Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Congress he cannot bail out Bitcoin, emphasizing the limits of his authority during a Senate Banking Committee hearing. When Senator Brad Sherman questioned whether the Treasury could intervene to support cryptocurrency prices, Bessent's response was clear: taxpayer dollars cannot be used to buy Bitcoin, and such actions fall outside his mandate as chair of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

This exchange highlights a significant irony for the Bitcoin community. Launched in 2009 as a reaction to bank bailouts, Bitcoin was designed to operate without a central authority or government intervention. Yet, it now finds itself entangled in political discussions, with Congress members contemplating a government bailout of a digital asset that was built to resist such intervention.

The term “bailout” encompasses three main actions. First is direct price support, where the government buys an asset to prevent its price from falling, which Bessent confirmed is not permissible under current law. The second involves liquidity backstops for intermediaries, where the government provides emergency funding to institutions that facilitate trading and settlement, ensuring market functionality. The third refers to stabilizing adjacent markets, like Treasury bills, upon which cryptocurrencies rely. While Bitcoin's price support is off the table, the other two actions operate in a different legal and political realm.

According to CryptoSlate, the U.S. already holds Bitcoin seized during criminal investigations. In March 2025, an executive order established a U.S. government Bitcoin reserve from coins obtained through law enforcement. This reserve, framed as a “digital Fort Knox,” explicitly prohibits the sale of seized Bitcoin and directs the Treasury and Commerce to explore budget-neutral ways of acquiring more. This distinction is crucial; the U.S. accumulates Bitcoin as a byproduct of law enforcement, not as a tool for managing crypto prices.

Bessent's response also reflects the fundamental difference between Bitcoin and traditional financial entities. Classic bailouts target institutions with balance sheets and liabilities, while Bitcoin operates as a protocol without an issuer or contractual obligations. Policymakers would need to bail out the institutions surrounding Bitcoin, such as banks and payment processors, rather than Bitcoin itself.

Currently, the pathway for any potential government action related to Bitcoin would require explicit congressional authorization. Senate Bill 954, the “BITCOIN Act of 2025,” proposes that the Treasury purchase one million Bitcoins over five years. However, this bill is not law yet. A shift from “no authority today” to “authority tomorrow” hinges on congressional votes, which would require lawmakers to support taxpayer purchases of a volatile asset lacking cash flows and regulatory oversight.

MORE FROM COINTIMES

XRP Sees 6% Surge Amid Institutional Accumulation and ETF Inflows

XRP surged 6% as strong institutional accumulation and ETF inflows indicated a significant market shift. Retail purchases also spiked, suggesting evolving investor sentiment.

If the U.S. were to ever bail out crypto, it would likely occur through protecting the underlying infrastructure rather than directly buying Bitcoin. The most probable scenario involves intervening in the stablecoin and Treasury markets. With dollar-pegged stablecoin issuers holding substantial amounts of U.S. government debt, any major stablecoin run could force liquidations that threaten the Treasury market's stability.

The Financial Stability Oversight Council's 2025 annual report highlights the importance of monitoring stablecoin regulation's impact on Treasury markets. Should a stablecoin face a crisis, policymakers can stabilize the Treasury market, indirectly benefiting Bitcoin by maintaining the dollar infrastructure it relies on.

Moreover, emergency liquidity could be extended to systemically important intermediaries entangled with core funding markets. The Federal Reserve's authority under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act allows it to provide liquidity during unusual circumstances. Historically, this has supported market functioning, often with Treasury credit backing.

In essence, the U.S. government’s involvement in the crypto space is more about ensuring market stability than about propping up Bitcoin itself. As the landscape evolves, the relationship between Bitcoin and government actions will continue to be scrutinized, reflecting the ongoing tensions between decentralized finance and regulatory frameworks. The implications for the broader market are profound, as the fate of Bitcoin may increasingly hinge on the actions taken to safeguard the financial infrastructure that supports it.

In conclusion, while the Treasury won't be bailing out Bitcoin directly, the government’s potential actions to stabilize the surrounding markets could serve as an implicit safety net for the crypto ecosystem. This reality poses significant questions for investors and the future of decentralized finance.