a limited run and mostly be considered a collector’s item, it would still be legal tender. At least one person believes the proposed Trump coin violates federal law.
In a pro se filing in the U.S. District Court of Oregon on March 24, 2026, James M. Rickher petitioned for a preliminary injunction enjoining President Trump, Secretary of the Treasury Department Scott Bessent, and other defendants from allowing the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to issue official currency of the United States with a living president’s image on it. The White House announced plans to release the coin to mark the 250th anniversary of the nation declaring its independence from British rule in July of this year.
The looming battle over legal tender featuring the image of a sitting president has both sides claiming their position is supported by the laws on the record. With plans on placing Trump’s signature on U.S. paper currency and the phasing out of the penny, the Trump Administration is putting its mouth where the money is. It’ll be up to the courts to decide if the plans will get cashed in.
Oh, the Other Clark, Right
The U.S. Mint was established in 1792. According to Caroline Turco of the Money Museum, the Mint soon requested a portrait of George Washington for use on currency. Washington refused, questioning why a nation that had just fought to be free of a monarchy would emulate putting current rulers on its money.
Prohibiting living people on U.S. currency dates back to an 1866 Act of Congress, later codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5114. The Thayer Amendment was in response to Spencer M. Clark, head of the National Currency Bureau, putting his own portrait on a five-cent fractional note instead of explorer William Clark’s. It banned the use of any living person on U.S. Treasury Department-issued security documents, such as bonds, notes, or currency.
Before news of a coin with Trump’s face on it being scheduled for issuance, only one other president had attempted to ignore the Thayer Amendment. In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge called for the production of a coin bearing both his likeness and that of Washington. Largely mocked and derided, the coin quickly vanished from circulation. With a Commission of Fine Arts, made up of members appointed by President Trump, approving the production of a new coin with his visage on it on March 20, 2026, the debate resumed anew.
Dueling Statutes
Both sides have reasonably compelling arguments for why legal tender bearing President Trump’s image is or isn’t illegal, both grounded in Title 31 U.S.C. Under Section 5112, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is given both freedoms and guardrails regarding the issuance of U.S. currency. The Secretary can choose what images appear on the front and back of a coin, but must include “In God We Trust” (since 1955) and “Liberty” on the front and “United States of America,” “E Pluribus Unum,” and the coin’s denomination on the back. It’s likely the Trump administration will argue that Secretary Bessent’s position allows him to legally mint a coin with President Trump on it.
As pointed out in Rickher’s lawsuit, the United States Code is quite specific about keeping Trump’s name and likeness off legal tender coinage. Section 5114 doesn’t mince any words, declaring that “only the portrait of a deceased individual” can be used on U.S. currency. According to the statute, Secretary Bessent can indeed choose the person to be on the front of U.S. currency, as long as they’re dead. Rickher notes that his request for an injunction applies to ALL living people, not just President Trump.
Rickher’s petition goes on to head off anticipated arguments from the government, stating that limited circulation and collectable intent don’t change the fact that the proposed coin would be legal tender. Such a coin, he claims, would serve as “political glorification” that the Thayer Amendment was enshrined to block. With production needing to ramp up to meet a July 4th reveal, Rickher requests a speedy court review. Given the contesting codes, how this will go may be a coin toss.
Related Resources
- Second Circuit Joins Everyone Else in Okaying “In God We Trust” Currency (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
- It’s Official, Bitcoin is Money, Honey (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- Self-Representation in a Court Case (FindLaw’s What To Expect When You go to Court)
