Which agency actually holds Strategic Bitcoin Reserve control is an open question, with Treasury and Commerce both in the frame as the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel works through the legal architecture underpinning Trump’s March 2025 executive order.
Bloomberg reported that officials remain undecided on which department can hold and manage the government’s BTC. The review keeps the reserve plan technically active, but the custody question is unresolved.
What the executive order actually mandates
Trump’s executive order, signed 6 March 2025, designated the Treasury secretary as the official responsible for creating an office to manage the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which would hold BTC forfeited through criminal or civil proceedings. A separate custodial structure, the U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile, covers non-BTC digital assets forfeited and held by the Treasury that are not required under 31 U.S.C. 9705.
The order also required each agency head to provide the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets with a full accounting of all Bitcoin and other digital assets in their possession within 30 days of signing. That inventory exercise was a prerequisite for any consolidated custody structure.
The same order directed that government BTC placed in the reserve must not be sold and should be treated as reserve assets, though it simultaneously required Treasury to review the legal and investment framework, including whether legislation would be needed. That self-contained tension is what has kept the inter-agency debate running.
Strategic Bitcoin Reserve control: the Commerce angle and DOJ history
Commerce has now emerged as a candidate reserve manager alongside Treasury, a development that was not anticipated in the original order. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel is working with both agencies to find a lawful structure.
The DOJ’s involvement is not incidental. As Sheppard has noted, the department has historically managed seized crypto holdings under its Digital Asset Forfeiture Programme, predating the executive order entirely. Any framework that strips DOJ of that operational role requires explicit legal grounding.
White House spokesperson Liz Huston told CoinDesk: ‘To deliver on the president’s vision, the Trump administration continues to evaluate the best structure.’ White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt had told reporters in May that officials had made a ‘breakthrough’ on legal and custody safeguards, with an announcement expected within weeks. That announcement has not materialised.
The legislative queue is long and slow
Congressional options exist, but none are close to the finish line. Senator Cynthia Lummis introduced the BITCOIN Act on 31 July 2024, before Trump’s order, proposing government acquisition of 1,000,000 BTC for a dedicated reserve. The House version, H.R.2032, retains introduced status in the 119th Congress with no further movement.
Congressman Byron Donalds introduced legislation on 14 March 2025 to codify the executive order into statute, anchoring the reserve framework in law rather than leaving it subject to executive interpretation. That bill has also stalled.
The American Reserve Modernization Act (H.R.8957), which would require a 20-year holding rule, proof-of-reserve audits, and a review of budget-neutral purchase methods, was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services on 21 May 2026. Referral is the earliest stage of the committee process.
The asset base is already large
According to BitcoinTreasuries data, the U.S. government held 328,372 BTC, valued at approximately $20.7 billion as of 7 July, ranking it as the largest known government holder ahead of China, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and El Salvador.
That position was accumulated through seizures and forfeitures, not purchases. The current debate is entirely about custody, legal authority, and governance for assets the government already controls, not about expanding the holding.
Until either Congress passes enabling legislation or the OLC issues a definitive opinion on Treasury’s or Commerce’s authority, the reserve remains a real asset base without a settled legal home. The next concrete marker is whether the OLC opinion precedes or follows the next session of Congress.
