The bill
$2.50 for America’s 250th Act
HR. 5616, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.
Sponsored by
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]
ID: A000055
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 5616, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Federal Reserve" section, p. 770-772 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate.
February 11, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose its true purpose.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The $2.50 for America's 250th Act is a numismatic coin program masquerading as a patriotic tribute to the country's founding principles. In reality, it's a vehicle for politicians to grandstand, special interest groups to profit, and bureaucrats to justify their existence.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue $2.50 numismatic coins with various metal compositions, weights, and designs. The most notable provision is the requirement for a comprehensive study on the feasibility of minting and issuing a $2.50 coin for wide circulation. This "study" will undoubtedly be a sham, designed to provide cover for the real objective: lining the pockets of special interest groups.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
1. Politicians: They get to pretend they're doing something meaningful while actually serving their donors and re-election interests. 2. Special Interest Groups: Numismatic organizations, coin collectors, and related industries will benefit from the increased demand for these commemorative coins. 3. Bureaucrats: The Treasury Department and U.S. Mint will enjoy an excuse to expand their operations and justify their budgets. 4. Lobbyists: They'll be busy "educating" lawmakers on the importance of this bill while secretly pushing for provisions that benefit their clients.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a larger disease: the politicization of everything. By exploiting patriotism and national pride, politicians can distract from real issues and further erode trust in government. The actual impact will be minimal, except for:
1. Increased costs: Taxpayers will foot the bill for the production and distribution of these coins. 2. Special interest enrichment: Numismatic organizations and related industries will reap financial benefits from the increased demand for commemorative coins. 3. Further erosion of trust: This bill's transparent attempt to manipulate public opinion will only serve to deepen the cynicism and disillusionment with government.
In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative sleight-of-hand, designed to deceive the public while serving special interests. It's a numismatic coin program masquerading as patriotism, and we're all just pawns in their game of bureaucratic self-aggrandizement.
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: W000822
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: S000168
Top Contributors
10
ID: E000296
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001204
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000469
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001296
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000631
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001212
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000466
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001059
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 62 nodes and 35 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $150,237
Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 4(b)(6) explicitly requires consultation with commercial banks as stakeholders in the study of a widely circulated $2.50 coin, indicating direct engagement with the industry.
Section 4(b)(6) requires consultation with stakeholders including commercial banks, cash-handling businesses, consumer groups, and vending and transit industries; while not directly mentioning big tech, the study of a widely circulated $2.50 coin could benefit digital payment platforms if it increases cash usage or integrates with fintech, though connection is indirect.
Section 4(b)(6) mentions consultation with vending and transit industries, and Section 4(b)(8)(A) includes coordination with the Federal Reserve System and financial institutions; a widely circulated coin could intersect with fintech payment systems, but the bill does not explicitly address crypto or fintech.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on issuing commemorative $2.50 coins with gold and silver content, which only tangentially touches on the Project 2025 theme of commodity-backed money; it does not pursue free banking, gold standard restoration, or any Federal Reserve reform objectives."
— 737 — Federal Reserve by ensuring that cash earns a positive (inflation-adjusted) rate of return, it can pre- vent households and businesses from holding inefficiently small money balances. Further benefits of free banking include dramatic reduction of economic cycles, an end to indirect financing of federal spending, removal of the “lender of last resort” permanent bailout function of central banks, and promotion of currency competition.26 This allows Americans many more ways to protect their savings. Because free banking implies that financial services and banking would be gov- erned by general business laws against, for example, fraud or misrepresentation, crony regulatory burdens that hurt customers would be dramatically eased, and innovation would be encouraged. Potential downsides of free banking stem from its greatest benefit: It has mas- sive political hurdles to clear. Economic theory predicts and economic history confirms that free banking is both stable and productive, but it is radically different from the system we have now. Transitioning to free banking would require polit- ical authorities, including Congress and the President, to coordinate on multiple reforms simultaneously. Getting any of them wrong could imbalance an otherwise functional system. Ironically, it is the very strength of a true free banking system that makes transitioning to one so difficult. Commodity-Backed Money. For most of U.S. history, the dollar was defined in terms of both gold and silver. The problem was that when the legal price differed from the market price, the artificially undervalued currency would disappear from circulation. There were times, for instance, when this mechanism put the U.S. on a de facto silver standard. However, as a result, inflation was limited. Given this track record, restoring a gold standard retains some appeal among monetary reformers who do not wish to go so far as abolishing the Federal Reserve. Both the 2012 and 2016 GOP platforms urged the establishment of a commis- sion to consider the feasibility of a return to the gold standard,27 and in October 2022, Representative Alexander Mooney (R–WV) introduced a bill to restore the gold standard.28 In economic effect, commodity-backing the dollar differs from free banking in that the government (via the Fed) maintains both regulatory and bailout functions. However, manipulation of money and credit is limited because new dollars are not costless to the federal government: They must be backed by some hard asset like gold. Compared to free banking, then, the benefits of commodity-backed money are reduced, but transition disruptions are also smaller. The process of commodity backing is very straightforward: Treasury could set the price of a dollar at today’s market price of $2,000 per ounce of gold. This means that each Federal Reserve note could be redeemed at the Federal Reserve and exchanged for 1/2000 ounce of gold—about $80, for example, for a gold coin the weight of a dime. Private bank liabilities would be redeemable upon their issuers. Banks could send those traded-in dollars to the Treasury for gold to replenish their
AI Analysis:
"The bill creates commemorative $2.50 coins for the nation's 250th anniversary, focusing on heritage and numismatics, whereas the Project 2025 Federal Reserve section advocates for monetary reforms such as free banking, a gold standard, or commodity-backed money. Only a tangential connection exists through the use of gold and silver in the coins, but the bill does not pursue any of the policy objectives outlined in Project 2025."
