#JusticeDepartmentSellsBitcoin A Policy Contradiction at the Heart of America’s Bitcoin Strategy

The recent sale of Bitcoin by the U.S. Department of Justice through Coinbase Prime has reignited a complex and increasingly political debate about America’s evolving relationship with Bitcoin. What was once viewed as routine liquidation of seized criminal assets has now taken on symbolic weight, as it directly collides with the U.S. government’s stated ambition to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR). In a market where narratives increasingly matter as much as liquidity, these sales are being scrutinized not for their size, but for what they signal.
Historically, DOJ Bitcoin sales were largely uncontroversial. Assets seized from cases such as Silk Road or Samourai Wallet were treated like any other forfeited property, converted into dollars to fund restitution or government operations. However, that framework changed in early 2025 when the U.S. administration signed Executive Order 14233, formally outlining the creation of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The order explicitly stated that Bitcoin acquired by the government through forfeiture should generally be retained rather than sold, with the intent of building a long-term national digital asset stockpile.
Against this backdrop, reports that the DOJ liquidated roughly $6.3 million worth of Bitcoin tied to the Samourai Wallet case in late 2025 and early 2026 sparked immediate backlash. Critics argue that these sales undermine the Executive Order and weaken the credibility of the SBR initiative. Supporters of the DOJ counter that law enforcement agencies retain prosecutorial discretion and may be clearing legacy cases that predate the operational framework of the reserve. While the dollar amount involved is negligible relative to a multi-trillion-dollar crypto market, the political optics are anything but small.
Market reaction to the sale itself was muted. Bitcoin liquidity in 2026 is deep, with institutional infrastructure such as Coinbase Prime, OTC desks, and spot Bitcoin ETFs absorbing supply with minimal price impact. Spot ETFs alone now manage well over $100 billion in assets, creating a demand base that dwarfs government-seized inventories. From a purely mechanical standpoint, government sales no longer threaten market stability.
The real impact lies in long-term confidence and global signaling. Persistent government selling reinforces the perception that Bitcoin remains a questionable or temporary asset in the eyes of the state, rather than a strategic reserve holding. Advocates of the SBR argue that every sale represents a missed opportunity to strengthen the national balance sheet in an era of mounting debt and currency debasement. Skeptics, meanwhile, maintain that the government should not speculate on volatile assets or deviate from traditional asset liquidation practices.
This tension is now embedded in the U.S. legislative process. While Executive Order 14233 established the reserve in principle, Congress has yet to codify it into permanent law. The BITCOIN Act of 2025, introduced by Senator Cynthia Lummis, proposes a far more aggressive strategy, mandating the acquisition of up to one million Bitcoin over five years. As of early 2026, the bill remains stalled in committee, leaving the reserve vulnerable to bureaucratic interpretation and inter-agency conflict. In contrast, the GENIUS Act, passed in mid-2025, focused on stablecoins and banking infrastructure, quietly laying the groundwork for broader institutional crypto integration without directly addressing sovereign Bitcoin accumulation.
At the state level, momentum has been faster and more decisive. Several U.S. states have moved ahead with their own crypto reserve frameworks, with Texas emerging as the most prominent example after allocating capital to Bitcoin and BTC-linked investment vehicles. This decentralization of policy highlights a growing divide between federal ambition and state-level execution.
Internationally, the U.S. approach remains an outlier. Most governments continue to treat seized Bitcoin as a short-term fiscal resource rather than a strategic asset. Germany’s rapid liquidation of tens of thousands of BTC in 2024 demonstrated a preference for immediate budget relief. The United Kingdom maintains a strict legalist approach, selling crypto under its Proceeds of Crime framework with little regard for long-term value. In stark contrast, El Salvador continues its disciplined daily Bitcoin purchases as part of a sovereign accumulation strategy, while Bhutan has quietly built a substantial reserve through state-backed Bitcoin mining powered by hydroelectric energy.
As 2026 unfolds, the United States finds itself in a fragmented and transitional phase. The Executive branch signals a desire to “HODL,” Congress debates whether Bitcoin belongs on the national balance sheet, and law enforcement agencies continue operating under legacy liquidation norms. Until the BITCOIN Act is resolved—either through passage or rejection—this inconsistency is likely to persist.
The DOJ’s Bitcoin sales may not move markets, but they do move narratives. In a world where Bitcoin is increasingly viewed as digital gold, the question is no longer whether the U.S. can afford to hold Bitcoin, but whether it can afford not to. The outcome of this policy tug-of-war will shape not only domestic crypto strategy, but also how other nations interpret Bitcoin’s role in the future global financial system.