A rare and unusually direct statement from a senior U.S. official has added new weight to discussions around state-level Bitcoin custody.
Speaking on Fox Business, Scott Bessent confirmed that the United States has begun holding confiscated Bitcoin as part of a strategic reserve, marking a significant shift in how seized digital assets are treated.
Key takeaways
The U.S. has started a form of Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, according to Scott Bessent.
The government will not buy Bitcoin, but will hold confiscated BTC instead of selling it.
This marks a departure from prior policy of routine liquidation.
The move implicitly acknowledges Bitcoin as a strategic asset rather than disposable proceeds.
Rather than continuing the long-standing practice of liquidating confiscated Bitcoin, Bessent said the government intends to retain those holdings, while stopping short of actively purchasing Bitcoin on the open market.
?? Scott Bessent: “We’ve started a Strategic #Bitcoin Reserve. We’re not going to be buying Bitcoin, but we’re going to be holding on to confiscated Bitcoin and not selling them.” pic.twitter.com/GosCoLeYLK
— Trending Bitcoin (@TrendingBitcoin) January 7, 2026
Bessent’s remarks suggest a quiet but meaningful policy adjustment. Historically, seized Bitcoin — often obtained through criminal forfeiture — has been auctioned off, contributing to market supply and reinforcing the view of Bitcoin as merely an asset to be converted into dollars. Holding it instead signals a reassessment of Bitcoin’s role in the broader financial and geopolitical landscape.
A shift from liquidation to preservation
By choosing custody over liquidation, U.S. authorities appear to be treating Bitcoin less like seized contraband and more like a strategic store of value. While the government is not positioning itself as a buyer, refusing to sell confiscated BTC effectively removes supply from circulation — a subtle but potentially impactful stance.
The distinction also matters politically. Framing the reserve around confiscated assets avoids the optics of taxpayer-funded Bitcoin purchases, while still allowing the state to accumulate exposure over time. In practice, it creates a passive accumulation mechanism tied to law enforcement activity rather than fiscal policy.
The comments come amid broader global discussions about sovereign Bitcoin reserves, as governments reassess digital assets in the context of monetary sovereignty, sanctions resilience, and long-term balance sheet strategy. Even without direct buying, holding Bitcoin aligns the U.S. more closely with the asset’s long-term trajectory.
While no details were provided on custody structure, size, or legal framework, the acknowledgment alone marks a notable departure from past silence. If formalized, the policy could set a precedent for how other nations handle seized digital assets — and how Bitcoin is viewed at the highest levels of government.
For now, the message is clear: the U.S. may not be buying Bitcoin, but it is no longer in a hurry to sell it either.
