Treasury authority on Capitol Hill

Lawmakers used a tense Washington hearing to probe the idea of a bitcoin bailout, underscoring how crypto sits outside traditional federal safety nets.

Treasury rejects notion of bailing out Bitcoin

On Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent faced a pointed question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) on Capitol Hill about whether the government could ever “bail out Bitcoin.” The exchange came as Bitcoin trades more than 40% below its all-time high and nearly 30% under its 2026 peak.

“Does the Treasury Department… have the authority to bail out Bitcoin?” Sherman asked, invoking the 2008 financial rescue programs that stabilized major banks and Wall Street firms. The comparison to the last crisis framed crypto alongside the most dramatic interventions in modern US financial history.

Bessent paused before requesting clarity. “What exactly does ‘bail out Bitcoin’ mean?” he replied. Sherman then pressed whether Treasury could order US banks to buy Bitcoin or directly deploy taxpayer funds to support the market. However, his questions highlighted uncertainty in Congress about the federal toolkit for digital assets.

At the same time, market context looked grim for crypto. The pioneer asset is down nearly 45% from its ATH of $126,199 on the Binance exchange and early 30% from its 2026 high of $97,924. Moreover, the broader digital asset market has been bleeding as investors reassess risk.

Bessent offered an unambiguous response. “I am Secretary of the Treasury. I do not have the authority to do that, and as chair of FSOC [the Financial Stability Oversight Council], I do not have that authority,” he said. His answer closed the door on any expectation that Washington could mount a rescue for crypto holders.

The Secretary’s remarks underline that a formal bitcoin bailout is not part of the US fiscal or regulatory architecture. Instead, investors remain exposed to the full downside of price swings, unlike shareholders in banks that benefit from implicit and explicit federal support.

This clear reminder of risk coincided with a roughly 3% intra-day drop in Bitcoin on Wednesday. However, broader market weakness and existing bearish momentum also weighed on prices, making it hard to attribute the move solely to Bessent’s testimony.

Bitcoin’s decentralized status and investor risk

In recounting his limited powers, Bessent inadvertently reinforced a central feature of Bitcoin: its lack of direct government control. The asset’s decentralized design, often touted by advocates as a strength, also means there is no lender of last resort for positions gone wrong.

Moreover, the hearing spotlighted how crypto sits apart from traditional finance, where banks and systemically important institutions can access emergency liquidity and crisis facilities. That said, digital asset markets remain deeply interconnected with broader risk sentiment, even without formal guarantees.

For retail and institutional participants, this structure translates into elevated bitcoin investor risk. There is no deposit insurance, no central bank swap line, and no Treasury facility designed to support spot prices. Instead, market forces and exchange liquidity are the primary stabilizers during bouts of volatility.

How seized Bitcoin creates indirect government exposure

Despite denying bailout authority, Bessent acknowledged a very different channel through which the US government touches crypto: seized Bitcoin holdings from law enforcement actions. These assets give Washington financial exposure without any proactive investment mandate.

He cited a striking example to lawmakers. “One billion of Bitcoin was seized, 500 million was retained, and that 500 million has become over 15 billion,” Bessent noted. The figures underscore how past seizures have appreciated dramatically as crypto prices surged over multiple cycles.

However, this growth reflects passive gains rather than deliberate policy. Officials did not deploy taxpayer capital into Bitcoin; instead, they inherited coins through legal proceedings. As a result, the state captures upside from enforcement while avoiding direct market intervention or price management.

That said, this bitcoin government exposure raises questions about how and when agencies liquidate holdings. Large disposals can weigh on market sentiment, while prolonged retention may invite criticism that authorities are sitting on speculative assets.

Capitol Hill drama reveals policy and regulatory tensions

The discussion over crypto did not end with Sherman’s bailout query. The hearing soon morphed into a broader political confrontation, revealing frictions around digital asset oversight and alleged favoritism inside the financial system.

Shortly after the Bitcoin exchange, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) pressed Bessent on whether the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) might deny a bank charter to a Trump-linked crypto firm under investigation. The line of questioning shifted from systemic risk to licensing and enforcement.

The atmosphere deteriorated quickly. Meeks accused Bessent of political favoritism regarding applicants with ties to former President Donald Trump, while the committee chair intervened to cool tempers and restore order. Moreover, the clash illustrated how partisan dynamics increasingly shape debates around blockchain and digital finance.

The bizarre back-and-forth captured the growing crypto regulatory gap between novel technologies and legacy oversight frameworks. While banking, securities, and derivatives rules evolved over decades, comprehensive federal legislation for digital assets remains fragmented and contested.

Bitcoin outside the safety net of TradFi

Lawmakers repeatedly contrasted crypto markets with traditional financial institutions that enjoy access to crisis tools. Commercial banks can tap the Federal Reserve’s discount window or benefit from emergency programs, while broker-dealers and money funds operate under established safeguard regimes.

By contrast, Bitcoin operates fully outside these arrangements. There is no statute that obliges Treasury, the Fed, or any other federal body to stabilize token prices. Moreover, the system’s architecture was designed to function without central intermediaries, making it hard to graft on conventional backstops.

This structural divide means that during a severe market downturn, coins can plunge without expectation of rescue. That said, some participants argue this is a feature, not a bug, preserving market discipline and insulating taxpayers from speculative excesses in the digital asset space.

Broader economic agenda and policy backdrop

The contentious hearing was not solely about crypto. Bessent also used his testimony to promote the administration’s broader economic strategy, linking financial stability with growth on both Wall Street and Main Street.

He praised President Donald Trump’s “parallel prosperity” agenda, which aims to deliver simultaneous gains for capital markets and households. According to Bessent, this approach combines regulatory reforms, industrial policy, and targeted incentives intended to sustain expansion across sectors.

Moreover, he defended the administration’s tariff stance, arguing trade measures help rebalance economic relationships and support domestic industry. He also reiterated support for a strong US dollar, pointing to ongoing concerns about currency valuation and global confidence in American assets.

These macroeconomic priorities form the policy backdrop against which crypto debates now unfold. While digital assets remain a relatively small slice of total financial wealth, they increasingly intersect with discussions about competitiveness, innovation, and capital formation.

Decentralized assets and the absence of federal backstops

Bessent’s testimony carried a clear message for the digital asset community. Bitcoin, despite its growing institutional adoption and mainstream attention, remains a decentralized asset without government guarantees or crisis facilities.

The exchange with Sherman showed that if markets continue to swing sharply, relief is unlikely to come from Treasury or other federal authorities. Instead, traders and long-term holders must navigate volatility on their own, pricing in the absence of official support.

Ultimately, the hearing highlighted the fundamental divide between decentralized digital assets and the TradFi instruments that operate under explicit safety nets. As Washington continues to wrestle with crypto policy, this core distinction is unlikely to change soon, even as regulation evolves.

In summary, the Capitol Hill session underscored that crypto markets sit beyond the reach of traditional bailouts, leaving Bitcoin’s trajectory to be determined by market forces rather than federal intervention.