Congress blocks living presidents from currency—using his name as the bill's acronym.
H.R. 5741 — TRUMP Act of 2025 · Filed by Ritchie Torres (D-NY) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Oct 10, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends federal law to prohibit the U.S. from putting portraits or busts of any living President on coins or currency, and more broadly prohibits portraits or busts of any living person on U.S. currency. The bill does not name a specific President but was introduced in 2025 with the acronym 'TRUMP Act,' suggesting it is a response to potential efforts to place a sitting or recently-departed President's image on currency.
Why we flagged it
The bill is framed as a general prohibition on living-person currency imagery, but the 'TRUMP Act' acronym and 2025 introduction date reveal it is a direct, reactive response to a specific sitting official. It is legislation designed to prevent one person's image from appearing on currency, dressed in the language of a general principle.
What the text implies
- The bill's title ('TRUMP Act') and acronym construction ('The Restrict Ugly Money Portraits of 2025') are themselves unusual — the acronym is forced and the title appears designed to embed the target's name into the legislation, which is itself a form of partisan messaging.
- If enacted, the bill would prevent any sitting President from appearing on currency for the duration of their term and potentially beyond, creating a de facto ban on contemporary presidential imagery that has no historical precedent in U.S. currency law.
The full analysis lists 3 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The bill prevents what many would view as an inappropriate politicization of currency (a public good), which protects civic norms and prevents sitting officials from using federal resources for self-promotion. However, the bill is transparently a partisan response to a specific political figure, and its framing as a general principle masks a narrow, reactive purpose — it is legislation designed to block one person's image rather than a principled policy addressing a systemic problem.