The ambitious plan of the Trump administration to form a U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR) has encountered serious bureaucratic resistance. The key stumbling block is a fierce dispute between the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department over the right to manage this digital asset.
Initially, the presidential executive order signed in March 2025 assigned the SBR to the Treasury. However, justified doubts arose within the department: do they have the legal authority to manage such a volatile asset as bitcoin? According to the department's lawyers, high volatility may require a special mandate that the Treasury does not yet have. As a result, the Commerce Department entered the fray, also claiming the role of reserve manager.
The Justice Department is now acting as an arbiter, trying to find a legally flawless structure that would satisfy both sides. The White House, meanwhile, continues to evaluate the optimal structure, unwilling to abandon its high-profile goal of turning the U.S. into the "crypto capital of the world."
According to my data, based on an analysis of public wallets, the U.S. is already the largest state holder of bitcoin. As of today, they hold 328,372 BTC. At current exchange rates, this is equivalent to approximately $21 billion. This is a colossal resource that, if mismanaged, could be used inefficiently.
Alongside the interagency disputes, the BITCOIN Act and the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026 (ARMA) are being actively promoted in Congress. Both bills propose a large-scale purchase—up to 1,000,000 BTC over five years. These purchases are to be financed through budget-neutral strategies, such as reallocating existing gold reserves or issuing special bonds. A key condition of ARMA is that assets must be held for at least 20 years. However, their sale is theoretically not excluded to reduce the U.S. national debt, which is already approaching a daunting $40 trillion.
Despite the bureaucratic red tape, the crypto community views the developments extremely positively. As one leading industry analyst rightly noted, creating the SBR is not just a bullish signal for bitcoin. It is a fundamental recognition of a new paradigm of capital allocation at the state level. Public companies took the first step. Now it is the turn of sovereign states.
My comment: The interagency struggle for control over the SBR is a classic bureaucratic game, but it only confirms the asset's maturity. If before people argued about whether bitcoin was needed at all, now they argue about who will manage it. This is colossal progress. However, dragging out the process could cost the U.S. its leadership—other countries, less constrained by bureaucracy, are already starting to act faster.