No. of Recommendations: 3
Now, the key thing here is the difference between writing an Executive Order saying that 401(k)'s should be allowed to invest in crypto and actually amending whatever provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations currently don't allow that. There's a lot of steps between changing your mind and changing the actual rule that's written down - and it takes a fair amount of time and usually a few lawsuits for that to happen.
But it's only Year 1 of his four-year term - so yeah, if this is just a change to the CFR and not the statute, he can probably do it.
It is highly unlikely that crypto is mentioned *anywhere* in the legislation that created 401(k)s and the regs that drive them...because in 1978 crytocurrency didn't exist.
In general this is why we've allowed federal regulatory agencies considerable latitude in using legislation as regulatory frameworks that allow for the supervising government agency to issue "clarifications" in the form of rules and regs: this way the legislation doesn't have to be future proof/perfect right from Day 1 -or- doesn't require constant amendments. The US can, theoretically, chug along at the speed of innovation because we have a social contract that says "All parties will try to do the right thing, so we don't have to have Congress inadvertently lock us out of something we might want to do" (by writing an overly restrictive law).
Unfortunately, too many in government abused this contract - notably the EPA, but certainly including others like OSHA and the ATF - leading to the revocation of the Chevron doctrine last year.
