VanEck Executive Says US Bitcoin Reserve Requires Congressional Law

Integrating Bitcoin into national financial policy is not a one, two, three process. Establishing a US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, as laid out in the Bitcoin Act of 2025, would necessitate formal congressional legislation rather than merely executive action – Matthew Sigel, VanEck’s head of digital assets, said on a panel at Bitcoin 2025 in Las Vegas.

Legislative hurdles to a federal Bitcoin reserve

Currently, the US government holds nearly 200,000 BTC, established via a March 2025 executive order by President Trump. However, this order restricts Bitcoin acquisition to budget-neutral methods or asset forfeiture, limiting the government’s ability to purchase Bitcoin outright without new congressional approval.

Sigel explained that while executive action can seed an initial reserve – such as a $100 million allocation through the Exchange Stabilization Fund – larger-scale accumulation “is going to get sued by the Elizabeth Warrens of the world,” referring to legal challenges over federal spending without explicit legislative authorization (Senator Elizabeth Warren is a leading crypto skeptic, advocating strict rules to protect consumers and prevent financial risks).

Other experts share a similar sentiment. For example, Moish Peltz, a partner at Falcon, Rappaport & Berkman, noted that while some aspects could proceed under executive authority, substantial financial commitments, such as purchasing additional Bitcoin, require explicit legislative approval.

Legislative paths and policy models for a US Bitcoin reserve

Siegel suggests that the best path forward is embedding Bitcoin acquisition incentives into the congressional budget reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority (51 votes) in the Senate.

This could include tax credits for Bitcoin miners who use environmentally friendly methods, such as capturing wasted methane gas, along with policies encouraging miners to share a portion of their mined BTC with the government.

Another approach is to pass a series of small amendments across multiple bills that require miners to allocate part of their block rewards to the Treasury, allowing the reserve to grow organically and in a budget-neutral way.

Fred Thiel, CEO of Marathon Digital Holdings, another Bitcoin 2025 panelist, said the US needs to start mining Bitcoin to actually fill the strategic reserve. He pointed out that just creating the reserve means nothing unless the government begins adding Bitcoin to it.

Thiel suggests using excess hydroelectric power and other renewable energy sources to mine Bitcoin in a cost-effective way. He believes that mining new Bitcoin – in addition to the amount currently held by the government – is necessary to build the reserve further.

There is one more option for a budget-neutral BTC acquisition, proposed by Senator Cynthia Lummis, namely converting a portion of the Treasury’s gold certificates to Bitcoin. This approach would help expand crypto holdings through existing federal assets rather than new appropriations, maintaining fiscal neutrality and avoiding direct taxpayer costs.

From gold reserve to Bitcoin reserve – a brief statute comparison

The current policy framework for US strategic reserves is rooted in statutory mandates – a model long established for gold reserves. Traditional gold-reserve statutes provide stringent custody, auditing, and legal oversight mechanisms to protect national assets.

In contrast, the VanEck proposal for a Bitcoin reserve envisions a system where incentives (such as tax credits for miners using waste energy) would gradually fund the reserve. However, integrating such a model into federal budgeting – as explained above – would require new congressional bills and amendments, making the process complex.

Moving to a federal Bitcoin reserve also involves custody and audit challenges. Unlike physical assets like gold, Bitcoin requires careful management of digital keys and strong cybersecurity to prevent theft. Experts and lawyers raised concerns about ensuring that custody systems are secure and meet strict audit rules. For example, a recent PwC report points out that without proper controls aligned with industry standards, even small mistakes could result in serious losses.