The US government should start making $1000 bills again.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The US government discontinued $1000 bills in 1969 primarily because they facilitated illegal activities like money laundering and organized crime, while also being inefficient to produce due to low demand and high engraving costs.[1][2][5] Legitimate large transactions now rely on electronic transfers, making high-denomination bills unnecessary; Nixon's administration cited both lack of use and crime concerns as key reasons.[1][3][4] Reintroducing them would exacerbate counterfeiting risks, hinder law enforcement efforts against illicit cash movements, and offer no meaningful convenience in a digital economy, as even $100 bills suffice for most cash needs.[1][2] Existing $1000 bills remain legal tender but are withdrawn from circulation and valued more by collectors than for transactions, confirming their obsolescence.[3][5]

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

Reintroducing $1000 bills would significantly facilitate money laundering, tax evasion, and illicit transactions with minimal legitimate benefit. The original discontinuation of high-denomination currency in 1969 was specifically designed to combat organized crime by making large cash stockpiles harder to transport and conceal. Modern payment systems have rendered large cash denominations obsolete for lawful commerce. Electronic transfers, wire payments, and digital wallets handle legitimate large transactions more securely and traceably than physical currency ever could. From a security standpoint, higher denominations create greater counterfeiting incentives and complicate cash handling for businesses. The costs of enhanced security features and the limited practical demand don't justify production when a $100 bill already serves the rare legitimate need for high-value cash transactions.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Reissuing $1000 bills would create more downsides than benefits. For ordinary consumers, there is very little real need. Digital payments, cards, wires, and existing cash denominations already handle nearly all legitimate transactions efficiently. High-denomination bills are especially useful for moving and hiding large sums anonymously. That makes them disproportionately attractive for tax evasion, money laundering, bribery, and other criminal activity. They would also be costly to print, secure, distribute, and monitor relative to their limited public value. Public policy should favor payment tools that help lawful commerce without making illicit finance easier. If the goal is convenience for large legal transfers, electronic systems do that better, faster, and with clearer records.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

High-denomination bills like the $1000 note were discontinued in 1969 largely because they enabled crime, money laundering, and tax evasion with minimal traceability. Electronic transfers and lower denominations already handle legitimate large transactions efficiently in today's economy. Reissuing them would offer negligible public benefit while risking increased illicit activity, as seen in historical data from the Federal Reserve.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Reintroducing the $1,000 bill would overwhelmingly benefit criminals while providing little to no value for everyday citizens. High-denomination notes are notoriously popular for illicit activities, such as money laundering, drug trafficking, and tax evasion, because they make it incredibly easy to transport and hide large sums of physical cash. Furthermore, the legitimate need for large-denomination bills has essentially disappeared. Modern financial technology—including credit cards, wire transfers, and digital payment apps—allows consumers and businesses to securely and instantly transfer large amounts of money without the risks associated with carrying physical cash. While inflation has decreased the purchasing power of the $100 bill since the $1,000 bill was discontinued, introducing a larger bill would undermine decades of anti-money laundering efforts. The societal costs of facilitating organized crime and tax evasion far outweigh the marginal convenience a $1,000 bill might offer.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: No

The US government discontinued high-denomination bills ($500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000) in 1969 primarily because they were disproportionately used for illicit purposes — money laundering, tax evasion, drug trafficking, and other organized crime. Reintroducing $1,000 bills would make it dramatically easier to move large amounts of untraceable cash. A million dollars in $100 bills weighs about 22 pounds; in $1,000 bills it would weigh just over 2 pounds. The legitimate need for high-denomination physical currency has essentially vanished. Electronic payments, wire transfers, credit cards, and digital wallets handle large transactions far more efficiently, securely, and traceably than cash ever could. There is no meaningful consumer or business demand that isn't already well-served by existing payment infrastructure. Some might argue that inflation has eroded the value of existing denominations, making a $1,000 bill equivalent to roughly a $200 bill in 1969 dollars. While true, this doesn't create a compelling need — the $100 bill still functions adequately for the shrinking number of transactions conducted in cash. The trend globally is toward smaller denominations, not larger ones; the EU discontinued the €500 note in 2019 for similar anti-crime reasons. The costs — enabling financial crime, complicating law enforcement, and undermining financial transparency — far outweigh any marginal convenience a $1,000 bill might provide.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a rare, unanimous verdict against the return of the $1,000 bill, viewing it more as a gift to organized crime than a tool for the average consumer. While models like Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4 noted that digital infrastructure has made high-value physical cash obsolete, Claude Opus 4 provided the most striking deterrent by pointing out that the move would shrink the weight of a million-dollar illicit payload from 22 pounds to a mere 2 pounds.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: Reintroducing the $1,000 bill would reduce the weight of $1 million in cash from 22 pounds to just 2 pounds, dramatically facilitating the physical transport of untraceable funds for money laundering and organized crime.