Foreign media commented that, following the start of the second mandate of Trump, there had been a clear shift towards a friendly regulatory environment in the United States, with intensive policy action, including the establishment of strategic bitcoin reserves, the advancement of stable currency federal legislation, and the adjustment of regulators. However, policy improvements have not led directly to higher prices. According to the article, bitcoin has fallen significantly after its high level, with more major driving forces coming from tariffs, geo-conflicts and expected changes in interest rates.
Policy shift to concentration
According to the article, when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, he withdrew some of the Biden Executive Orders very soon, and expressly opposed the introduction of a central bank digital currency. Subsequently, the White House established an interdepartmental working group to assess the National Digital Assets Reserve Programme, based on law enforcement confiscation of assets.
By March 2025, Trump had signed an executive order formally establishing the strategic bitcoin reserve and the United States digital asset reserve. The article states that this arrangement does not involve new purchases by the Government on the open market, but is based on existing confiscations. By July 2025, the United States Congress had adopted the GENIUS Act to establish a federal framework for stable currency reserves and issuer regulation.
Market expectations and reality
According to the article, Trump continued to release signals in support of the encryption industry during the campaign in 2024, promising to promote the United States as a global encryption hub and a rapid rise in market sentiment. With its victory, Bitcoin rose to a high level in 2024, and the untying of market bets will continue to push high-risk asset performance.
But after 2025, investor expectations of policies began to diverge from actual results. The article mentions that while strategic bitcoin reserves are a subject of high market interest, the lack of new currency purchase arrangements does not meet the expectations of some investors for continued growth in government. Meanwhile, the issue of the regulatory division of unstable currency-encrypted assets has yet to be fully resolved in the Senate, despite the advancement of CLARITY Act in the Chamber of Deputies.
Macro factors overregulate regulation.
According to the article, what really dominates the movement of Bitcoin is not regulatory warming, but broader macro-pressures. In October 2025, following a massive new tariff imposed on China by Trump, the market was sold in large quantities, with the one-off clearing of the encrypted market allegedly amounting to $19 billion, and a single-day drop of about $15 million in bitcoin.
In addition to trade policy, the escalation of the US-Iraq conflict pushed up oil prices and rekindled inflationary concerns, weakening the market's interest-rate stake on the Fed. The article also mentioned that the Federal Reserve maintained interest rates in the context of the unwinding of inflation risks, which kept risk assets under pressure. The conclusion was that even though the regulatory environment was clearer than it had been a year earlier and institutional participation in infrastructure was advancing, short-term prices were still more influenced by macro-, rather than monopolicies.