Business
What to know about Trump's plans for a 'Strategic Bitcoin Reserve'
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to establish a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” and a stockpile of U.S. digital assets.
The move came after Trump’s proposal for a crypto reserve sparked unexpected blowback from tech leaders because he initially said over the weekend that digital assets other than bitcoin would also be part of the reserve. Trump’s administration then made a distinction between the reserve and a separate stockpile.
Trump, who vowed to be America’s “first crypto president,” has struck a friendly tone toward an industry that backed him during his presidential campaign.
In January, he signed an executive order to support digital financial technology. And the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has dropped lawsuits against cryptocurrency exchanges Coinbase and Kraken and paused a civil fraud case against crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun, who praised Trump and invested in his crypto ventures.
The White House’s first-ever crypto summit is scheduled for Friday.
Here’s what to know:
What is a crypto reserve?
The Trump administration describes the creation of a national stockpile of digital assets, potentially including cryptocurrencies the federal government lawfully seized from criminals, in a January executive order. Trump also touted the idea of a bitcoin reserve during his presidential campaign.
On March 2, Trump said in a Truth Social post that the reserve would include cryptocurrencies XRP, solana, cardano and ether as well as bitcoin. The U.S. government holds an estimated $17 billion worth of bitcoin but has also seized other cryptocurrencies, data from Arkham Intelligence shows.
The Trump administration then said Thursday that the president is establishing a strategic bitcoin reserve and a stockpile of U.S. digital assets.
In the past, the U.S. has created reserves for valuable resources such as petroleum, helium and medical supplies, allowing the government to tap into these emergency supplies during times of crisis such as a national disaster or a war. The U.S. Treasury also stashes away gold, an asset considered a hedge against inflation because its value has historically increased.
“This is an odd thing for Republicans to be proposing, because it’s got the government intervening in the economy to provide [a] service to the public that the public can provide for themselves,” said Larry Harris, a professor of finance and business economics at the USC Marshall School of Business.
Why does Trump want a crypto reserve?
Trump said in his Truth Social post the reserve would “elevate” the cryptocurrency industry “after years of corrupt attacks by the Biden Administration” and is part of efforts to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.”
Because the cryptocurrency industry poured hundreds of millions of dollars into backing Trump and other congressional candidates, some critics question whether Trump is just trying to reward his campaign supporters or himself. Trump and his wife, Melania, launched separate meme coins and his family has ties to a crypto venture called World Liberty Financial, sparking concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks, who co-founded venture capital firm Craft Ventures and worked at companies such as PayPal, also faced allegations of conflicts of interest. He pushed back against the claims on X, stating that he sold all his cryptocurrency, including bitcoin, ether and solana, before he joined Trump’s administration.
Wyoming Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis introduced a federal bill to create a bitcoin reserve, noting that holding the digital asset could provide a “hedge against economic uncertainty and monetary instability.”
Such a reserve would require congressional support. But financial experts say a crypto reserve is risky because digital assets such as bitcoin are notoriously volatile, swinging in value.
“There’s no question that there will be crashes. So how can it possibly make any sense for the government to associate itself with something that’s going to die, that’s going to crash, even if it comes back again afterwards?” Harris said.
How did tech leaders and crypto enthusiasts initially react to the idea?
Earlier this week, tech leaders and even cryptocurrency executives who backed Trump expressed skepticism about the creation of a reserve that includes tokens other than bitcoin. After Trump mentioned specific tokens in his reserve announcement, the prices for bitcoin, XRP, solana and other cryptocurrencies spiked, only to fall back down.
“It is picking a winner technology-wise. And the problem is we’re not really even in the first inning of that battle,” said Gene Hoffman, chief executive of Chia Network, a blockchain technology company based in South San Francisco.
Some bitcoin supporters want to see the federal government treat the cryptocurrency like gold, but there’s another group of people who “frankly bought access to the White House,” Hoffman said.
Ripple, which has ties to XRP and holds the digital asset, pointed to remarks from its chief executive, Brad Garlinghouse, who said he was “Glad to see POTUS recognizing we live in a multichain world.”
Redwan Meslem, executive director of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, said in a statement that the “crypto industry naturally fosters debate about different technological visions” and the group embraces this “diversity of thought.” He said that the group was pleased Trump included ether in his announcement and that the “market has already recognized Ethereum’s maturity.”
Tyler Winklevoss, who co-founded cryptocurrency exchange Gemini, said on X he thinks only bitcoin is suitable for the reserve.
Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency platform Coinbase, said on X that a bitcoin reserve is the “best option” but also suggested “a market cap weighted index of crypto assets” for people who wanted more variety in the reserve.
Some tech leaders initially opposed the idea for different reasons.
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, who co-founded Palantir Technologies and is a Trump supporter, said on X: “It’s wrong to steal my money for grift on the left; it’s also wrong to tax me for crypto bro schemes.”
The Trump administration addressed some of the concerns in its executive order.
Will taxpayer dollars fund the reserve and the digital asset stockpile?
Sacks said in a Thursday post on X that the reserve “will not cost taxpayers a dime” because it includes bitcoin that the federal government already owns. The cryptocurrency was forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset proceedings.
“The U.S. will not sell any bitcoin deposited into the Reserve. It will be kept as a store of value,” he said in the post.
The separate U.S. digital asset stockpile will include cryptocurrencies other than bitcoin that have also been forfeited in criminal or civil proceedings.
“The government will not acquire additional assets for the Stockpile beyond those obtained through forfeiture proceedings. The purpose of the Stockpile is responsible stewardship of the government’s digital assets under the Treasury Department,” he said in the post.
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
What happens next?
The White House is hosting its crypto summit on Friday, and executives from Ripple, Gemini, Robinhood, Kraken, Coinbase, World Liberty Financial and other companies are expected to attend. More information about the reserve idea is expected to be revealed then.
Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.
In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”
“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”
Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.
In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.
The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.
“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.
Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.
The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.
Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.
Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
-
New York1 hour agoShould a Straight Person Represent Stonewall’s City Council District?
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoBlake Miller has high floor, big upside, says Lions GM Brad Holmes
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoHighway 1 closure in San Francisco expected to snarl Sunset traffic all weekend
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoHow UCF EDGE Malachi Lawrence Fits With The Dallas Cowboys
-
Miami, FL2 hours ago
Dolphins Select Two Players in The First Round of The 2026 NFL Draft
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoIn-Store Only
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoWolves Back Up the Big Talk With Blowout Win Over Denver in Game 3
-
Seattle, WA3 hours ago‘Rare’ Tiny-Home Compound Featuring 3 Adorable Abodes Hits the Market in Seattle for Just $900K