This article is written by Tiger Research. News about a U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve has circulated for nearly two years. The core of the initial BITCOIN Act (introduced in 2024) was active government purchases of Bitcoin, whereas the ARMA Act contains no such provisions. Whether the market should view this as positive remains an open question.
Key Points
The executive order signed by Trump in March 2025 committed to not selling the Bitcoin already held by the federal government but did not require the purchase of new coins. The market had anticipated more; when the order's content became clear, the Bitcoin price immediately dropped by 5.7%.
Legislative efforts beginning in 2024 have significantly retreated over the past two years: from a bill requiring the purchase of 1 million BTC to a bill containing only custodial obligations and no purchase requirements whatsoever.
The most likely to pass currently, the American Retirement and Monetary Advancement Act (ARMA), is not a purchase bill. It prohibits the government from selling its existing Bitcoin holdings for at least 20 years.
ARMA has limited short-term impact on the Bitcoin market. In the long term, establishing the legal status of Bitcoin as a national reserve asset could reopen the discussion on mandatory purchases, which would be positive for the market.
Background: What the U.S. Has and Has Not Done
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised 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 obtained through criminal investigations and civil forfeiture as a strategic reserve and directing its permanent holding. The order did not instruct the acquisition of new Bitcoin; it only committed to not selling the Bitcoin the government already owns. When the order's content became clear, the Bitcoin price fell from about $92,000 to below $85,000.
At the time of signing, the federal government held approximately 190,000 BTC, about 0.9% of the total 21 million supply. This Bitcoin came entirely from criminal and civil proceedings; not a single coin was purchased.
The situation remains unchanged. Nothing beyond the executive order has been enacted into law.
Legislative History
Discussions starting in 2021 produced the first concrete bill in 2024, reintroduced in 2025, and reframed as ARMA in 2026. The main theme of this evolution has been constant compromise with political reality: mandatory purchase quantities went from being present to being absent. Each revision made passage more feasible but simultaneously reduced market impact.
2024: The Original Bill
Since entering the Senate in 2021, Senator Lummis has publicly called for incorporating Bitcoin into the federal reserve. There was no consensus within Congress at the time, and the crypto winter of 2022-2023 coupled with the FTX collapse made the environment even more unfavorable.
The situation shifted in 2024 with Bitcoin surpassing $100,000 and spot ETFs receiving regulatory approval. In July of that 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 reportedly held by Strategy. The bill automatically expired at the end of that Congress.
2025: Reintroduction and Stalled Progress
In March 2025, the same month as the executive order, Lummis reintroduced the BITCOIN Act as Senate Bill 954. The core structure remained unchanged: annual purchases of 200,000 BTC, accumulating to 1 million over five years, held for 20 years. The revised version canceled certain exemptions from the disposal ban, tightened holding obligations, and added four cosponsors.
The market reaction was generally positive, but the bill faced substantive resistance on three fronts:
- Fiscal Cost: Valued at trillions of won at the time, 1 million Bitcoin. Fiscal conservatives within the Republican party viewed 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, argued that treating Bitcoin as a reserve asset would weaken the dollar's status as the global reserve currency.
- Treasury Secretary's Stance: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated the government would not pursue additional Bitcoin purchases. As the official responsible for executing the law, he had clearly voiced opposition.
The bill has remained in the Senate Banking Committee since.
2026: ARMA as 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 cosponsor. The name change itself is strategic: aimed at distancing the bill from the associations of previous, difficult-to-advance legislation and broadening its coalition of supporters.
ARMA does two things: consolidates all Bitcoin currently held or forfeited by the federal government into a single reserve managed by the Treasury, and prohibits the sale of this Bitcoin for at least 20 years. The sole exception to the disposal ban is using it to pay down the national debt.
The decisive difference from its predecessor is what ARMA does not contain. The BITCOIN Act mandated annual purchases of 200,000 BTC, whereas ARMA completely removes this obligation. Instead, it directs the Treasury and Commerce Departments to study and report within 180 days on whether additional purchases can be achieved in a budget-neutral manner. A study mandate, not a purchase mandate.
ARMA is essentially a custody and holding bill, not an acquisition bill. Its goal is passage, and it is structured accordingly.
Short-Term Outlook: Limited Market Impact
Currently, two bills are moving through Congress in parallel. The BITCOIN Act (S.954) is in the Senate Banking Committee; ARMA is in the House. Their goals differ: BITCOIN Act is an acquisition bill, ARMA is a custody bill.
ARMA has a higher probability of passage. The BITCOIN Act has been stalled in committee for over a year, weighed down by fiscal cost and purely Republican support. ARMA has Democratic support and imposes no purchase obligations, removing the most common objections.
Even so, the passage of ARMA itself would not constitute a short-term positive for the Bitcoin market. If ARMA were enacted, the approximately 320,000 BTC currently held by the federal government would be legally barred from entering the market for at least 20 years. The pressure of potential government selling would disappear. But the issue is that without any purchase obligation, there is no new demand. The market wants direct government purchases of Bitcoin, and ARMA does not provide that. Its practical effect is closer to elevating the March 2025 executive order to statutory status.
The key lies in what might happen after ARMA. Nick Begich, a Bitcoin holder since 2013, was a House cosponsor of the March 2025 BITCOIN Act. He publicly supports Bitcoin as a strategic asset. The structure of ARMA suggests a phased approach rather than an immediate solution: first, establish the legal framework, then build the acquisition mandate upon it.
If ARMA passes and Bitcoin gains formal legal status as a national reserve asset, then the debate on mandatory purchases is likely to reopen on a firmer foundation. The path to this outcome is longer than the market initially priced in during Trump's campaign promises, but the direction has not changed.
In short, the passage of ARMA would have limited short-term impact on price. In the long term, it remains a constructive factor for the market; if ARMA passes, the probability of eventual purchase legislation becomes more visible.
