Crypto in 401(k) Plans: DOL Rule Reaches White House Review
A Department of Labor proposal that would open 401(k) retirement accounts to alternative assets, including cryptocurrencies, has reached the White House for review. Nothing is final, and the text is not yet public. But for accounting firms, auditors, plan sponsors and CFOs, this is the first concrete signal that digital assets could sit inside US defined-contribution plans, which means the record-keeping burden is worth scoping now, ideally with crypto accounting software that can already handle asset-level valuation and custody evidence.
What happened and where the proposal stands
On Thursday, the Department of Labor filed its proposal with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA is a division of the Office of Management and Budget that reviews federal regulations before they are published. The filing is meant to further a presidential executive order that directed the DOL to pave the way for alternative assets in 401(k) plans.
The step comes months after the DOL unveiled an initial rule outlining what 401(k) plan managers should do when they consider adding alternative assets, such as digital assets and private equity, to their investment lineups. The new filing builds on that earlier work rather than starting from scratch.
What the filing says about fiduciary standards
The DOL's stated aim is to clarify the criteria fiduciaries should use to prudently balance potentially higher expenses against the objective of seeking greater long-term net returns and broader diversification. That wording matters. It frames the question as a fiduciary process question, not a blanket permission slip. A plan manager who adds an alternative asset would still need to show a documented, prudent decision.
What the filing does not say yet
In describing costs and benefits, the DOL said it is still considering the costs. In plain terms, the department has not yet put a number on what compliance would cost plans and providers. The source material also does not describe specific asset caps, custody requirements, valuation methods or reporting templates. Anyone telling you precisely how crypto would be held in a plan under this rule is speculating. We will treat those details as open until the proposal is published.
Why the political backdrop matters
The executive order directing the DOL to act came after the department, under the previous administration, had raised concerns about crypto in retirement plans. So this is a reversal of the federal posture, and reversals tend to be contested.
The scrutiny has already started. Earlier this year, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren pushed the DOL to scrap the rule, arguing it would expose investors to volatile assets, including crypto. That pushback is a reminder that a proposal at OIRA is a long way from a settled framework. The rule still has to be published, drawn comment, and be finalised, and it could change along the way or face challenge.
For finance leaders, the practical reading is simple: plan for a range of outcomes. The direction of travel favours optionality for plan menus, but the timing, scope and conditions are all unknown. Our earlier look at what a Democratic Congress means for crypto accounting software covers the wider political context that could shape oversight of a rule like this.
What this means for accounting firms, auditors and CFOs
If crypto exposure eventually reaches 401(k) menus, the first-order effect is not on the participants' tax returns. Retirement accounts are generally tax-deferred wrappers, so individual trades inside the plan do not create the kind of per-transaction gain and loss reporting that a taxable wallet does. The real workload lands on plan administration, valuation, custody oversight and audit.
Plan sponsors and CFOs
Sponsors carry fiduciary responsibility for the menu they offer. If a crypto-linked option becomes permissible, the sponsor's finance function will need evidence of the prudence process the DOL describes: how fees were weighed against expected net returns and diversification benefit, who reviewed the option, and how the decision is monitored over time. That is documentation work, and it benefits from a structured record rather than email threads.
Sponsors should also expect more questions from boards and investment committees. A treasury or finance lead who can explain how digital asset exposure would be valued, reconciled and evidenced will be in a stronger position than one who starts that conversation after a vendor pitch arrives.
Auditors and plan auditors
Auditors should think about existence, ownership and valuation. Digital assets raise familiar questions: how do you obtain reliable evidence that the assets exist and are controlled by the right party, and how is fair value determined for assets that trade around the clock across venues? Those questions already come up in corporate engagements. A plan audit adds the layer of participant-level allocation and the need for a defensible pricing source at the plan's measurement date.
We are not aware of any final accounting or audit guidance written specifically for crypto inside 401(k) plans, and the source does not describe any. The sensible approach is to apply your existing digital asset audit procedures as a baseline and watch for DOL and standard-setter updates. Our summary of the FASB crypto assets project update is a useful companion for the measurement side.
Accounting firms and outsourced finance teams
Firms serving plan sponsors, recordkeepers or asset managers should expect client questions long before a final rule exists. The advisory opportunity is in readiness: helping clients identify what data they would need, which systems would hold it, and where controls would sit. That is easier to do calmly now than under a compliance deadline later.
What to prepare while the rule is at OIRA
A proposal under review does not impose obligations. It does give teams a window to get their operating model in order. The steps below are preparation, not compliance requirements, and none of them depends on specifics we do not yet have.
