Cryptocurrency Policy Clashes Dominate Washington Hearings as Bitcoin Faces Uncertainty

The intersection of politics and digital assets came into sharp focus during recent Congressional hearings, where cryptocurrency became a lightning rod for partisan debate. As geopolitical tensions ripple across global markets, lawmakers grappled with questions about government intervention in the digital currency space. With Bitcoin trading at $65,010 as of late February 2026, market participants watched closely to see how Washington’s stance might affect price stability.

Treasury Secretary Faces Tough Questions on Bitcoin Market Support

On February 4, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared before Congress to address a range of financial matters, but the session quickly turned toward cryptocurrency policy. The hearing featured heated exchanges between lawmakers and the Treasury chief, particularly when Representative Brad Sherman—a long-standing vocal critic of digital assets—posed pointed questions about government authority over Bitcoin markets.

Sherman’s line of inquiry zeroed in on a provocative scenario: whether the Treasury Department or the Federal Open Market Committee possessed the legal power to “rescue” Bitcoin during market downturns. His second question was equally direct—did the administration have contingency plans to stabilize Bitcoin if market conditions deteriorated further? Sherman’s framing served as a thinly veiled critique of the Trump administration’s increasingly pro-cryptocurrency stance.

Bessent’s response was measured. He emphasized that while the U.S. Treasury would continue to hold seized cryptocurrency assets, it had no intention of instructing banks to purchase Bitcoin to artificially prop up prices during slumps. Such an intervention would represent an unprecedented shift in monetary policy. The Treasury Secretary also highlighted a key talking point: the substantial profits generated from holding previously confiscated Bitcoin holdings—a benefit tied to Trump’s executive order from the prior year establishing a national Bitcoin reserve strategy. This policy decision has become a centerpiece of the administration’s approach to digital assets.

World Liberty Financial and the UAE Connection Stir Political Controversy

The hearing took another controversial turn when lawmakers raised questions about World Liberty Financial (WLFI), an entity with reported connections to Trump family interests. Days before the Congressional session, the Wall Street Journal had reported that Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan—a prominent member of the UAE’s ruling family—had indirectly acquired stakes in WLFI-related entities. This disclosure immediately sparked accusations that Trump had allegedly shown preferential treatment to UAE-based companies in AI chip procurement discussions, ostensibly motivated by this undisclosed investment relationship.

When pressed on the WLFI matter during his testimony, Bessent demurred, stating that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) operated with regulatory independence and deflecting suggestions that his office would undertake a direct investigation into World Liberty Financial’s operations or governance structure. This response frustrated Democratic lawmakers, particularly Representative Gregory Meeks, who confronted Bessent in a heated exchange that exposed deep partisan divides over executive oversight and cryptocurrency regulation. Meeks pressed Bessent to commit to investigating potential conflicts of interest, arguing that the Treasury Secretary was providing political cover for the President rather than defending taxpayer interests.

The dual controversies—government support for Bitcoin versus scrutiny of cryptocurrency-linked entities with political connections—underscore the deepening polarization surrounding cryptocurrency policy at the federal level.