Could U.S. Politicians Lose Their Bitcoin? Pennsylvania Lawmakers Debate Bill To Prohibit Elected Officials From Holding Digital Assets

U.S. Pennsylvania Lawmaker Pushes To Ban Politicians From Profiting Off Crypto

A debate is intensifying in Pennsylvania over whether elected officials should be allowed to hold or profit from cryptocurrency while in office.

The latest push comes from Democrat Ben Waxman, who represents District 182 in the state’s House of Representatives, after he introduced House Bill 1812 this week.

Source: X

Trump’s Crypto Links Spark State-Level Action

Waxman said his proposal was fuelled by what he described as “corruption” at the federal level, accusing US President Donald Trump of personally enriching himself through ventures such as his Official Trump memecoin, which recently traded at $8.47.

Waxman declared,

“In Pennsylvania, no public official should be allowed to use their office to enrich themselves through cryptocurrency schemes.”

He added that his bill aims to stop politicians from “launching, promoting, or trading in coins where they hold a personal financial interest.”

What House Bill 1812 Would Do

If passed, the bill would amend Title 65 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes and impose strict limits on digital asset dealings for public officials and their immediate families.

Any holdings above $1,000 would be prohibited, and officials would be forced to divest their crypto assets within 90 days of the law taking effect.

The restrictions extend beyond Bitcoin to include alternative cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, NFTs, derivatives, and even ETFs linked to digital assets.

Violators could face civil penalties of up to $50,000 or criminal charges carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

The prohibition would also remain in place for one year after an official leaves office.

Clash With Earlier Bitcoin Reserve Plans

The proposal contrasts sharply with a separate initiative introduced last year by Republican Representative Mike Cabell, who wanted to allow the state treasurer to allocate up to 10% of Pennsylvania’s funds into Bitcoin.

That idea stalled in committee and never progressed to a full vote.

Echoes Of Federal Proposals

Waxman’s move mirrors efforts already brewing in Washington.

Congressman Ritchie Torres put forward the “Stop Presidential Profiteering from Digital Assets Act,” while Senator Adam Schiff introduced the “COIN Act.”

Both would ban the president, vice president, members of Congress and other senior federal officials from launching or endorsing crypto projects, with the restrictions also extending to their families.

Schiff went further, directly linking the proposals to Trump, saying:

“President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency dealings have raised significant ethical, legal and constitutional concerns over his use of the office of the presidency to enrich himself and his family.”

How Likely Is HB1812 To Pass?

The Pennsylvania bill has been referred to the Committee on State Government and remains in its earliest stage.

With no current restrictions on members of Congress owning digital assets beyond disclosure rules, the outcome in Pennsylvania could set an important precedent.

The Bigger Picture On Digital Asset Ownership

The rise of digital assets has not only drawn in millions of retail investors but also found its way into politics, with crypto-friendly voters becoming an increasingly influential bloc.

At the same time, the line between personal profit and public duty is being tested as elected officials explore new forms of financial engagement through tokens and blockchain-linked projects.

Can Politics And Crypto Ever Coexist?

The effort to shut politicians out of digital assets exposes a deeper question about the future of governance in a world where financial technology evolves faster than regulation.

By barring officials from holding or promoting crypto, lawmakers may believe they are shielding the system from abuse.

Yet, the decentralised nature of crypto makes enforcement tricky, and banning exposure outright risks alienating a growing voter base that sees digital assets as legitimate investment tools.

The tension between transparency, trust, and adoption will ultimately decide whether such laws are a safeguard against corruption or a barrier to progress.