President Donald Trump’s administration, by means of current statements by his Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, outlined a place of direct non-intervention within the face of the fluctuation within the worth of bitcoin (BTC).
On the time of writing, February 6, 2026, bitcoin is buying and selling beneath $67,000, following a worth drop that erased good points recorded for the reason that 2024 presidential election.
Throughout a US congressional listening to on February 4, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, additionally chairman of the Monetary Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), appeared earlier than the Home Monetary Companies Committee and the Senate Banking Committee.
At the moment, going through questions from Congressman Brad Sherman, recognized for his skepticism about cryptocurrencies, Secretary Bessent made clear the boundaries of govt authority.
“I haven’t got the authority to do it, and as chairman of the FSOC, I haven’t got it both,” Bessent said, referring to the Treasury Division’s capacity to order non-public banks to buy bitcoin or use public funds in a potential market rescue.
I should not have the authority to buy bitcoin with taxpayer {dollars}.
Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury of the USA.
These statements underline that, regardless of the rhetoric favorable to bitcoin, since its electoral marketing campaign, the federal government’s dedication it doesn’t embrace energetic intervention so as to add BTC to your reserves.
This reserve, made up of seized bitcoin, has generated income estimated at greater than $15 billion. Nevertheless, the Secretary emphasised that this reserve is passive in nature and is proscribed to seized belongings, with out offering for added purchases with federal funds.
Bessent’s statements coincided with an acceleration of the decline within the worth of BTC, which misplaced roughly 10% in lower than 24 hours after the February 4 listening to.
These phrases from Bessent resonated all through the digital asset ecosystem, the place the expectation of extra aggressive state assist had been excessive. In areas with excessive adoption of BTC as a refuge (within the face of inflation or devaluation), uncertainty was accentuated, mirrored in large reactions on social networks and boards.
The worldwide neighborhood expressed disappointment within the absence of direct assist measures, though many acknowledge that bitcoin “doesn’t want the State.”
Bessent’s phrases distinction with the guarantees of Trump, who has expressed his intention to show the USA into the “world capital of cryptocurrencies” and has promoted the creation of the strategic reserve of Bitcoin.
Nevertheless, the authorized limitations set forth by the Secretary of the Treasury present that authorities enthusiasm is channeled in the direction of facilitating the regulatory setting in stablecoins, for instance, and never in the direction of components which will have a higher influence on the worth of the asset.
Voices from the Trump administration on bitcoin
The White Home, for its half, is just not discouraged. In a press release issued on February 6, 2026, spokesperson Kush Desai said:
The volatility of a free market through which the federal government doesn’t set costs is just not going to vary the Trump administration’s dedication to making sure American dominance in cryptocurrencies and different cutting-edge applied sciences of the longer term.
Kush Desai, White Home deputy press secretary.
Different key officers have articulated their imaginative and prescient with an emphasis on long-term regulation. David Sacks, the White Home cryptocurrency “czar,” has prioritized laws over the sector.
In current appearances, Sacks described stablecoins as “the brand new fee rails for the twenty first century,” anticipating a full integration of conventional banks into the digital asset ecosystem.
This imaginative and prescient factors to a unification between conventional and digital finance, which might be perceived as much less decentralized, though interpreted by some politicians as mandatory as a result of it strengthens long-term institutional stability and adoption.
For her half, Senator Cynthia Lummis—one of the vital outstanding Bitcoin advocates in Congress and lead writer of the BITCOIN Act of 2025 (S.954, reintroduced in March 2025 to spice up the Bitcoin strategic reserve introduced by Trump by govt order)—has actively held discussions on the best way to strengthen the US place in digital belongings.
In reality, on the February 5, 2026 Senate listening to earlier than the Banking Committee (the place Bessent introduced the FSOC annual report), Lummis straight questioned the Treasury Secretary on key points reminiscent of the opportunity of use gold reserves or different mechanisms to accumulate extra BTCproposals that Bessent rejected, reiterating the dearth of govt authority for purchases with public funds or direct interventions out there.
Lummis additionally pushed for higher regulatory readability on tax issues, together with a possible tax exemption for small bitcoin transactions and clear steering on calculating capital good points on blended portfolios, signaling his willingness to collaborate with the Treasury Division to make progress in these areas.
His legislative work enhances David Sacks’ strategy in selling frameworks for the regulation of digital belongings. This with the concept of integrating conventional finance with the bitcoin and cryptocurrency ecosystem, selling institutional adoption with out relying on direct interventions reminiscent of asset purchases.
And though the brand new Cryptocurrency Regulation stays in committee (Senate Banking, Housing and City Affairs) with out vital progress in the direction of its approval, Lummis has emphasised that regulatory readability and banking integration are priorities to counter world dangers and keep American management.
Given all this, it’s clear that Donald Trump’s authorities doesn’t have direct measures in thoughts that may influence the bitcoin market. Their technique focuses on establishing a regulatory framework for the digital asset sector, selling stablecoins, and passively managing the strategic reserve of seized belongings, reasonably than actively intervening in a dynamic that will be mirrored in costs, as maybe the neighborhood anticipated.