— 737 — Federal Reserve by ensuring that cash earns a positive (inflation-adjusted) rate of return, it can pre- vent households and businesses from holding inefficiently small money balances. Further benefits of free banking include dramatic reduction of economic cycles, an end to indirect financing of federal spending, removal of the “lender of last resort” permanent bailout function of central banks, and promotion of currency competition.26 This allows Americans many more ways to protect their savings. Because free banking implies that financial services and banking would be gov- erned by general business laws against, for example, fraud or misrepresentation, crony regulatory burdens that hurt customers would be dramatically eased, and innovation would be encouraged. Potential downsides of free banking stem from its greatest benefit: It has mas- sive political hurdles to clear. Economic theory predicts and economic history confirms that free banking is both stable and productive, but it is radically different from the system we have now. Transitioning to free banking would require polit- ical authorities, including Congress and the President, to coordinate on multiple reforms simultaneously. Getting any of them wrong could imbalance an otherwise functional system. Ironically, it is the very strength of a true free banking system that makes transitioning to one so difficult. Commodity-Backed Money. For most of U.S. history, the dollar was defined in terms of both gold and silver. The problem was that when the legal price differed from the market price, the artificially undervalued currency would disappear from circulation. There were times, for instance, when this mechanism put the U.S. on a de facto silver standard. However, as a result, inflation was limited. Given this track record, restoring a gold standard retains some appeal among monetary reformers who do not wish to go so far as abolishing the Federal Reserve. Both the 2012 and 2016 GOP platforms urged the establishment of a commis- sion to consider the feasibility of a return to the gold standard,27 and in October 2022, Representative Alexander Mooney (R–WV) introduced a bill to restore the gold standard.28 In economic effect, commodity-backing the dollar differs from free banking in that the government (via the Fed) maintains both regulatory and bailout functions. However, manipulation of money and credit is limited because new dollars are not costless to the federal government: They must be backed by some hard asset like gold. Compared to free banking, then, the benefits of commodity-backed money are reduced, but transition disruptions are also smaller. The process of commodity backing is very straightforward: Treasury could set the price of a dollar at today’s market price of $2,000 per ounce of gold. This means that each Federal Reserve note could be redeemed at the Federal Reserve and exchanged for 1/2000 ounce of gold—about $80, for example, for a gold coin the weight of a dime. Private bank liabilities would be redeemable upon their issuers. Banks could send those traded-in dollars to the Treasury for gold to replenish their — 738 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise vaults. This creates a powerful self-policing mechanism: If the federal govern- ment creates dollars too quickly, more people will doubt the peg and turn in their gold to banks, which then will turn in their gold and drain the government’s gold. This forces governments to rein in spending and inflation lest their gold reserves become depleted. One concern raised against commodity backing is that there is not enough gold in the federal government for all the dollars in existence. This is solved by making sure that the initial peg on gold is correct. Also, in reality, a very small number of users trade for gold as long as they believe the government will stick to the price peg. The mere fact that people could exchange dollars for gold is what acts as the enforcer. After all, if one is confident that a dollar will still be worth 1/2000 ounce of gold in a year, it is much easier to walk about with paper dollars and use credit cards than it is to mail tiny $80 coins. People would redeem en masse only if they feared the government would not be able control itself, for which the only solution is for the government to control itself. Beyond full backing, alternate paths to gold backing might involve gold-con- vertible Treasury instruments29 or allowing a parallel gold standard to operate temporarily alongside the current fiat dollar.30 These could ease adoption while minimizing disruption, but they should be temporary so that we can quickly enjoy the benefits of gold’s ability to police government spending. In addition, Congress could simply allow individuals to use commodity-backed money without fully replacing the current system. Among downsides to a commodity standard, there is no guarantee that the gov- ernment will stick to the price peg. Also, allowing a commodity standard to operate along with a fiat dollar opens both up for a speculative attack. Another downside is that even under a commodity standard, the Federal Reserve can still influence the economy via interest rate or other interventions. Therefore, at best, a commodity standard is not a full solution to returning to free banking. We have good reasons to worry that central banks and the gold standard are fundamentally incompati- ble—as the disastrous experience of the Western nations on their “managed gold standards” between World War I and World War II showed. K-Percent Rule. Under this rule, proposed by Milton Friedman in 1960,31 the Federal Reserve would create money at a fixed rate—say 3 percent per year. By offering the inflation benefits of gold without the potential disruption to the finan- cial system, a K-Percent Rule could be a more politically viable alternative to gold. The principal flaw is that unlike commodities, a K-Percent Rule is not fixed by physical costs: It could change according to political pressures or random economic fluctuations. Importantly, financial innovation could destabilize the market’s demand for liquidity, as happened with changes in consumer credit pat- terns in the 1970s. When this happens, a given K-Percent Rule that previously delivered stability could become destabilizing. In addition, monetary policy when
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on minting commemorative coins, a Treasury function, but does not address tax reform, rates, or savings accounts emphasized in Project 2025's tax policy section, resulting only a tangential connection."
