Bitcoin Firm Warns MSCI Crypto Ban Threatens U.S. National Security

Strategy, a Tysons Corner, Virginia-based firm, has framed MSCI’s proposed index changes as a matter of national security. In its letter, the company argued that excluding firms whose digital asset holdings represent 50% or more of total assets would “undermine the federal government’s goal of promoting digital assets while stifling innovation, impeding economic development, and harming national security.” This appeal directly references the Trump administration’s public prioritization of “pro-innovation policies” and its positioning as a supporter of digital assets. Strategy warned that this is “precisely the wrong moment to take steps that undermine this innovative technology,” suggesting such a move would weaken America’s strategic position.

The firm explicitly linked crypto leadership to geopolitical competition, echoing broader statements from former President Trump. The letter’s context aligns with Trump’s characterization, cited in the source text, that the nation’s embrace of crypto is crucial for the U.S. to maintain a technical edge against global adversaries like China. By proposing to sideline companies deeply invested in this technology, Strategy implies MSCI could inadvertently hamper a sector the administration views as vital for national security. This argument extends beyond financial markets into the realm of economic and technological sovereignty.

The financial implications of MSCI’s proposal are significant. According to the source text, JPMorgan warned last month that outflows from Strategy could total $2.8 billion if the index provider moves forward. Strategy’s stock, which changed hands above $184 at Wednesday’s close, has fallen nearly 53% over the past six months as hype fades around numerous crypto-buying firms that debuted this year. The proposed exclusion criteria thus threaten tangible capital flight from a sector already under pressure.

Beyond the monetary impact, Strategy’s letter challenges the foundational principle of MSCI’s business: neutrality. The firm warned that MSCI would be risking its perception of neutrality “in the eyes of both regulators and market participants” by establishing index credibility criteria that effectively discriminates “against one asset type.” Strategy underscored that crypto-buying firms are legitimate companies, not ineligible investment funds, and described the 50% threshold as “arbitrary, discriminatory, and unworkable.” This critique strikes at the heart of MSCI’s role as an objective benchmark provider, suggesting that the proposal could be viewed as a value judgment on an entire asset class rather than a neutral, technical rule.

The debate occurs within a complex regulatory landscape where national security concerns are already a focal point. The source text notes that in July, following the passage of stablecoin legislation, the White House stated that the “GENIUS Act reinforces our national security” by subjecting issuers to anti-money laundering rules. However, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) raised her own national security concerns with the stablecoin bill in February, citing risks of foreign actors circumventing sanctions and noting the bill would benefit a Trump-backed decentralized finance project called World Liberty Financial.

Strategy’s letter attempts to navigate this terrain by highlighting firms that began buying crypto this year, including Trump Media & Technology Group, aligning its argument with the current administration’s priorities. The firm’s public call to action—asking readers to share the letter on LinkedIn and X and email MSCI directly—signals a move to mobilize political and retail investor sentiment. This situates the financial index policy within a wider political battle over the future of digital assets, where definitions of innovation, security, and market integrity are fiercely contested.