
Stop making cents: US Mint moves forward with plans to kill the penny
The US Mint has made its final order of penny blanks and plans to stop producing the coin when those run out, a Treasury Department official confirmed Thursday. This move comes as the cost of making pennies has increased markedly, by upward of 20% in 2024, according to the Treasury.
By stopping the penny's production, the Treasury expects an immediate annual savings of $56 million in reduced material costs, according to the official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to preview the news.
In February, President Donald Trump announced that he had ordered his administration to cease production of the 1-cent coin.
'For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful!' Trump wrote at that time in a post on his Truth Social site. 'I have instructed my Secretary of the US Treasury to stop producing new pennies.'
There are about 114 billion pennies currently in circulation in the United States — that's $1.14 billion — but they are greatly underutilized, the Treasury says. The penny was one of the first coins made by the US Mint after its establishment in 1792.
The nation's treasury secretary has the authority to mint and issue coins 'in amounts the secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States.'
Advocates for ditching the penny cite its high production cost — almost 4 cents per penny now, according to the US Mint — and limited utility. Fans of the penny cite its usefulness in charity drives and relative bargain in production costs compared with the nickel, which costs almost 14 cents to mint.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the news.
Pennies are the most popular coin made by the US Mint, which reported making 3.2 billion of them last year. That's more than half of all the new coins it made last year.
Congress, which dictates currency specifications such as the size and metal content of coins, could make Trump's order permanent through law. But past congressional efforts to ditch the penny have failed. Two bipartisan bills to kill the penny permanently were introduced this year.
Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced the Make Sense Not Cents Act this month. In April, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Robert Garcia, D-Calif., along with Sens. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., introduced the Common Cents Act.
Jay Zagorsky, professor of markets, public policy, and law at Boston University, said that while he supports the move to end penny production, Congress must include language in any proposed legislation to require rounding up in pricing, which will eliminate the demand for pennies.
Zagorsky, who recently published a book called 'The Power of Cash: Why Using Paper Money is Good for You and Society,' said otherwise simply ditching the penny will only increase demand for nickels, which are even more expensive, at 14 cents to produce.
'If we suddenly have to produce a lot of nickels — and we lose more money on producing every nickel — eliminating the penny doesn't make any sense.'
Mark Weller, executive director of the Americans for Common Cents group — which conducts research and provides information to Congress and the Executive Branch on the value and benefits of the penny — says 'there has been an evolution over the past six months that inevitably the production of the penny will be halted.'
His group advocates for the U.S. to find ways to reduce the cost of producing the nickel, especially since it will be more in demand once the penny is totally eliminated from circulation.
'It's incumbent on Treasury to come up with a cheaper way to make the nickel,' Weller said. 'Let's make sure we're making our coins as least expensively as possible and maintaining the option to use cash in transactions.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
5 key reasons why Congress prefers Siddaramaiah over DK Shivakumar as Karnataka CM
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on July 2 asserted that he will be in office for a full five-year term, putting to rest speculation of leadership change in the Congress-ruled state. "Yes, I will be the CM of Karnataka. Why do you have doubts?" the veteran leader said in response to reporters' questions about whether he would be the CM for five years. Siddaramaiah's deputy, DK Shivakumar, responded, saying he doesn't have an option but to support CM Siddaramaiah. "What option do I have? I have to stand by him and support him. I don't have any objection to it. Whatever the party high command tells and whatever they decide, it will be fulfilled...I don't want to discuss anything now. Lakhs of workers are supporting this party," Shivakumar told the news agency ANI. The comments from top Karnataka leaders come after speculations in political circles, particularly within Congress, regarding a change in the chief minister later this year. As Mint reported earlier, this speculation is based on a power-sharing agreement involving Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar. "I have to go by my party. My party is important. My leadership's decision is important. We have an aim to bring 2028 (state assembly elections), we will work for that," Shivakumar said. It seems that the Congress party has sorted out the Karnataka leadership crisis for now. The party has decided to nominate Siddaramaiah as chief minister. Here are five reasons why Congress decided to go ahead with Siddaramaiah for now: Bihar is the only state going to the polls in 2025. Sources said the Congress party thinks that removing a leader from a marginalised community (OBC) ahead of elections in Bihar would not send a good message in a state with substantial numbers of backwards and extremely backwards class voters. Some leaders in the Congress party think that removing Siddaramaiah would give the BJP in Bihar political ammunition to attack the INDIA bloc comprising Congress and its ally RJD. If Shivakumar wanted to be the CM, he would have to give up his Karnataka Pradesh Congress President post. Sources said Shivakumar is not keen on leaving the post. He fears Siddaramaiah loyalists would be appointed for it. After the Assembly election results were declared in May 2023, Siddaramaiah and Shivakumar faced stiff competition for the chief minister's post, but the Congress convinced the latter and made him the deputy CM. One of the reasons that Congress picked Siddaramaiah instead of Shivakumar then was that the latter was under investigation by central agencies. This time also, that consideration has prompted the Congress party to continue with Siddaramaiah as the chief minister. Shivakumar even went to jail for more than a month in 2019 over money laundering charges against him. According to reports, the Congress party fears that the BJP ruling at the Centre could attack Shivakumar with these cases if he becomes the CM and perhaps put a sitting CM in jail again. Another factor that is not going with Shivakumar is the June 4 stampede in Bengaluru that killed 11 people during the IPL victory parade of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB). While the cricket team has been held 'prima facie responsible', Shivakumar has also come under fire for reportedly allowing the gathering despite crowd control warnings. The Congress doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh in Karnataka, one of its three states in power. The other two Congress-ruled states are Telangana and Himachal Pradesh. Yes, I will be the CM of Karnataka. Why do you have doubts? In Rajasthan, for example, the Ashok Gehlot vs. Sachin Pilot controversy may have cost the party the Rajasthan assembly elections in 2023. The Congress may also be wary of the Kamal Nath vs. Jyotiraditya Scindia controversy of 2020 in Madhya Pradesh. Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan will vote for assembly elections in 2028. What option do I have? I have to stand by him and support him.

Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Big Beautiful Bill House vote: Victoria Sparta to Keith Self These Republicans voted against Trump's spending bill
Jul 03, 2025 07:51 AM IST The US House of Representatives carried out a procedural vote on President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill on Wednesday ahead of the key deadline of July 4 set by the President to get the bill passes. The latest procedural vote turned out to be another setback for the GOP House Representatives backing Trump as one more GOP Congressman flipped against the bill taking the total tally of votes against to four. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speaks to the press ahead of House vote on Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. (REUTERS) The House GOP needs 217 votes to get the bill passed. In the latest test vote, 181 Republicans voted in favor, four voted against, and 35 did not vote. The four GOP House Reps. who voted against the bill were Andrew Clyd, Victoria Sparta, Keith Self and Brian Fitzpatrick.


Mint
30 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump is now more responsible for the economy than Biden, voters say
Voters now agree: It's President Trump's economy. Trump voters are now likelier to say that he is more responsible for the current state of the economy than to say that former President Joe Biden is, by a margin of 46% to 34%, according to YouGov survey data gathered for The Wall Street Journal between June 17 and 20. Trump voters had been likelier to pick Biden before last month. People who voted for Kamala Harris have overwhelmingly said Trump was more responsible for the economy since YouGov put the question to Americans in March. There's no scientific answer to who owns the economy. But the question serves as a sort of Rorschach test, with voters answering based on a mix of political affiliations, media diets, personal finances and traditional economic indicators. 'I think we're still cleaning up the Biden-Harris mess," said Eladio Cruz, a 39-year-old salesman in Olathe, Kan., who voted for the president last November. 'But are the improvements in the economy that I'm seeing related to Trump? I say yes." Cruz said he is pleased with the administration's efforts to ramp up oil production and bolster American manufacturing. He remains irked by the level of gasoline prices and interest rates, but doesn't think those are Trump's fault. More Americans say it is Trump's economy in part simply because of the passage of time. But his raft of new policies, including a slew of tariffs whose magnitude and targets have changed often, have also prompted many voters to assign credit or blame to him. Some 84% of Trump voters approved of his handling of jobs and the economy, in a YouGov poll from late June. Nearly nine in 10 Harris voters disapproved. Many Trump voters say the economy is headed in the right direction, but tariffs in particular have weighed on consumers' outlook among both parties. The University of Michigan's consumer-sentiment index had a string of grim readings during the spring, though it rebounded somewhat in June. The partisan gap in voters' views can diminish when economic indicators are sending a clear and obvious message, such as during a severe downturn, according to John Sides, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University. Today's economy is more ambiguous. Inflation is down but still above the Fed's target. Tariffs are creating uncertainty for businesses, but stocks have been hitting record highs. Meanwhile, private-sector employment shrunk for the first time in two years, payroll processor ADP said Wednesday. 'In that environment, you can in some sense pick and choose economic indicators which match what your partisanship would tell you," Sides said. Ruby Becker said she has been happier with prices on diapers, dog food and concert tickets this year, but said that she could be happier still. The 42-year-old attorney in Mesa, Ariz., voted for Trump and thinks that Biden is still to blame for the prices she sees. She said it is still too early to put them on Trump. 'I'd like to see on January 20th, 2026, how different it is," Becker said. Democrats have had a sour view of the economy since last year's election, and Harris voters were quicker than Trump voters to say in YouGov surveys that the state of the economy rested more with him. To Sireeda Miller-Ramos, the economy switched from Biden's to Trump's after the latter's swift changes to trade and immigration policy. 'Around April, I was like, 'This is yours,'" said Miller-Ramos, a 44-year-old finance director in Silver Spring, Md., who voted for Harris. While presidents certainly have some influence on the economy, researchers say voters often overestimate the extent of it. 'The population has a long history of blaming presidents for things as extreme as gas prices, which are largely set on international markets, where there are very few levers that a president has," said Neale Mahoney, an economist at Stanford University. Nonetheless, voters tend to credit their preferred leaders with wins and pin losses on opponents. A few months after Biden took office in 2021, consumer sentiment among Democrats was relatively high, and Biden voters said it was already his economy in a YouGov poll in May of that year. But as inflation took off and sentiment sank in the ensuing months, those voters started to blame Biden's predecessor instead. Nearly eight months after Trump's first term ended, they were more likely to say that he was responsible for the economy's state than that Biden was. Today, partisanship shapes voters' expectations about Trump's tariffs. Some 80% of Democrats said that tariffs would increase inflation, versus 54% of Republicans, in a survey conducted by Harvard University economist Stefanie Stantcheva between mid-April and mid-May. George Georgountzos voted for Trump last year and is generally pleased with his handling of the economy. Georgountzos, a 55-year-old lawyer in Stoneham, Mass., said he looks at Trump's tariffs primarily as a ploy to strike favorable trade deals rather than an enduring policy. 'Short-term, they bother me, that the prices are going to go up for stuff," he said. 'Long-term, I think it's going to lead to stability and it's going to be a good thing for the United States." Write to Joe Pinsker at