— 695 — Department of the Treasury The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau collects federal excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition, and is responsible for enforcing and administering laws covering the production, use, and distribution of alco- hol products. The Internal Revenue Service is the largest of the department’s bureaus, account- ing for about 85 percent of Treasury’s personnel and about four-fifths of its appropriated budget. It administers and enforces U.S. tax laws. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing develops and produces U.S. currency notes. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is designed to protect the financial system from illicit use. It also administers the beneficial ownership reporting regime mandated by the Corporate Transparency Act.12 The Bureau of the Fiscal Service provides central payment services to federal program agencies, operates the U.S. government’s collections and deposit systems, provides government-wide accounting and reporting services, manages the collec- tion of delinquent debt owed to the U.S. government, borrows the money needed to operate the government through the sale of U.S. Treasury securities (including the state and local government series), and accounts for and services the public debt. The United States Mint designs and mints U.S. circulating and bullion coins. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters, regulates, and supervises national banks and federal savings associations (thrifts) to ensure that they operate in a safe and sound manner, provide fair access to financial services, and comply with applicable laws and regulations. The OCC also supervises fed- eral branches and agencies of foreign banks and has rulemaking authority for all savings associations. TAX POLICY Tax policy has a powerful impact on the economy. The Treasury Department should develop and promote tax reform legislation that will promote prosperity. To accomplish this, tax reform should improve incentives to work, save, and invest. This, in turn, is accomplished primarily by reducing marginal tax rates,13 reducing the cost of capital14 and broadening the tax base to eliminate tax-induced economic distortions by eliminating special-interest tax credits, deductions, and exclusions. Tax compliance costs will decline precipitously if the tax system is substantially simplified.15 The Treasury Department should also promote tax competition rather than supporting an international tax cartel. Principles of Good Tax Policy. These are the principles governing good tax policy. l First, the tax system should raise the revenue necessary to fund a limited government for constitutionally appropriate activities. It should raise this revenue such that it: (a) applies the least economically destructive forms of — 696 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise taxation;16 (b) has low tax rates on a broad, neutral tax base; (c) minimizes interference with the operation of the free market and free enterprise; and (d) minimizes the cost to taxpayers of compliance with and administration of the tax system. l Second, the tax system should minimize its adverse impact on the family and the core institutions of civil society. l Third, the tax system should be applied consistently—with special privileges for none—and respect taxpayer due process and privacy rights. The current tax system is inconsistent with these principles and needs to be reformed to promote prosperity, reduce compliance costs, and improve fairness. The incoming Administration should promote immediate intermediate reforms to the existing system. It should then pursue fundamental tax reform. Intermediate Tax Reform. The Treasury should work with Congress to sim- plify the tax code by enacting a simple two-rate individual tax system of 15 percent and 30 percent that eliminates most deductions, credits and exclusions. The 30 percent bracket should begin at or near the Social Security wage base to ensure the combined income and payroll tax structure acts as a nearly flat tax on wage income beyond the standard deduction. The corporate income tax rate should be reduced to 18 percent. The corporate income tax is the most damaging tax in the U.S. tax system, and its primary economic burden falls on workers because capital is more mobile than labor.17 Capital gains and qualified dividends should be taxed at 15 percent. Thus, the combined corporate income tax combined with the capital gains or qualified dividends tax rate would be roughly equal to the top individual income tax rate.18 The system should allow immediate expensing for capital expenditures and index capital gains taxes for inflation. In addition, intermediate tax reform should repeal all tax increases that were passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act,19 including the book minimum tax, the stock buyback excise tax, the coal excise tax, the reinstated Superfund tax, and excise taxes on drug manufacturers to compel them to comply with Medicare price controls. The next Administration should also push for legislation to fully repeal recently passed subsidies in the tax code, including the dozens of credits and tax breaks for green energy companies in Subtitle D of the Inflation Reduction Act.20 Universal Savings Accounts. All taxpayers should be allowed to contribute up to $15,000 (adjusted for inflation) of post-tax earnings into Universal Savings Accounts (USAs). The tax treatment of these accounts would be comparable to Roth IRAs. USAs should be highly flexible to allow Americans to save and invest as they see fit, including, for example, investments in a closely held business. Gains from investments in USAs would be non-taxable and could be withdrawn at any
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027
119/hr/9260
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
119/hr/5304
Requesting the Secretary of the Interior to authorize unique and one-time arrangements for displays on the National Mall and the Washington Monument during the period beginning on December 31, 2025, and ending on January 5, 2026.
119/hjres/133