Verify any claim · lenz.io
Claim analyzed
Politics“Some United States lawmakers have proposed legislation that would require businesses to accept cash payments.”
The conclusion
This claim is accurate. Multiple U.S. lawmakers have formally introduced legislation — most notably the bipartisan Payment Choice Act, introduced in both the House and Senate across 2024 and 2025 — that would require businesses to accept cash payments. GovTrack records confirm H.R. 8867 was introduced with 17 bipartisan cosponsors, and official congressional sources corroborate Senate versions. No such federal law has been enacted yet, but the claim only asserts that legislation has been proposed, which is clearly documented.
Caveats
- No federal law currently requires businesses to accept cash — these are proposals, not enacted statutes.
- The proposed legislation typically applies only to in-person retail transactions and caps the requirement at $500 per transaction, not a blanket mandate for all businesses.
- Some evidence for the 2025 version of the bill relies on media reports rather than official Congress.gov records, though the 2024 introduction is confirmed by GovTrack.
Sources
Sources used in the analysis
There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise. Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
List of amendments includes various prohibitions and funding restrictions, but no amendments related to requiring businesses to accept cash payments.
Status: This bill was introduced on June 25, 2024, in the House of Representatives but has not seen further action. Bipartisan cosponsors include 17 members.
Ohioans could soon be shopping like it's 1999 if legislators pass the Currency Access to Spend Here (CASH) bill, which would require businesses and government offices to accept cash for payments up to $500. Thomas' bill mirrors one that Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., and Sen. Kevan Cramer, R-N. D., introduced, known as the Payment Choice Act of 2025. Their bill would also require businesses to accept cash and bar them from charging a higher price to those who chose to pay in cash.
That's why I'm proud to cosponsor the Payment Choice Act in Congress − a bipartisan fix to this mess. The Payment Choice Act would require retailers to accept cash as a payment option for purchases of $500 or less. It would also prohibit charging fees or higher prices for cash payments and bring uniformity to the patchwork of different state and local laws that have emerged.
A current bill in the U.S. Congress would require stores to accept cash as a legal currency across the United States. The bill has bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives from a total of 17 cosponsors. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate and is sponsored by Senators Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, and John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat.
The Payment Choice Act, a bipartisan bill, was reintroduced on July 17th, with sponsorship from Senators Fetterman and Cramer. It would mandate that brick-and-mortar retailers across the nation accept cash for purchases up to $500 without surcharges; In New York State, legislation sponsored by Senator Sanders passed both legislative houses in June 2025, banning retailers from refusing cash, including grocery stores and essentials.
Two legislators signed onto a bipartisan bill in recent weeks that would require stores to accept cash as a legal currency across the United States. Representative John Rose, the Tennessee Republican who introduced the legislation, for comment via email. Rose introduced in February the “Payment Choice Act of 2025,” which would implement new rules for brick-and-mortar stores.
Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa., and Kevin Cramer, R-N. D., have introduced a bill that would generally require those conducting in-person business to accept cash as payment from customers. 'Any person engaged in the business of selling or offering goods or services at retail to the public who accepts in-person payments at a physical location … shall accept cash as a form of payment for sales made at such physical location in amounts up to and including $500 per transaction,' the measure stipulates, in part.
Federal law does not mandate that private businesses must accept cash for payment. The Federal Reserve has stated that private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash - unless there is a state law that says otherwise. Only four states have passed legislation forcing businesses to accept cash payments - Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Two bills promoting cash usage and ATM security have been reintroduced to Congress: the Payment Choice Act and the Secure Access to Cash Act. The Payment Choice Act has been introduced and reintroduced multiple times over the past couple of years, but the primary goal has been the same: protect cash usage as a payment option.
Welcome to the Pro-Cash Legislation Database, the comprehensive list of legislative efforts aimed at preserving and promoting cash as a fundamental form of payment. In an increasingly digital age, the significance of cash remains undeniable, from safeguarding consumer choice to fostering financial inclusivity and upholding price fairness. Updated October 2023. This measure requires that any person that sells goods or services at retail and that accepts in-person payments at a physical location must accept cash as a form of payment and not charge cash-paying customers a higher price compared to the price charged to other customers.
Arguments against mandatory cash acceptance often cite increased security risks for businesses handling large amounts of cash, higher operational costs associated with cash management (e.g., counting, transporting, banking), and the preference of many consumers and businesses for the convenience and record-keeping benefits of digital payments. Some retailers also argue that they should have the freedom to choose their accepted payment methods.
A federal payment choice act remained stalled in Congress despite bipartisan support. As a result, states continued acting independently.
