Is the Trump Administration Selling Coronavirus Commemorative Coins?

No. The ‘White House Gift Shop’ is not actually affiliated with the White House.

By
25

On Twitter Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders suggested that the Trump administration is responsible for the production of coronavirus commemorative coins:

The coins are being sold for $100—they normally sell for $125 but are currently on sale—by a company called the White House Gift Shop. Sen. Sanders linked to a Daily Beast article that notes the White House Gift Shop is “privately-run,” but the lack of further detail and articles on other websites that don’t include that distinction have led some to believe, like the senator, that the White House itself is behind the commemorative coins.

The entity responsible for the coins’ production is not, despite its name, affiliated with the White House. The White House Gift Shop’s website explains that the shop was established in 1946 by President Harry Truman to raise funds for the families of injured or deceased Secret Service agents, but that “In 2012, the Secret Service Fund’s Board Members, nine in all, met and voted unanimously to transfer not only control but permanent rights, succession history, and ownership of The White House Gift Shop to Giannini Strategic, LLC.” The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s records confirm that the terms “White House Gift Shop” and “White House Gift Shop, Est. 1946” are both trademarked by Giannini Strategic, LLC.

The history of the White House Gift Shop is difficult to confirm—Josh Marshall, the editor of the left-leaning Talking Points Memo, attempted to dig into it in 2018 and was able to uncover some information, but the store’s background is still murky. Neither the White House Gift Shop nor the Department of Homeland Security, which houses the Secret Service, responded to requests for comment, but even based on what little information is available, it’s clear that the White House Gift Shop is not a government entity and that Sen. Sanders’ tweet on the subject is misleading.

If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.

25
By
Comments (25)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Pingback: faceless niches
  2. Pingback: clenbuterol acheter
  3. Mary Stine

    Doesn't anybody besides me find it enormously creepy that ANY organization would sell commemorative coins for a deadly virus??? Who cares whether the White House approved this.. where is the weirdo who thought this idea up??

    Collapse
  4. Stevenmarks

    It's obvious that it's not affiliated with the White House. If it were it would be called "Real White House Gift Shop"

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Rick Harlan

    Why is the story that a red diaper baby spread false propaganda (yawn), instead of that nobody knows who walked into the White House (virtually) and set up a private business selling things under the name of the President of the United States?

    Collapse
    1. JakeD

      WTF is a red diaper baby?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rick Harlan

        It's someone who's parents were Communists, either card-carrying members, or fellow travelers.
        But I misused the term, since it doesn't look like Sanders' parent were Commies themselves, but instead he joined up in high school or college.

        Collapse
      2. Mrobertchase1

        "A red diaper baby is a child of parents who were members of the United States Communist Party (CPUSA) or were close to the party or sympathetic to its aims...More generally, the phrase is sometimes used to refer to a child of any radical parent, regardless of that parent's past partisan affiliation (or the affiliation of the child)" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_diaper_baby

        By the way, this story illustrates the reason Government agencies will trademark their names. It is to prevent just this sort of confusion. I am surprised the White House did not do so decades ago.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Man-Eating Cow

    The buried lede is that Sanders is complaining that Trump is _not being dictatorial enough_.

    Collapse
  7. Frank Pepp

    "No. The ‘White House Gift Shop’ is not actually affiliated with the White House."

    This fact check could use a fact check, or at minimum fix the wording above. The White House is clearly affiliated with the gift shop, if it may not directly control it.

    I'd assume it does exercise some degree of control and approval. Perhaps even more than this, and the gift shop is little more than a private contractor doing as it is told.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Man-Eating Cow

      Do you have any evidence whatsoever for anything you are asserting here?

      My impression is that the White House Gift Shop has about as much connection to the White House as the Franklin Mint has to the U.S. Treasury Department.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JonathanRRogers

      It seems you didn't read the entire article. The most relevant quote is, “In 2012, the Secret Service Fund's Board Members, nine in all, met and voted unanimously to transfer not only control but permanent rights, succession history, and ownership of The White House Gift Shop to Giannini Strategic, LLC.” More details are in https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/white-house-gift-shop-tpm-investigation-continues

      Collapse
      1. Frank Pepp

        Thanks guys. Looks like I'm wrong. I still find it somewhat hard to understand why it's allowed to exist in its current form.

        It's a bizarre business.

        Collapse
        1. Frank Pepp

          And yes, I read it's because of transfers of money. But that the White House would allow its seeming endorsement of products into an indefinite future, without approval, doesn't pass the smell test.

          That said. Weird shit happens.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            JonathanRRogers

            I'm not sure the "White House Gift Shop" was ever directly affiliated with the White House. The TPM article says it was run by the "United States Secret Service Uniformed Division Benefit Fund," but that organization doesn't seem to have been part of the US government. Rather, it was a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization until it was dissolved a few years ago. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/11/prweb10081722.htm

            The most obvious government entity to be involved with this confusion is the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which probably should not have reversed its decision to grant the trademark "White House Gift Shop" to a private company.

            Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Dick Robinson

    Why “misleading” instead of “wrong”? This is supposed to be a “fact” check.

    Collapse
    1. Burke Hayek

      I would say it is "misleading" rather than "wrong" because it does not state that the President has anything to do with WHGS; it merely (but quite strongly) implies it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rick Harlan

        I agree with your logic, but emotionally, I find "wrong" too weak, not too strong; I'd prefer people just own their wrongness. A better term would be "deceptive", or "mustiline" if your Conservatism is more Bucklian.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Thomas Crescenzi

    A lot of people took the bait and retweeted this, myself included. I went to undo my retweet once I realized it was not in fact the White House, but the original tweet was already deleted.

    But how sad is it that such a thing would be just taken for granted and not questioned by many people, including people like Sen. Sanders and the many intelligent and politically savvy people I follow on Twitter? This would not be at all out of character for the Trump White House. In fact, you almost wonder if the story might inspire them to actually do this.

    Collapse
    1. Luke Thompson

      It's really odd that you spent twice as much space attacking Trump for this as talking about the fact that it isn't true.

      Most of the stories that support the claim that it's not out of character are similarly false or common practice blown out of proportion.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dick Robinson

      That’s why you retweeted it, rather than give the White House the benefit of the doubt.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Thomas Crescenzi

        Well, as I said… it was already retweeted by several very reputable people. I retweeted one of their retweets. As I was at work, I didn't have time to click through multiple layers to arrive at the original story. When I discovered it was misleading, I immediately went to undo my retweet and found it had already been deleted.

        Of course, you conveniently sidestep the other part of my comment, which was that this sort of thing is entirely consistent with Trump's past and present behavior, not only concerning his administration's handling of the coronavirus, but public relations in general. Always self-congratulatory, completely self-unaware, and lacking any kind of empathy or basic human decency. The President bears much of the blame for giving us ample reason to have such horribly low expectations.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Dick Robinson

          Well, you have a boatload of deprecation in those statements. But let’s you and I live at peace despite our apparent differences. I agree with you on the “self-congratulatory”, but the rest? Have you or would you have any kind of personal interaction with him outside of what you see and read via the media?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Dick Robinson

            NN2R. “As much as it lies within you, live in peace with all...”

            Collapse