Tiger Research: US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve – Should the Market Be Happy or Disappointed?

This article is written by Tiger Research. News about a U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve has been circulating for nearly two years. The original BITCOIN Act (introduced in 2024) had the government actively purchasing Bitcoin at its core, while the ARMA Act contains no such provisions at all. Whether the market should view this as a positive remains an open question.

Key Takeaways

Trump's executive order signed in March 2025 committed to not selling Bitcoin already held by the federal government but did not require buying new coins. Market expectations were higher, and when the details became clear, Bitcoin's price immediately dropped by 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 devolved into a bill that only includes custody obligations and no purchase requirements whatsoever.

The most promising legislation currently is the "American Retirement and Monetary Advancement Act (ARMA)." It is not a purchase bill but rather prohibits the government from selling its held Bitcoin for at least 20 years.

ARMA's short-term impact on the Bitcoin market is limited, but in the long run, establishing Bitcoin's legal status as a national reserve asset could reopen discussions about mandatory purchases, which is bullish for the market.

Background: What the U.S. Did and Didn't Do

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 forfeitures as a strategic reserve and instructed for its permanent holding. The order did not mandate the acquisition of new Bitcoin; it only promised not to sell Bitcoin the government already owned. When the order's content became clear, Bitcoin's price fell 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 21 million supply. All of this Bitcoin came from criminal and civil proceedings, not a single coin was purchased.

The current situation remains unchanged. Besides the executive order, nothing has been codified into law.

Legislative History

Discussions starting in 2021 led to the first concrete bill in 2024, which was reintroduced in 2025 and restructured as ARMA in 2026. The main thread of this evolution is continuous compromise with political reality: mandatory purchases went from existing to non-existent. Each revision made passage more feasible but simultaneously reduced market impact.

2024: The Original Bill

Senator Lummis, since entering the Senate in 2021, has publicly advocated for including Bitcoin in the federal reserves. At that 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.

The situation shifted in 2024, with Bitcoin breaking $100,000 and spot ETFs gaining regulatory approval. In July of that year, Lummis introduced the first concrete legislation: requiring the purchase of 1 million Bitcoin over five years, held for at least 20 years, funded by Federal Reserve surplus accounts.

1 million BTC represents 4.76% of the total supply, exceeding the approximately 840,000 BTC reported held by Strategy. The bill expired automatically at the end of that congressional session.

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: purchasing 200,000 BTC annually for five years, totaling 1 million, held for 20 years. The revised version removed certain exemptions from disposal prohibitions, tightened holding obligations, and added four co-sponsors.

Market reaction was generally positive, but the bill faced substantial resistance on three fronts:

• Fiscal Cost: At the price then, 1 million Bitcoin was worth trillions of Korean Won. Fiscal conservatives within the Republican party argued that gold is a stable store of value, viewing Bitcoin as a speculative asset, and opposed any mandatory purchase structure.
• Dollar Hegemony: 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 Stance: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated that the government would not pursue additional Bitcoin purchases. As the official responsible for enforcing the law, he had clearly expressed opposition.

The bill has since remained in the Senate Banking Committee.

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: intended to shed the difficult-to-advance associations of previous legislation and broaden the coalition of supporters.

ARMA does two things: it consolidates all Bitcoin currently held or seized 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 prohibition is for repaying the national debt.

The decisive difference from its predecessor is what ARMA does not include. The BITCOIN Act mandated the purchase of 200,000 BTC annually; 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 is not a purchase mandate.

ARMA is essentially a custody and hold bill, not an acquisition bill. Its purpose is to get passed, and its structure is adjusted accordingly.

Near-Term Outlook: Limited Market Impact

Currently, two bills are progressing concurrently in Congress. The BITCOIN Act (S.954) is in the Senate Banking Committee; ARMA is in the House. Their goals differ: the 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 costs and support solely from Republicans. ARMA has Democratic support and imposes no purchase obligations, removing the most common objection.

Even so, ARMA's passage itself would not constitute a short-term positive for the Bitcoin market. If ARMA is enacted, the approximately 320,000 BTC currently held by the federal government would be legally prohibited from entering the market for at least 20 years. The overhang of potential government sales would disappear. However, without any purchase obligation, there is no new demand. The market wants the government to buy Bitcoin directly, which ARMA does not provide. Its actual effect is closer to elevating the March 2025 executive order to statutory status.

The key lies in what might happen after ARMA. Nick Begich has held Bitcoin since 2013 and was a House co-sponsor of the March 2025 BITCOIN Act. He publicly supports Bitcoin as a strategic asset. ARMA's structure suggests a phased approach, rather than a single step: 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, the debate over mandatory purchases is likely to resume on a firmer foundation. The path to this outcome is longer than the market initially priced in when Trump made his campaign promises, but the direction has not changed.

In short, the passage of ARMA will have a limited short-term impact on price. Long-term, it remains a constructive factor for the market; if ARMA passes, the probability of eventual purchase legislation becomes more visible.