In a move that has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum, freshman Republican Congressman Brandon Gill of Texas introduced the “Golden Age Act of 2025” on March 3. The bill proposes to replace Benjamin Franklin’s image on the $100 bill with that of President Donald Trump, aiming to honor what Gill describes as Trump’s ushering in of a “golden age” for America.

Gill, who was elected to Congress last year, stated, “President Trump could be enjoying his golden years golfing and spending time with his family. Instead, he took a bullet for this country and is now working overtime to secure our border, fix our uneven trade relationship with the rest of the world, make America energy independent again, and … .” He added, “Featuring him on the $100 bill is a small way to honor all he will accomplish these next four years.” Source

Legal Hurdles: The 1866 Precedent

However, the proposal faces significant legal obstacles. Federal law, established in 1866, prohibits the depiction of living individuals on U.S. currency. This legislation was enacted after Spencer M. Clark, a minor government official, controversially placed his own image on a five-cent fractional currency note, leading Congress to mandate that only deceased individuals could appear on U.S. currency. Source

Historical Consistency: Honoring Founding Fathers

Traditionally, U.S. currency has featured founding fathers and past presidents, symbolizing the nation’s history and democratic principles. Benjamin Franklin, whose image currently graces the $100 bill, was not a president but is celebrated for his contributions as a statesman, inventor, and diplomat. Replacing Franklin with a living, polarizing figure like Trump could be seen as a departure from this tradition.

Political Motivations and Timing

The timing of the bill raises questions about its political motivations. Introducing such legislation shortly after an election could be perceived as an attempt to solidify partisan narratives or distract from pressing legislative matters. Critics argue that this move prioritizes political theater over substantive policy discussions.

Public and Political Reactions

Reactions to the proposal have been mixed. Supporters hail it as a fitting tribute to a president they believe has significantly impacted the nation’s trajectory. Opponents view it as an unnecessary politicization of national symbols and a potential erosion of longstanding traditions.

Conclusion

As the “Golden Age Act of 2025” makes its way through the legislative process, it is likely to ignite debates about the intersection of politics, tradition, and national identity. Whether this proposal is a genuine effort to honor a sitting president or a strategic political maneuver remains a subject of contention.