The 1866 U.S. ban on living individuals appearing on currency is not a universal rule. Different democracies have made different choices, and looking at how they've handled the question illuminates the U.S. debate.
The United Kingdom: living monarchs are standard
Until her death in 2022, Queen Elizabeth II appeared on British currency throughout her 70-year reign. King Charles III now appears on the new British notes and coins introduced beginning in 2024. The British practice is the opposite of the U.S. rule: the head of state, while living, appears on currency by default.
Commonwealth nations
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth realms have similarly featured the reigning British monarch on currency. Canada's $20 bill currently features King Charles III. Australia is in the process of redesigning its $5 note to remove the British monarch and replace the portrait with imagery honoring Indigenous Australians — a different policy direction.
Continental Europe
Eurozone banknotes do not feature any individual portraits. They depict architectural styles representing different periods of European history, deliberately avoiding national figures. This was a political choice during euro design — to avoid favoring any one country's heroes.
Latin America
Practice varies. Mexico's banknotes feature deceased figures including Benito Juárez and Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, similar to the U.S. approach. Some other Latin American countries have featured living political figures, though this practice has been controversial and is generally avoided in democracies.
Authoritarian comparisons
The practice of featuring living political leaders on currency is more common in non-democratic states. This historical association is part of why the U.S. rule, while obscure to most Americans, is broadly defended by historians and currency scholars: it functions as a small but meaningful guardrail against personalization of the state.
What the comparison suggests
A U.S. exception for a $250 commemorative note featuring a living president would not be unprecedented internationally — democracies that feature monarchs do this routinely. But it would break a U.S. tradition specifically aimed at separating the office from the officeholder. Both sides of the current debate are aware of this distinction.