Written by: Tiger Research(@tiger_research_)
Compiled by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News
The topic of a U.S. strategic bitcoin reserve has circulated for nearly two years. The core of the original BITCOIN Act (introduced in 2024) was proactive government purchases, whereas the ARMA bill contains no such provisions. Whether the market should view this as positive remains an open question.
Key Takeaways
An executive order signed by Trump in March 2025 pledged not to sell federally held bitcoin but did not mandate new purchases. Market expectations were higher, and when the order's content became clear, the bitcoin price immediately fell by 5.7%.
Legislative efforts since 2024 have significantly softened over the past two years: from a bill requiring the purchase of 1 million BTC to a bill that merely contains custody obligations with no purchase requirements whatsoever.
The most likely to pass currently, the American Reserve Monetary Assets (ARMA) Act, is not a purchase bill. Instead, it prohibits the government from selling any of its currently held bitcoin for at least 20 years.
ARMA's short-term impact on the bitcoin market is limited. In the long run, however, legally establishing bitcoin's status 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 Hasn't Done
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to establish a bitcoin strategic reserve, which the market interpreted as the federal government becoming a direct buyer.
Post-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 retention. The order did not direct the acquisition of new bitcoin; it only promised not to sell what the government already owned. Once the order's content was clear, the bitcoin price dropped from around $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. All this bitcoin came from criminal and civil proceedings, not a single coin was purchased.
The situation remains unchanged. Beyond the executive order, nothing has been enacted into law.
Legislative History
Discussions beginning in 2021 produced the first concrete bill in 2024, which was reintroduced in 2025 and restructured into ARMA in 2026. The main theme of this evolution has been constant compromise with political reality: the mandated purchase amount has diminished from something to nothing. Each revision made passage more feasible but simultaneously reduced market impact.
2024: The Original Bill
Senator Lummis has publicly advocated for including bitcoin in the federal reserves since entering the Senate in 2021. There was no consensus in Congress at the time, and the crypto winter of 2022-2023, compounded by the FTX collapse, made the environment even less favorable.
The situation changed in 2024 as bitcoin broke $100,000 and spot ETFs received regulatory approval. In July of that year, Lummis introduced the first specific legislation: requiring the purchase of 1 million bitcoins within five years, to be held for at least 20 years, funded by a Federal Reserve surplus account.
One million BTC represents 4.76% of the total supply, surpassing MicroStrategy's reported holdings of about 840,000. 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 S.954. The core structure remained unchanged: annual purchases of 200,000 BTC, totaling 1 million over five years, held for 20 years. The revised version removed certain exemptions from disposal bans, tightened holding obligations, and added four cosponsors.
Market reaction was generally positive, but the bill faced substantial resistance on three fronts:
- Fiscal Cost: At the time, 1 million bitcoins were valued at trillions of won. 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 Primacy: Democratic critics led by Representative Maxine Waters argued that treating bitcoin as a reserve asset would weaken the U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency.
- Treasury Secretary's Position: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated the government would not pursue additional bitcoin purchases. As the official responsible for enforcing the law, he had already expressed opposition.
The bill has remained in the Senate Banking Committee ever since.
2026: ARMA as Legislative Compromise
In May 2026, Representative Nick Begich introduced the American Reserve Monetary Assets (ARMA) Act, with Democratic Representative Jared Golden joining as a cosponsor. The name change itself was strategic: aimed at distancing the bill from the associations that made previous legislation difficult to advance and broadening its coalition of supporters.
ARMA does two things: it consolidates all bitcoin currently held or forfeited by the federal government into a single reserve managed by the Treasury Department, and it prohibits the sale of this bitcoin for at least 20 years. The only exception to the disposal ban is its use for repaying 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, while ARMA completely eliminates this obligation. 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 study is a task, not a purchase mandate.
ARMA is essentially a custody and hold bill, not an acquisition bill. Its structure is adjusted to achieve passage.
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 objectives differ: the BITCOIN Act is an acquisition bill, ARMA is a custody bill.
ARMA has a higher probability of passing. The BITCOIN Act has been stalled in committee for over a year, burdened by fiscal cost and exclusively Republican support. ARMA has Democratic support and imposes no purchase obligations, removing the most common objections.
Even so, ARMA's passage itself would not constitute a short-term positive for the bitcoin market. If ARMA were to take effect, 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: with no purchase mandate, there is no new demand. The market wants direct government purchases of bitcoin, which ARMA does not provide. Its actual effect is closer to codifying the March 2025 executive order into statute.
The key lies in what might follow ARMA. Nick Begich, a bitcoin holder since 2013, was a House cosponsor of the BITCOIN Act in March 2025. He publicly supports bitcoin as a strategic asset. ARMA's structure suggests a phased approach rather than a one-step solution: first establish the legal framework, then build acquisition mandates upon it.
If ARMA passes, formally establishing bitcoin's legal status as a national reserve asset, the debate on mandatory purchases will likely reopen on a firmer foundation. The path to this outcome is longer than the market initially priced following Trump's campaign promises, but the direction has not changed.
In short, the impact of ARMA's passage on price is limited in the short term. In the long term, it remains a constructive factor for the market. If ARMA passes, the probability of eventual purchase legislation becomes more visible.