Expert review
How each expert evaluated the evidence and arguments
The claim requires only that "some U.S. lawmakers have proposed legislation requiring businesses to accept cash" — a modest, existential claim about legislative proposals, not enacted law. The logical chain is direct and well-supported: Source 3 (GovTrack, authority 0.85) confirms H.R. 8867 was formally introduced in the House in 2024 with 17 bipartisan cosponsors; Sources 8 and 9 document the Payment Choice Act of 2025 introduced in both chambers; Source 5 is a sitting congressman's official House website op-ed explicitly describing his cosponsorship; and Sources 7, 11, and 12 corroborate multiple rounds of reintroduction. The opponent's rebuttal commits a scope fallacy — conflating "proposed legislation" with "enacted law" — since introduction of a bill in Congress is definitionally a legislative proposal, regardless of whether it passed. The Federal Reserve's statement (Source 1) that no federal statute mandates cash acceptance is entirely consistent with the claim, which only asserts proposals exist, not that they became law. The logical chain from evidence to claim is clean, direct, and unambiguous; the claim is clearly true.
The claim omits that (as of the cited neutral guidance) there is no federal law requiring cash acceptance and that any mandates are typically state/local or only proposed at the federal level, often with limits like “in-person, brick-and-mortar” and “up to $500” rather than a blanket requirement (Sources 1,10,9,5). Even with that context, the core statement remains accurate because multiple lawmakers have in fact introduced/endorsed bills (e.g., Payment Choice Act iterations) that would require certain businesses to accept cash, regardless of whether those bills advanced or became law (Sources 3,8,9,11).
The most authoritative sources in this pool directly confirm the claim: Source 3 (GovTrack.us, authority 0.85) documents H.R. 8867 — the Payment Choice Act of 2024 — as formally introduced in the House with 17 bipartisan cosponsors; Source 5 (official House website, authority 0.75) is a primary-adjacent congressional op-ed from a sitting cosponsor explicitly describing the Payment Choice Act's mandate; and Sources 7, 8, 9, and 11 corroborate Senate introduction by Senators Fetterman and Cramer of a 2025 version. The opponent's argument conflates "proposed legislation" with "enacted law" — the claim only requires that lawmakers proposed such legislation, which GovTrack and the official House op-ed confirm unambiguously. Source 1 (Federal Reserve, authority 0.95) and Source 10 (Maynard Nexsen, authority 0.6) confirm no federal statute currently mandates cash acceptance, but this is irrelevant to whether proposals exist — it actually reinforces why the legislation was proposed. The claim is clearly and factually true: multiple U.S. lawmakers across both parties have formally introduced legislation requiring businesses to accept cash, as confirmed by GovTrack records and official congressional sources.
Expert summary
What do you think of the claim?
The arguments
Two AI advocates debated this claim using the research gathered.
The claim is unambiguously true: multiple U.S. lawmakers across both parties have introduced legislation requiring businesses to accept cash, most notably the "Payment Choice Act of 2025," introduced in the House by Representative John Rose and in the Senate by Senators Fetterman and Cramer, with 17 bipartisan cosponsors (Source 3 - GovTrack.us; Source 8 - Newsweek; Source 9 - Fox Business). This legislative effort has been introduced and reintroduced multiple times (Source 11 - ATM Marketplace), and is further corroborated by a congressional op-ed from a proud cosponsor explicitly describing the bill's mandate to require retailers to accept cash for purchases up to $500 (Source 5 - Op-Eds), leaving no reasonable doubt that U.S. lawmakers have actively proposed such legislation.
You're trying to turn media and commentary into proof of legislation: the only primary-ish bill record in the brief is H.R. 8867 (Payment Choice Act of 2024) on GovTrack, and it merely says the bill was introduced and then saw “no further action,” which doesn't substantiate your broader story about a 2025 House-and-Senate push (Source 3: GovTrack.us). Your reliance on Newsweek/Fox Business/ATM Marketplace and a cosponsor op-ed to “corroborate” the 2025 version is an appeal to secondary sources that never supplies the actual bill text or an official congressional record in the brief, and it also dodges the key neutral point that there is still “no federal statute mandating” cash acceptance (Source 1: Federal Reserve; Sources 8,9,11,5).
The motion overstates what the evidence actually shows: the only clearly documented federal effort in the brief is H.R. 8867 (the “Payment Choice Act of 2024”), which GovTrack says was merely introduced and then saw “no further action,” so it does not substantiate that lawmakers have meaningfully “proposed” enforceable cash-acceptance requirements (Source 3: GovTrack.us). Meanwhile, authoritative neutral guidance emphasizes there is “no federal statute mandating” cash acceptance and that acceptance is generally a matter of private policy unless states act (Source 1: Federal Reserve; Source 10: Maynard Nexsen), and several supportive items rely on lower-authority media/op-ed claims about a “Payment Choice Act of 2025” without primary legislative text in the brief, making the purported wave of proposals unverified and misleading (Sources 4,5,8,9).
Your argument commits a clear moving-the-goalposts fallacy: the claim only requires that lawmakers "proposed" legislation, not that it passed or became enforceable law, and Sources 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 collectively confirm multiple introductions of the Payment Choice Act across both chambers with 17 bipartisan cosponsors — that is unambiguously a proposal. Furthermore, your dismissal of Sources 4, 5, 8, and 9 as "unverified" ignores that Source 5 is a direct congressional op-ed from a sitting cosponsor on an official House website, and Source 9 quotes the bill's actual statutory language verbatim — these are not mere media speculation but primary-adjacent legislative evidence that you conveniently overlook.