Why America Has Not Bought Bitcoin Yet

Video: LEAKED: Here's The REAL Reason America Hasn't Bought Bitcoin For its Strategic Reserve...

Need articles like this for your video? They help promote it on YouTube and Google — order them in the Telegram bot @sat_sit_bot. It writes articles around your video, embeds the video and publishes them on popular niche websites (no ads). Free trial — 50 articles.

Oct 24, 2026 · based on the channel Simply Bitcoin

The United States has not bought bitcoin for its strategic reserve because the reserve was designed to hold coins already seized by the government, not to make open-market purchases. Buying would require new legal authority and an explicit budget appropriation that the Treasury does not have, so the policy has stayed at the holding stage rather than the accumulation stage.

What the strategic bitcoin reserve actually is

The reserve is a stockpile of bitcoin controlled by the federal government, created by executive order rather than by an act of Congress. Its starting inventory came from coins forfeited in criminal and civil cases, meaning no taxpayer dollars were spent to acquire it. The Treasury administers it as a national asset, which is a different legal category from a trading or investment account.

That distinction matters for the bitcoin question. A reserve built from forfeitures is essentially an accounting decision: the government already owned the coins, and the order simply said it would keep them instead of auctioning them off. A purchase program is a spending decision, and spending decisions run through Congress.

The legal and budget wall in front of a purchase

Three concrete constraints stand between the current policy and an actual bitcoin buy:

1. Authority. An executive order can direct agencies to hold assets they already possess. It cannot easily create a new acquisition program without statutory backing, and lawyers inside the Treasury have flagged exactly this gap.
2. Appropriation. Buying bitcoin means converting dollars into a volatile asset. That requires a budget line, and no such line exists in current appropriations.
3. Accounting and custody. The government would need rules for valuation, custody and audit of a purchased position, none of which are settled for a commodity-style asset like bitcoin.

What the three-way debate on the show revealed

The Simply Bitcoin discussion with Rustin, Hurley and Opti framed the delay as a political problem dressed up as a technical one. The argument runs that the machinery of government is not built to buy an asset that can move 10% in a day, and that officials are quietly waiting for someone else to take the political risk first.

One recurring point is that the reserve as written is a defensive instrument. It protects the coins the government already holds from being sold off cheaply, but it does not commit anyone to accumulate. Supporters of a bigger program read the order as a first step; critics read it as a ceiling.

A second thread is timing. If bitcoin's price rises sharply, the cost of a purchase program goes up and the political case for buying weakens. If it falls, critics say the government would be catching a falling knife. That asymmetry gives cautious officials a reason to do nothing in either direction.

Why the executive-order route is fragile

Because the reserve rests on presidential authority rather than statute, it can be reshaped or reversed by the next administration. That fragility cuts both ways: it is why some advocates want Congress to codify the reserve, and why others warn that a purchase program built the same way could be unwound just as quickly.

Codification would also settle the question of what the government is allowed to do with the coins. Without it, every decision about selling, lending or buying sits on shifting ground, and agencies tend to avoid irreversible moves when the rules might change under them.

What would actually trigger buying

The most plausible path is legislation that names bitcoin explicitly, sets a purchase schedule and funds it from a defined source. A bill of that shape would answer the authority question and the appropriation question at once, which is why it is the version advocates keep pushing.

A second path is a budget maneuver: attaching a modest acquisition mandate to a broader spending package, where the cost is small enough not to dominate the debate. A third, less likely path is a market event severe enough that holding bitcoin becomes a financial-stability argument rather than an investment one.

Typical questions from viewers

The reaction to the episode showed how much confusion surrounds the reserve itself. Many viewers assumed the government had already committed to buying and were looking for a reason it had not started. Others wanted to know whether the coins could be sold, and who decides.

The practical answer for most of these questions is the same: the reserve is a holding facility, not a fund. It has no mandate to accumulate and no schedule to do so. Until that changes in law, the absence of purchases is not a secret, it is the design.

The discussion also drew attention to how much of the debate is about signaling. A government that holds bitcoin sends one message; a government that buys sends another, and the second one is a much bigger commitment than most officials have been willing to make out loud.

Bottom line

The United States holds bitcoin in a strategic reserve but has not bought any, because the reserve was built from forfeited coins and a purchase program needs congressional authority and funding that do not exist. The executive order that created it can be reversed, which makes codification the real battleground. Until legislation lands, expect holding, not accumulation. The breakdown of this debate comes from Simply Bitcoin, whose After Hours format put the legal, political and market arguments side by side.

Source: LEAKED: Here's The REAL Reason America Hasn't Bought Bitcoin For its Strategic Reserve... · Markdown version