Bureaucracy Halts US National Bitcoin Stockpile Initiative

Announced as a historic breakthrough, the strategic Bitcoin reserve desired by the United States remains at a standstill today. Nearly a year after the decree signed by Donald Trump in March 2025, no BTC acquisition has been made. Legal blockages and persistent administrative confusion are the causes. Officially a priority, the project is stalling, giving way to growing criticism from the crypto community, disappointed by the lack of concrete actions and the absence of a clear government strategy.

Between presidential decree and administrative realities, a stalled project

The idea of a strategic Bitcoin reserve in the United States officially took shape in March 2025, when the Trump administration promulgated an executive order establishing a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” and a “Digital Asset Stockpile” also including certain altcoins.

Through this decree, the White House intended to preserve and potentially strengthen the country’s crypto holdings, but with a major constraint: the prohibition of buying Bitcoin on the open market.

Only BTC seized in the context of judicial procedures could feed this reserve. One year later, Patrick Witt, director of the White House Crypto Council, admits that the implementation is slowed down by legal complexities: “it seems simple, but then you hit obscure legal provisions, and why one agency cannot do it, but another could,” he explained during the Crypto in America podcast.

He indicates that several government entities, notably the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), are still examining the legal implications of the scheme.

In this context, no clear framework has yet been defined to move the project forward. Confusion reigns regarding the responsibilities of each agency and the concrete methods of fund management. Here are the main obstacles identified to date :

• No federal agency officially designated to manage the reserve or its expansion conditions ;
• Legal blockages between departments, notably on the legality of long-term crypto holdings by the state ;
• Inability to buy BTC on markets, which strongly limits the strategic scope of the scheme ;
• Absence of concrete measures in the crypto report published in July 2025, despite the expectations of the crypto community.

Despite these limits, Patrick Witt asserts that the project “remains on the priority list“. However, for now, it resembles more a political intention not translated into reality. The presidential ambitions displayed in 2025 struggle to withstand the regulatory heaviness of the federal system.

The political disconnect and disillusionment in the Bitcoin community

In the face of this administrative paralysis, part of the Bitcoin community is becoming increasingly critical of the Trump administration.

Bitcoin maximalist Justin Bechler didn’t mince words : “believing that the federal government will one day build a strategic Bitcoin reserve requires a total disconnect from reality“, he declared, denouncing “empty talks, vague references, and Washington political opportunism“.

In fact, no Bitcoin acquisition has been made since the signing of the decree. And the absence of a concrete plan, combined with unclear communication, fuels growing mistrust toward the authorities’ real intentions.

In August 2025, a brief surge of hope emerged. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent proposed that the government explore budget-neutral Bitcoin acquisition strategies. These solutions would consist, for example, of converting part of other reserve assets or revaluing precious metal holdings to finance BTC purchases without increasing the deficit.

However, no concrete measures followed this announcement. In a context where some countries are considering or already initiating sovereign crypto reserves, this inertia could prove costly for the United States strategically.

The fate of the American strategic reserve remains uncertain, caught between political will and administrative inertia. Meanwhile, the Bitcoin price continues to reflect tensions between hoped-for institutional adoption and regulatory realities. If Washington doesn’t decide, the initiative could bog down, risking to discredit a strong signal sent to the markets.