The United States one-dollar bill remains one of the most familiar and enduring pieces of American currency. Featuring George Washington on the front and the reverse side displaying the Great Seal of the United States (including the pyramid and the all-seeing eye), its core design has stayed remarkably consistent. The current version dates to 1963, when “In God We Trust” was added to the reverse. The layout of the back traces back to 1935, and the standardized small-size format for all U.S. notes began in 1929. This means the $1 bill has gone without a major redesign for more than six decades—far longer than higher denominations like the $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100, which have received multiple updates with advanced anti-counterfeiting features such as color-shifting ink, watermarks, security threads, and microprinting.
While other bills have evolved to combat increasingly sophisticated threats, the $1 note stands apart as a symbol of tradition and practicality. Several interconnected factors explain why it has resisted change.
First and foremost is the low risk of counterfeiting. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) and the U.S. Treasury prioritize redesigns primarily to address counterfeiting threats. Higher-denomination notes are far more attractive targets for forgers due to their greater value. In contrast, the modest face value of the $1 bill makes it rarely counterfeited on a large scale. Official sources, including the BEP and Federal Reserve, have repeatedly stated that there are no current plans to redesign the $1 or $2 notes for this very reason—security upgrades simply aren’t justified by the threat level.
Second, the financial and logistical costs of a redesign would be enormous. Billions of $1 notes—roughly 15 billion or more—are in circulation domestically and abroad. Introducing a new design would require phasing out old notes while producing and distributing vast quantities of updated ones. This process would disrupt the economy temporarily and impose significant expenses on businesses. The vending machine industry, which relies heavily on $1 bills for transactions, has long opposed changes. Retrofitting or replacing millions of machines to recognize a redesigned note would cost billions of dollars—expenses that far outweigh any benefits given the minimal counterfeiting problem. The vending lobby has successfully argued that such costs are prohibitive, influencing policymakers to maintain the status quo.
Third, congressional action has explicitly blocked redesign efforts for years. Recent appropriations bills for the Financial Services and General Government (including those for fiscal years up through 2026) have included specific riders prohibiting the Treasury Department or the BEP from using funds to redesign the $1 Federal Reserve note. These provisions, often appearing in sections like those in the annual omnibus spending packages, effectively prevent any initiative from moving forward. The language has been renewed repeatedly, reflecting a combination of lobbying pressure and a lack of urgent need.
Beyond these practical barriers, the $1 bill’s unchanging appearance has become a point of cultural familiarity and tradition. Americans recognize it instantly, and its simplicity—no flashy security features visible to the casual eye—adds to its everyday utility. All older designs of U.S. currency remain legal tender, so notes from decades ago are still valid, further reducing pressure for change.
Looking ahead, the U.S. Currency Program continues modernizing other denominations. Upcoming redesigns are scheduled for the $10 (around 2026), $50 (2028), $20 (2030), $5 (2032), and $100 (later), driven by evolving security needs. The $1 bill, however, is expected to remain as is, preserving its role as one of the most stable and iconic elements of American money.
In an era of rapid technological and economic shifts, the humble $1 bill endures as a quiet reminder that not everything needs an update—sometimes, familiarity and function are enough.
About The Author
