A new Bloomberg report suggests that Trump intends to prioritize crypto through an executive order. Details circulating among industry participants suggest this action could influence agencies and shape enforcement across several digital asset sectors.
However, Executive Orders are limited due to the checks and balances within the US Constitution. Trump is reportedly seeking to action the following policies via Executive Order:
- Designate crypto as a national priority.
- Establish a crypto advisory council.
- Direct agencies to review digital asset policies.
- Pause or halt litigation against crypto companies.
- Create a national Bitcoin stockpile.
What does this mean, and how much can he change via Executive Order alone?
According to Bloomberg’s anonymous sources, the draft order is expected to declare crypto a key initiative and establish an advisory council. This council would encourage collaboration among agencies, although it would primarily issue recommendations rather than enact binding regulations.
Presidential directives often rely on the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which mandates transparency and public accountability when new advisory groups are formed. Such a step typically faces fewer legal hurdles, letting the executive branch promote a broader focus on crypto-related policy matters without waiting for new legislation.
Another component under discussion is a directive for agencies to review regulations and enforcement strategies concerning digital assets. Such internal audits and policy reviews sit comfortably within typical executive authority, particularly when they involve producing reports or recommendations.
Past administrations have employed similar strategies to highlight emerging issues and prompt coordinated responses. Market participants expect that an official review could drive more consistent approaches across the Treasury, Justice Department, and other entities overseeing crypto.
Some policies may be problematic to do via EO
However, proposals to halt litigation involving crypto companies indicate a more contested approach. Enforcement actions against industry players, including those by the SEC and CFTC, derive from mandates that afford these agencies a measure of independence.
Direct intervention may conflict with statutory obligations and established prosecutorial norms, raising concerns about judicial interference. Executive influence on the Department of Justice does exist, but instructing it to suspend active cases would invite extensive legal and political pushback.
The possibility of expanding a government-held Bitcoin stockpile remains under consideration but is likely to face congressional scrutiny. Existing laws typically direct the disposal or auction of seized assets, with funds routed into government accounts or used for law-enforcement activities.
Accumulating a long-term reserve of Bitcoin raises questions about the power of the purse since budgets and appropriations lie within Congress’s authority. Supporters see such a stockpile as a strategic move, noting the government already holds around $20 billion worth of Bitcoin seized through various investigations. Skeptics argue that an effort to formalize these holdings would demand explicit statutory approval, given constitutional constraints on executive spending.
TLDR;
Specific actions—such as designating crypto as a priority, forming advisory bodies, and ordering agency reviews—fit within standard executive powers. More sweeping endeavors, including halting enforcement across independent agencies or creating a permanent Bitcoin reserve, lean toward matters that require Congress’s cooperation. These distinctions could shape the scope of the forthcoming order and determine whether its impact extends beyond advisory measures into substantive regulatory change.
Although the final text has not yet been released, stakeholders are preparing for guidelines that may redefine how the federal government interacts with the crypto industry as early as Monday, Jan. 20.
Implementation will rely on existing agency frameworks and any statutory limitations that govern specific areas of enforcement or treasury operations. The extent of the order’s reach remains uncertain, but clarifying the administration’s stance on digital assets may spur closer coordination among regulators and market participants.
