It was political dynamite: The introduction of a bill to replace Benjamin Franklin’s face on the $100 bill with Donald Trump’s. Some praise the idea as a bold political statement, while others have called it a ludicrous attempt to further politicize American currency. This is not the first time political leaders in the United States have sought to politicize symbols of national unity, and the effort has sparked discussions about the intersection of history and politics on American currency. But is this really an indication of America’s shifting political tides, or just another absurd publicity stunt?
The Proposal: Replacing Franklin with Trump
The new measure introduced in Congress calls for a drastic change to the $100 bill—a makeover that would swap out the portrait of the founding father Benjamin Franklin for former President Donald Trump. As you can imagine, this notion has become a hot topic of debate across the political spectrum, with proponents on one side and critics on the other providing dramatically divergent points of view.
Why Replace Franklin?
Benjamin Franklin, one of the U.S. founding fathers, has appeared on the $100 bill since 1929. Franklin, as one of America’s most respected historical figures, represents the nation’s history, innovation, and ideals in that currency. Not the least of these is that it has not only aroused controversy but also raised the specter of symbolism in currency design.
To supporters of the change, Trump’s presidency was a historic aberration in the life of the United States. Supporters argue that his influence at home and abroad alone warrants his presence on the $100 bill. They cite his accomplishments on tax reform, trade deals, and the reconfiguration of U.S. politics as major arguments for the tribute.
The Political Debate
But critics of the proposal say adding a recent president to U.S. currency is an unnecessary political gesture that could turn American currency into a partisan emblem. The United States has a long-standing tradition of keeping currency apolitical, using it as an abstract symbol of economic stability instead of a medium of political expression. Some fear that such a plan could sabotage the integrity of U.S. currency and reinforce the country’s divisions.
The debate comes down to a basic question: Should U.S. currency be neutral, or should it be a reflection of contemporary political figures who played a big role in the nation?
A History of U.S. Currency: Political Iconography as Tradition
To grasp the importance of this debate, it’s necessary to take a look at the history of U.S. currency and the procedure by which people are selected to show up on bank notes.
In the New Nation, a New Look for U.S. Currency
The United States has a lengthy tradition of placing important facets of its national identity on money. The first paper currency, which was issued early in the Civil War in 1861, was intended to help fund the Union’s wartime efforts. Over the years, currency has depicted figures from all walks of life, including presidents, inventors, military leaders, and abolitionists.
The nation’s aspiration toward exploration and expansion was reflected in the $100 bill for the first time when it featured the portrait of Christopher Columbus in 1861. But by the late 1800s, U.S. Treasury took to putting notable people like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln on currency.
The practice of putting U.S. presidents on the bills became commonplace after the 1920s, even introducing figures like Alexander Hamilton or Andrew Jackson on other denominations. “Narratives started changing; every consecutive government started talking about economic growth.”
The Impact of Politicians on Currencies
Presidents have anointed themselves the stars of U.S. currency, first treating George Washington to a spot on the $1 bill. Other presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and Ulysses S. Grant, have icons on various bills immortalized.
But this tradition has not been without controversy. Consider, for example, the mug shot of Andrew Jackson that will grace the front of the $20 bill that is current, but soon will be renewed, and lately has been the subject of heated debate for his role in promoting the forced removal of Native American tribes—the Trail of Tears—one of the darkest periods of American history. Likewise, the long-awaited decision to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill has faced its own criticism, especially among those who say taking Jackson off the bill is a slight to his legacy.
The fracas over whose faces belong on U.S. currency lays bare just how intertwined politics and money are in forming a national identity.
Dollar Design: An Increasingly Popular Political Brand
This bill to put Trump’s face on the $100 bill isn’t happening in a vacuum; it’s part of an escalating trend of politicizing national symbols. In recent years there has been a growing discussion around who should be portrayed on U.S. currency, and many advocates of this idea point to increasing women and minority representation as central to creating a more representative currency.
