U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Legislation: Market Reaction and Outlook

This article was written by Tiger Research. News about a U.S. strategic bitcoin reserve has been circulating for nearly two years. The original BITCOIN Act (launched in 2024) centered on the government actively purchasing bitcoin, while the ARMA bill contains no such provisions. Whether the market should view this as positive remains an open question.

The executive order signed by Trump in March 2025 pledged not to sell the Bitcoin already held by the federal government, but did not require the purchase of new Bitcoin. Market expectations had been higher; once the order’s details became clear, Bitcoin’s price immediately dropped 5.7%.

Legislative efforts that began in 2024 have significantly scaled back over the past two years: from a bill requiring the purchase of 1 million BTC, it has been reduced to one that only includes custody obligations and no purchase requirements whatsoever.

The most promising bill currently on the horizon, the American Retirement and Monetary Advancement Act (ARMA), is not a purchase bill, but rather a prohibition on the government selling any Bitcoin it already holds for at least 20 years.

ARMA has limited short-term impact on the Bitcoin market, but legally establishing Bitcoin as a national reserve asset could reignite discussions about mandatory purchases, which is bullish for the market.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly pledged to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve, which the market interpreted as the federal government becoming a direct buyer.

After the election, on March 6, 2025, Trump signed an executive order designating Bitcoin acquired through criminal investigations and civil forfeitures as a strategic reserve and directed that it be held permanently. The order did not instruct the acquisition of new Bitcoin, but only committed to not selling Bitcoin already owned by the government. Once the order’s content became clear, Bitcoin’s price dropped from around $92,000 to below $85,000.

At the time of signing, the federal government held approximately 190,000 BTC, representing about 0.9% of the total supply of 21 million. All of these bitcoins originated from criminal and civil proceedings; none were purchased.

The situation has not changed. Nothing has been incorporated into law except for the executive order.

Discussions that began in 2021 led to the first concrete bill in 2024, reintroduced in 2025, and restructured as ARMA in 2026. The central thread of this evolution has been increasing compromise with political reality: mandatory purchase requirements were gradually eliminated. Each revision made passage more feasible while simultaneously reducing market impact.

2024: The Original Bill

Since entering the Senate in 2021, Senator Lummis has publicly advocated for Bitcoin to be纳入 the Federal Reserve. At the time, there was no consensus within Congress, and the crypto winter of 2022–2023, coupled with the FTX collapse, made the environment even less favorable.

In 2024, the situation shifted as Bitcoin broke $100,000 and spot ETFs received regulatory approval. In July of the same year, Lummis introduced the first concrete legislation: requiring the purchase of 1 million Bitcoin over five years, to be held for at least 20 years, funded by the Federal Reserve’s surplus account.

1 million BTC represents 4.76% of the total supply, exceeding the approximately 840,000 BTC held by Strategy's report. The bill automatically expires at the end of the current congressional session.

2025: Reintroduction and Stalled Progress

In March 2025, alongside the executive order, Lummis reintroduced the BITCOIN Act as Senate Bill 954. The core structure remains unchanged: annual purchases of 200,000 BTC, totaling 1 million BTC over five years, with a 20-year holding period. The revised version eliminates certain disposal restriction exemptions, tightens holding obligations, and adds four additional co-sponsors.

The market response has been generally positive, but the bill faces three substantial obstacles:

• Fiscal cost: At the prevailing price, 1 million bitcoins were worth hundreds of trillions of won. Fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party view gold as a stable store of value and bitcoin as a speculative asset, opposing any mandatory purchase structure.
• Dollar hegemony: Democratic critics led by Representative Maxine Waters argue that recognizing bitcoin as a reserve asset would undermine the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency.
• Secretary of the Treasury position: In August 2025, Secretary Bessent publicly stated that the government will not pursue additional Bitcoin purchases. As the official responsible for enforcing the law, he has clearly opposed it.

The bill has remained in the Senate Banking Committee since then.

2026: ARMA as a legislative compromise

In May 2026, Representative Nick Begich introduced the American Retirement and Monetary Advancement Act (ARMA), with Democratic Representative Jared Golden joining as a co-sponsor. The name change itself is strategic: aimed at distancing from the previous legislation’s difficulties in advancing and expanding the coalition of supporters.

ARMA does two things: consolidates all Bitcoin currently held or seized by the federal government into a single reserve managed by the Treasury, and prohibits the sale of these Bitcoin for at least 20 years. The only exception to the disposal ban is for repaying the national debt.

The key distinction from the previous bill is what ARMA does not include. The BITCOIN Act mandated the purchase of 200,000 BTC annually, while ARMA eliminates this requirement entirely. Instead, it directs the Treasury and Commerce Departments to study and report within 180 days whether additional purchases can be achieved in a budget-neutral manner. The task is a study, not a purchase.

ARMA is essentially a custody and holding bill, not an acquisition bill. Its purpose is to pass, so its structure has been adjusted accordingly.

Two bills are currently advancing in parallel through Congress: the BITCOIN Act (S.954) in the Senate Banking Committee, and ARMA in the House. They have different objectives: the BITCOIN Act is an acquisition bill, while ARMA is a custody bill.

ARMA has a higher probability of passing. The BITCOIN Act has been stalled in committee for over a year, hindered by fiscal costs and support limited to Republicans. ARMA has Democratic support and imposes no purchase obligation, eliminating the most common objection.

Even so, the passage of ARMA itself does not constitute a short-term bullish catalyst for the Bitcoin market. If ARMA takes effect, the approximately 320,000 BTC currently held by the federal government will be legally prohibited from entering the market for at least 20 years. The potential pressure from government selling would disappear. However, the issue is that there is no purchasing obligation, and thus no new demand is created. The market desires direct government purchases of Bitcoin, which ARMA does not provide. Its practical effect is more akin to elevating the executive order from March 2025 to statutory status.

The key lies in what could happen after ARMA. Nick Begich, who has held Bitcoin since 2013, is one of the co-sponsors of the 2025 BITCOIN Act in the House. He publicly supports Bitcoin as a strategic asset. The structure of ARMA suggests a phased approach rather than an immediate one: first establishing a legal framework, then building acquisition mandates upon it.

If ARMA passes and bitcoin gains formal legal status as a national reserve asset, the debate over mandatory purchases is likely to be reignited on a more solid foundation. The path to this outcome is longer than the market initially priced in at the time of Trump’s campaign promises, but the direction has not changed.

In short, ARMA has limited short-term impact on prices. In the long term, it remains a constructive factor for the market; if ARMA passes, the probability of ultimately enacting the legislation will become more apparent.