TL;DR
- Reports alleging a US Bitcoin sale tied to the Samourai Wallet case have triggered questions about whether federal agencies are acting in line with Trump’s Strategic Bitcoin Reserve order.
- On-chain data confirms the Bitcoin was moved into Coinbase Prime custody, but does not prove that a sale actually occurred.
- Whether the transfer violated the executive order depends on how the Bitcoin was legally classified at the time and remains unresolved.
Reports that U.S. authorities may have disposed of a small amount of Bitcoin have sparked controversy. Are federal agencies acting in line with the administration’s emerging crypto policy? The focus of the dispute is a reported sale of Bitcoin involving assets tied to the Samourai Wallet case and whether that action conflicts with President Donald Trump’s strategic reserve directive.
The issue gained political traction after Sen. Cynthia Lummis publicly joined in the criticism. Lummis argued that liquidating Bitcoin undercuts the credibility of treating it as a long-term strategic asset and risks sending mixed signals to markets.
What is confirmed on-chain
Blockchain records indicate that approximately 57.5 BTC, valued at around $6–$ 6.3 million at the time, were transferred into Coinbase Prime custody. The assets were linked to enforcement actions involving Bitcoin seized from the Samourai Wallet. That movement is verifiable on-chain and is not in dispute.
The data does not show whether the Bitcoin was ultimately sold. On-chain data can confirm transfers between wallets and custodians. What it cannot reveal is whether assets were liquidated, internally reallocated, or simply parked under institutional control. A move into Coinbase Prime is often associated with execution services. However, it is not, by itself, proof of a completed sale.
What is being alleged
Several reports have alleged the transfer was a sale, suggesting the DOJ liquidated the Bitcoin as part of routine forfeiture procedures. Other coverage has been more cautious, emphasizing that custody movements alone cannot confirm a sale without additional evidence.
The absence of an official statement confirming or denying liquidation has allowed both interpretations to circulate. As a result, the debate has been driven as much by inference as by verifiable documentation.
Trump’s strategic reserve order and the policy gap
The controversy intersects with President Donald Trump’s push to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. Under Trump’s Executive Order 14233, the administration signaled its intention to treat Bitcoin as a strategic asset rather than routinely sell it.
What remains unclear is how that directive applies to Bitcoin obtained through law enforcement actions. The order outlines the strategic intent but does not publicly specify how seized or forfeited assets should be classified, managed, or exempted from existing disposal procedures.
How Bitcoin forfeiture usually works
Historically, the Justice Department and U.S. Marshals Service have followed established processes when handling seized or forfeited Bitcoin. These assets were typically auctioned or liquidated, with proceeds directed according to statutory rules.
Those procedures predate any attempt to frame Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset. As a result, agencies may still be operating under legacy enforcement frameworks that have not yet been updated to reflect new policy priorities. This creates a gray area where routine practice and political signaling may not fully align.
Timeline inconsistencies and reporting gaps
Adding to the uncertainty are discrepancies across reports regarding when the alleged sale occurred. Some outlets cite specific dates, while others refer only to general timeframes or focus exclusively on custody transfers.
These inconsistencies make it difficult to reconstruct a definitive sequence of events and weaken claims that a clear violation has already taken place. Without consistent timelines or transaction confirmation, assertions of noncompliance remain provisional.
Did this violate the executive order?
At this stage, three key questions remain unresolved:
- Was the Bitcoin actually sold, or merely transferred into institutional custody?
- Was the Samourai-linked Bitcoin classified as reserve-eligible under Executive Order 14233?
- Which agency has final authority to determine how such assets are handled?
Until these points are clarified, it is not possible to state conclusively whether any potential sale of Bitcoin by US enforcement agencies occurred in violation of the order or within existing enforcement authority.
Why this matters
Beyond the immediate dispute, the episode highlights the challenge of translating high-level policy directives into operational rules. If Bitcoin is to be treated as a strategic asset, agencies will need clear guidance on how to handle coins obtained through seizures and forfeitures.
For now, the question of whether the US sold Bitcoin remains open. What is clear is that transparency will determine how credible the strategic reserve narrative becomes. Confirmation from federal authorities about the status of the Samourai-linked Bitcoin would quickly settle the factual debate. Until then, the case stands as an early stress test for the United States’ evolving approach to Bitcoin policy.
