Rep. Byron Donalds Pressed the IRS for Favorable Crypto Rules. His Wife Bought Bitcoin the Same Day.

On Dec. 18, Rep. Byron Donalds, a Republican from Florida, sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service’s acting commissioner, Scott Bessent, asking him to axe a rule that declares “cryptocurrency staking rewards” — extra tokens investors earn by locking up their cryptocurrency on a blockchain network — as taxable income upon their receipt.

“Like those who mine gold or anything else, cryptocurrency miners and stakers are the first owners of this new property,” Donalds argued along with 18 other members of Congress. “New property is never taxable income in the hands of its first owner, and instead gives rise to income upon its sale or disposition.”

The same day, Donalds purchased between $50,001 and $100,000 in bitcoin, according to a new congressional financial document reviewed by NOTUS.

Donalds’ office said the congressman’s wife, Erika Donalds, actually made the bitcoin purchase, not Donalds himself. Donalds’ office said the congressman would amend his disclosure accordingly, although no such amended document was publicly available as of Friday afternoon.

“Byron’s wife, who is a business and finance professional, purchased the Bitcoin,” Donalds spokesman Daniel First said in an email. “Importantly, the letter referenced had no bearing whatsoever on the spot price of Bitcoin.”

Donalds’ office did not answer a question about what prompted the bitcoin purchase or whether it represents a conflict of interest with the congressman’s public service. Donalds did not report owning bitcoin in his most recent annual personal financial disclosure. Nor did he disclose making bitcoin trades during 2025 for either himself or his wife — until the Dec. 18 trade.

Donalds is running for governor of Florida and presently sits on the House Committee on Financial Services, the jurisdiction of which includes banks and international finance.

The committee has been intimately involved in crafting House Republicans’ crypto policies, touting a “Crypto Week” and conducting crypto-focused hearings such as “A Golden Age of Digital Assets: Charting a Path Forward” and “American Innovation and the Future of Digital Assets: From Blueprint to a Functional Framework.”

In May, Donalds introduced a bill to codify the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile that President Donald Trump created in March through executive order. (It has not received a vote.)

Former Republican Rep. Reid Ribble, who has advocated for stronger laws governing public officials’ personal financial trades, said Donalds and his wife simply could have chosen not to trade bitcoin in order to avoid questions about financial conflicts.

“The timing of it really, really looks bad,” Ribble said. “Sometimes, you just have to say no. It degrades the trust that citizens have that a member is not trading with an advantage they don’t have.”

Byron and Erika Donalds have made other curiously timed financial trades this year.

On April 10, the Donalds bought or sold between $8,008 and $120,000 worth of stock — a week after Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff declaration, as financial markets oscillated wildly. Their stock trades included shares of Visa Inc., Brazil-based digital banking group Nu Holdings Ltd., communication cable company Amphenol Corporation and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Some Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Congress are attempting to bar themselves and their colleagues from trading individual stocks, and potentially, cryptocurrency.

Proponents of congressional stock-ban measures argue that government officials must hold themselves to higher standards than the general public when it comes to avoiding real or perceived financial conflicts. They also cite numerous examples of government officials violating existing stock-trade disclosure laws, particularly the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK, Act.

Republican leaders have pledged to advance their own version of such legislation this year, although its provisions may only apply to the legislative branch and not the executive branch, for which some Democrats are agitating.