Map the data you would need
Whatever the final rule says, any plan holding digital assets will need a clean record of what is held, where, at what quantity, and at what value on a given date. The table below sets out the categories of evidence that finance teams typically require for digital assets, and why each would matter in a plan setting. It is a planning checklist drawn from standard practice, not a list of DOL requirements.
| Data category | Why it matters in a plan context |
|---|---|
| Holdings and quantities by asset | Supports existence testing and participant-level allocation |
| Custody and control evidence | Supports ownership assertions and fiduciary oversight of the custodian |
| Pricing source and timestamp | Supports a defensible valuation at the measurement date |
| Fee and expense records | Supports the DOL's stated focus on weighing higher expenses against net returns |
| Decision documentation | Supports evidence of a prudent fiduciary process |
Stress-test your tooling
Ask whether your current stack can produce those records without manual rebuilds. Spreadsheet-based tracking tends to break down once holdings span multiple custodians, wallets or venues. Purpose-built digital asset accounting software can centralise holdings, apply consistent pricing and keep an audit trail, and crypto bookkeeping software can handle the day-to-day posting. If you are evaluating tools, test them on reconciliation, valuation evidence and exportable audit trails rather than on feature lists. Our piece on DeFi accounting and protocol mechanics shows where automated classification tends to need human review.
Set up a watch process
Assign someone to track the proposal. The next milestones to watch are publication of the proposal text, the associated cost-benefit analysis that the DOL said it is still developing, the public comment period, and any legislative or legal pushback. Those documents will contain the specifics that this filing does not. Build a short internal memo template now so you can assess each release against your clients' or your own exposure quickly.
What individual savers should understand
Although this article is aimed at finance professionals, the people you advise will ask about it. The honest answer is that nothing has changed for any existing 401(k) today. A proposal at OIRA does not add crypto to anyone's plan menu. Even if a rule is eventually finalised, a plan sponsor would still choose whether to offer such an option, and the DOL framing points to a prudence process around cost, return and diversification.
Savers should also hear the other side. Senators Sanders and Warren have argued that crypto would expose investors to volatile assets. Advisers can help clients weigh concentration risk, fees and time horizon rather than reacting to headlines. For tax treatment, remind clients that rules on tax-deferred accounts differ from those on taxable crypto holdings, and that specific questions belong with a qualified tax adviser once actual plan terms are known.
How to read this in the wider US policy picture
This filing is one piece of a broader US effort to fit digital assets into existing financial structures. Finance teams have been tracking market-structure changes across trading venues, tokenised securities and stablecoins, and a retirement-plan channel would add a different kind of holder to the mix: long-horizon, fiduciary-governed and heavily documented. That profile tends to demand stricter evidence standards than a typical corporate treasury.
It also shows how quickly the compliance perimeter can move. A year in which regulators and the executive branch change tack on crypto in retirement plans is a year in which policies and procedures need version control. Teams that keep a living register of regulatory developments, with dates and the status of each proposal, will find it much easier to defend their judgements to auditors later. For a structured view of the reporting obligations that sit around these developments, see our overview of crypto compliance and reporting.
The cost question deserves a final mention. The DOL said it is still considering costs, and that is where practitioners can add value. Sponsors and providers will be the ones who actually bear the expense of custody arrangements, valuation processes, audit procedures and systems. When the cost analysis is published, compare its assumptions with your own bottom-up estimate. If the two diverge sharply, that is worth raising in the comment process.
FAQ
Can 401(k) plans hold crypto today because of this filing?
No. The DOL has only sent a proposal to OIRA for review before publication. It does not change any plan's investment menu on its own, and plan sponsors would still decide what to offer.
What is OIRA and why does it matter here?
OIRA is part of the Office of Management and Budget and reviews federal regulations before they are published. Reaching OIRA means the proposal is moving through the formal process, but it is not yet a published rule or a final one.
Does the DOL say what crypto exposure would be allowed?
Not in the material we reviewed. The DOL's stated aim is to clarify criteria fiduciaries should use to balance potentially higher expenses against long-term net returns and diversification. Specific limits, custody rules and valuation methods have not been described.
Who has criticised the proposal?
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren pushed the DOL earlier this year to scrap the rule, saying it would expose investors to volatile assets, including crypto.
What should finance teams do now?
Map the holdings, custody, pricing and fee records a plan would need, test whether your accounting tools can produce them with an audit trail, and assign someone to monitor publication of the proposal and its cost analysis.
Source: The Block