I think there’s some misconception and mixture of concepts here:
First of all, the idea of “threat” to BTC has several layers. No entity can completely destroy BTC just like no entity could ever really destroy anything. Just like modern govs did not end drugs, or 1700s govs did not end homosexuality. So obviously governments can’t “end” BTC.
So in terms of threats, there’s 2 main kinds in my opinion:
Price threat (actions that make price drop aggressively)
Irrelevance threat (actions that cause BTC to disappear into obscurity)
The first, the government has plenty of power to do. Sure, make it illegal shut down exchanges and seize every mining equipment in US soil (or whatever gov you wanna talk about). It won’t destroy BTC, but it would hurt price enormously.
2) The second one is tougher because it either happens because you make it so niche it dies in that niche (the actions above by a selective number of govs could maybe achieve that), or it requires the consent of the users. In this kind of threat, I think the biggest one to BTC is not govs, but our overall perception of the climate impact of BTC energy consumption. I know climate change deniers and crypto enthusiast Venn diagram has a pretty big middle area, but whatever one individually might think climate change is real and BTC impact on it is likely to only grow (the arguments about BTC and clean energy/ wasted energy are bullshit, any non biased engineer can see that). Which means that there is a chance that a large share of the population might choose to avoid BTC because of it’s impact.
So I’d say in terms of threats, BTC has 2 threats: The governmental financial threat, which is govs ability to make price dump horrendously with their policies (I don’t think that’s a particular relevant risk to be honest), and irrelevance threat, which is the possibility of a future in which the population explicitly refuses BTC because of it’s energy consumption. I think this is a much much more realistic threat to BTC long term than any other.