Rewritten Version:
Bitcoin News: More than 16 months after Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, the U.S. government still has not designated a lead agency, revealed its total holdings, or purchased any additional Bitcoin. The delay is driven by an unresolved jurisdictional conflict between the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department over control of roughly 328,372 BTC, valued at about $25 billion.
The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel is now mediating between the two sides, signaling that the disagreement has escalated into a more formal legal dispute rather than a routine bureaucratic issue.
The March 6, 2025 executive order created two distinct structures: a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve made up of seized BTC, and a broader U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile for other confiscated cryptocurrencies.
It also directed both departments to identify budget-neutral strategies for expanding Bitcoin holdings. However, that requirement—combined with the unresolved oversight question—has effectively paused any new accumulation.
Why the stalemate persists
At the center of the issue is a legal mismatch. Existing federal asset management frameworks were designed for traditional reserves such as gold and government securities—not a volatile digital asset like Bitcoin.
Treasury’s authority is focused on fiscal instruments, making long-term Bitcoin custody an imperfect fit, particularly since seized assets are typically liquidated. Meanwhile, assigning control to Commerce has been proposed on the basis that Bitcoin represents a strategic technology asset, but that argument would require new legal authority.
As noted by Bloomberg and KuCoin, this has created a bureaucratic gray zone where neither department is willing to assume responsibility without clear legal backing.
The proposed BITCOIN Act—which would formally authorize the reserve under Treasury—remains unpassed. Without congressional approval, agencies are hesitant to move forward.
This legislative gap may ultimately be a larger obstacle than the interagency dispute itself. Observers noted in early July that long-term legal clarity will likely require congressional action, regardless of how the current conflict is resolved.
At the same time, broader debates over crypto policy authority continue to unfold in Washington.
The original executive order required agencies to report their holdings within 30 days and instructed Treasury to deliver a comprehensive legal and operational review within 60 days. Both deadlines passed without public disclosure—the latter expiring on May 5, 2025. As of July 2026, no report has been released and no agency has been officially appointed.
Mixed signals from Treasury leadership
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added to the uncertainty by initially stating that the U.S. would not buy additional Bitcoin in the near term, before later suggesting on social media that “budget-neutral” options are still being explored.
This contradiction reflects a core tension in the policy: while there is political interest in expanding Bitcoin holdings, fiscal constraints make it difficult without new funding or market-neutral strategies.
White House digital assets adviser Patrick Witt has said that an announcement on the reserve’s structure is “coming soon,” indicating the initiative is still active.
That outlook aligns with the ongoing mediation process, suggesting efforts are focused on resolving the dispute rather than abandoning the plan. Still, repeated delays have drawn criticism from the crypto community, particularly over the lack of a defined framework and the absence of any new Bitcoin purchases.
One aspect of the policy remains unchanged: Bitcoin held under Treasury authority is not to be sold and must be preserved as a reserve asset. This no-sell directive continues to define the government’s long-term stance, regardless of the ongoing oversight dispute.
