By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration has dropped a decade-old plan to feature abolitionist Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the Treasury is “not at present” planning to move forward with the Tubman redesign, a departure from the initial 2016 announcement. This decision contrasts with the administration’s active consideration of a new $250 bill featuring Donald Trump’s likeness to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary. Former President Trump himself had previously criticized the Tubman bill as “pure political correctness.”
Read the original article here
The Trump administration has officially announced that plans to feature Harriet Tubman on the new $20 bill have been abandoned. This decision, which has been a source of significant public discussion and debate, effectively halts the progression of a redesign that would have placed the iconic abolitionist and Underground Railroad conductor on the nation’s currency. The initial announcement and subsequent work on this redesign were initiated during the Obama administration, with the intention of replacing Andrew Jackson, a figure controversial for his role in the forced removal of Native Americans.
The abandonment of the Harriet Tubman $20 bill is viewed by many as a reflection of the current administration’s priorities and, for some, its broader ideological stance. The rationale provided for the decision is that the process of redesigning currency is complex and time-consuming, and that focusing on this particular change would detract from other, more pressing matters. However, many interpret this move as a deliberate rejection of honoring African Americans and a disinterest in acknowledging figures who represent a significant struggle against oppression and a push for equality.
There’s a palpable sense of disappointment and, for many, a lack of surprise surrounding this announcement. The narrative often presented is that anything perceived as positively representing Black people or the fight against systemic injustice is labeled as “woke” by certain political factions. This framing, it’s argued, leads to decisions like shelving the Tubman bill. The continued presence of Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, a president known for his defiance of the Supreme Court regarding Native American sovereignty and his role in the tragic Trail of Tears, is often highlighted as a stark contrast to the decision regarding Tubman.
Some observers have pointed out the irony of this decision, suggesting that the administration’s efforts are more focused on preserving certain historical narratives while actively working to diminish or erase others. The removal of discussions about the Underground Railroad and slavery from national parks has been cited as an example of this broader trend. The idea that a prominent Black woman who actively fought against slavery would be sidelined on currency, while figures associated with oppression remain, is seen by many as deeply troubling and indicative of a racist agenda.
The administration’s focus on alternative currency proposals, such as the potential for a $250 bill bearing Donald Trump’s own image, further fuels this perception. This desire to immortalize oneself on currency, especially while simultaneously derailing efforts to honor historical figures like Tubman, is seen as a demonstration of narcissism and a disregard for genuine historical contributions. The argument is made that Trump’s presidency seems to be characterized by an inability to honor anyone except himself, particularly figures who represent progress in civil rights and the fight against slavery.
The timing of the announcement also raises questions for some. The fact that it wasn’t made on Juneteenth, a day commemorating the end of slavery, is seen as a missed opportunity at best, and a deliberate snub at worst. The sentiment expressed is that this decision, while disheartening, is entirely unsurprising given the political climate and the perceived ideology of the administration. The argument is that any initiative that centers on non-white individuals or challenges established power structures is likely to face significant opposition.
There are also suggestions that the administration may be driven by a desire to avoid any association with or celebration of figures who fought against the very systems of oppression that some perceive as being implicitly supported. The idea that a Black woman, an abolitionist, and a hero of the Underground Railroad would be placed on currency is seen as a direct affront to certain political beliefs. The potential for racist or sexist motivations behind such decisions is frequently raised in discussions surrounding the abandonment of the Tubman bill.
Looking ahead, there’s a strong hope expressed that a future administration will revisit this decision and finally remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill, replacing him with Harriet Tubman. This perspective suggests that the current situation represents a temporary setback and that the broader movement towards a more inclusive and representative national currency will eventually prevail. The focus remains on the symbolic importance of having figures like Tubman on our money, representing a nation’s values and its commitment to recognizing the diverse contributions to its history.
Ultimately, the abandonment of the Harriet Tubman $20 bill redesign is not just a matter of currency. It’s seen as a potent symbol of the ongoing cultural and political battles over historical memory, representation, and the very definition of American identity. The decision has ignited strong feelings and reinforced the deeply held beliefs of many who see it as a clear indication of a regressive approach to national symbolism and a rejection of the values that Harriet Tubman so powerfully embodied.