The Tubman Debate: To Inclusion and Beyond: THE GILDED AGE
The long overdue decision to put Harriet Tubman, an abolitionist and civil rights heroine, on the $20 bill reflects a longing for change in the representations of U.S. historical figures. The bill also suggests a departure from the traditional inclusion of only white men to a menagerie of historical figures because if there’s no Harriet Tubman by the front and center rendition of Alexander Hamilton, there would be no African Americans anywhere on denominations or no African American women anywhere on denominations.
But this shift has not been without its pushback. There’s a subset of the population that says Tubman doesn’t belong on the $20 bill—that putting her there would be a politically driven decision based on modern social movements and not historical fact. This debate is a microcosm of the tension between tradition and progress in U.S. currency design.
Political Polarization & Currency
Trump’s potential inclusion on the $100 bill comes during a time of extreme political polarization in the U.S. This is, after all, a time when public engagement has become so much more divisive, and artists might wonder whether depicting a recent political figure on U.S. currency might be something that could divide even further. Critics say putting a political figure as controversial as Trump on the nation’s money could cement partisan loyalties, making it even harder to reach a middle ground.
Once viewed as a neutral marker of national identity, currency may serve as yet another front in the culture wars.
What Does This Mean for the Future of U.S. Money?
It is a question that suggests bigger issues about political representation, about national identity, about money and its place in American life. If the bill succeeds, it would signal a change in how the U.S. understands its past, present, and future.
How Money Expresses National Purpose
Currency represents more than a means of trade: it reflects the identity and values of a nation. The faces on U.S. currency represent the political and cultural transitions that have defined our nation over the years. Take, for instance, featuring prominent African American figures on currency (a decision to put Harriet Tubman on our money, for instance), there’s a lack of small, subtle acknowledgment and it’s very conscious.
And while putting Trump’s face on the $100 bill might seem humorous, it could also be perceived as an attempt to reintroduce the politicization of U.S. currency—a phenomenon that has some concerned that we might lose our money’s neutrality.
Will This Proposal Result in More Controversies?
If the legislation passes, this would likely set a precedent for adding other contemporary political figures to U.S. currency. Which suggests we could see future bills with presidents like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or even some controversial figures from future administrations. Presumably in the name of basic politics, that is, fewer divisive characters could even make it to the proverbial plates during a combative political climate.
Conclusion: A Step Toward Political Polarization or Necessary Change?
The $100 bill shouldn’t be stuffed with a man who never even held public office,” wrote Sarai Guzman in Rolling Stone, a publication quickly followed by others voicing their critique and in a fierce defense of their own views as pro-feminist. Whether this action represents a reasonable acknowledgment of Trump’s impact on U.S. history or a needless politicization of currency is open for debate. What is certain, though, is that there is a broader cultural and political shift taking place in the United States—and this debate is emblematic of that.
With the nation wrestling with such questions of representation, inclusion, and national identity, the future of U.S. currency may indeed be determined by the continuing politicization of its symbols.
FAQs
1. Why is Donald Trump getting an endorsement on the $100 bill?
The proposal attempts to honor Trump’s political and historical significance to the United States, suggesting that the period when Trump served as president deserves this sort of official recognition, just like earlier presidents have been memorialized on its currency.
2. How do we get figures on U.S. currency?
The figures depicted on U.S. currency are usually chosen for their historical importance and contributions to the country. But the process is naturally affected by the political and cultural air of the time.
3. Has Trump’s face appeared on any other U.S. currency?
No, Donald Trump’s face has not yet appeared on any U.S. currency, although the idea has been floated a few times over the course of his political career.
4. Who else has been proposed to be on U.S. currency?
Figures like Harriet Tubman, who was proposed to take Andrew Jackson’s place on the $20 bill, have ignited debate over who should be depicted on United States currency.
5. Would this set a precedent for other political figures to be featured on U.S. currency?
If approved, it would also pave the way for other controversial political figures to appear on U.S. currency and, in the future, more contentious debates over who should have the privilege of appearing.
