The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, tasked with reviewing federal regulations, has finalized its assessment of a Department of Labor proposal (DOL) that would allow roughly $12 trillion in 401(k) assets to flow into alternative investments like crypto and private equity, according to a recent update.
OIRA completed its review on March 24 after the proposal entered the review process on January 13.
The approval now enables the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, which enforces fiduciary standards for workplace retirement plans, to publish the rule for public comment in the coming weeks.
Origins in the August 2025 executive order
The proposal traces directly to an executive order President Donald Trump signed on August 7, 2025, directing federal agencies to reevaluate longstanding restrictions on alternative assets inside plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The order gave the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), a sub-agency of the DOL, 180 days to craft new guidance, a deadline that technically fell on February 3, though publication was delayed as the rule moved through White House review.
The fiduciary liability question
The rule addresses a legal question that has long paralyzed plan sponsors: whether adding volatile or illiquid asset classes to a retirement menu exposes employers to unacceptable fiduciary liability.
Under ERISA, fiduciaries must act solely in the interest of plan participants and can face lawsuits for offering investments that underperform benchmarks or carry excessive fees.
EBSA’s forthcoming proposal is expected to provide explicit legal cover, assuring employers that including such options, when accompanied by appropriate due diligence and disclosure, would not automatically breach their fiduciary obligations.
Little appetite for crypto and alternatives
When it comes to 401(k) accounts, individual retirement investors take a far more cautious view.
A survey of over 1,000 Boldin subscribers shows a mix of curiosity and caution toward the federal proposal to allow alternative assets like cryptocurrency, private equity, and real estate in 401(k) plans.
The respondents, primarily aged 56–65 (63%) and 45–55 (22%), are experienced retirement investors actively managing their finances. Nearly half (48%) oppose the proposal, with only 34% in support, and 80% say they are not likely to allocate any portion of their 401(k) to alternatives.
Even if available during their working years, 78% would either avoid alternatives entirely or limit exposure to no more than 5% of their portfolio.
Furthermore, while more than 80% are familiar with alternative investments, 85% believe most retirement savers do not understand the risks.
In contrast, Aviva’s survey finds that interest in crypto is growing among UK adults, with 27% open to using it in their retirement plans and 23% considering withdrawing part or all of their pension to invest.
The main motivations are higher returns, innovation, and portfolio diversification, but risks remain top of mind, including potential loss of pension benefits, security threats, and lack of regulatory protection.
A reversal from the prior administration
During the prior administration, the DOL issued compliance assistance releases that effectively discouraged plan fiduciaries from offering digital-asset options, citing volatility, valuation challenges, and the nascent state of crypto custody infrastructure.
Trump’s August 2025 executive order explicitly reversed that posture, framing broader investment access as a matter of economic freedom and retirement security. The order directed not only the DOL but also the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to coordinate on removing barriers.
What comes next
The DOL must now publish the rule in the Federal Register, triggering a comment period during which industry groups, consumer advocates, and members of Congress will weigh in.
Finalization could take months, and legal challenges could delay implementation further.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Vivian Nguyen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
