Tiger Research: U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserves, Should the Market Be Happy or Disappointed?

This article is written by Tiger Research. News about the U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve has been circulating for nearly two years. The original BITCOIN Act (introduced in 2024) centers on the government actively purchasing Bitcoin, whereas the ARMA bill contains no such provision. Whether the market should interpret this as a positive signal remains an open question.

Key Points

An executive order signed by Trump in March 2025 promised not to sell the Bitcoin already held by the federal government but did not require the purchase of new coins. The market had expected more, and after the order was clarified, Bitcoin's price immediately dropped 5.7%.

Legislative efforts starting in 2024 have significantly retreated over the past two years: from a bill demanding the purchase of 1 million BTC to a bill that only includes custodial obligations, with no purchase requirement at all.

Currently, the most optimistic bill, the American Retirement and Currency Act (ARMA), is not a purchase bill but prohibits the government from selling the Bitcoin it holds for at least 20 years.

ARMA has limited short-term impact on the Bitcoin market, but in the long term, establishing a legal status for Bitcoin as a national reserve asset could reopen discussions about mandatory purchases, which would be a positive for the market.

Background: What the U.S. Has Done and Not 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.

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, instructing it to be held permanently. The order did not mandate acquiring new Bitcoin, only promising not to sell the Bitcoin already owned by the government. After the order was clarified, Bitcoin's price fell from about $92,000 to below $85,000.

At the time of signing, the federal government held about 190k BTC, accounting for roughly 0.9% of the total supply of 21 million. All these Bitcoins came from criminal and civil proceedings; none were purchased.

The situation remains unchanged. Aside from the executive order, no legal measures have been enacted.

Legislative History

Discussions since 2021 led to the first concrete bill in 2024, reintroduced in 2025, and reconstructed into ARMA in 2026. The main evolution has been a continual compromise with political realities: the mandatory purchase volume has gone from present to absent. Each revision has made passage more feasible but has also reduced market impact.

2024: The Original Bill

Senator Lummis has been publicly advocating for Bitcoin to be included in the Federal Reserve since entering the Senate in 2021. At that time, there was no consensus within Congress, and the crypto winter of 2022-2023 along with the FTX collapse created an even less favorable environment.

In 2024, the situation changed as Bitcoin surpassed $100k, and spot ETFs received regulatory approval. In July of the same year, Lummis proposed the first specific legislation: requiring the purchase of 1 million BTC within five years, held for at least 20 years, funded by the Federal Reserve surplus account.

The 1 million BTC represented 4.76% of the total supply, exceeding the approximately 840k held according to the Strategy report. 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. Its core structure remained: purchase 200k BTC annually, totaling 1 million over five years, held for 20 years. The revised version removed certain disposal exemptions, tightened holding obligations, and added four co-sponsors.

The overall market response was positive, but the bill faced three substantial obstacles:

Fiscal Cost: Based on current prices, 1 million BTC is worth hundreds of trillions of Korean won. Fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party see gold as a stable store of value, while Bitcoin is viewed as a speculative asset, opposing any mandatory purchase structure.

Dollar Hegemony: Critics led by Democratic Representative Maxine Waters argued that treating Bitcoin as a reserve asset could weaken the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency.

Treasury Position: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated that the government would not pursue additional Bitcoin purchases. As the official responsible for enforcing laws, he has made his opposition clear.

Since then, the bill has remained in the Senate Banking Committee.

2026: ARMA as a Legislative Compromise

In May 2026, Representative Nick Begich introduced the American Retirement and Currency Act (ARMA), with Democratic Representative Jared Golden joining as a co-sponsor. The name change itself has strategic significance: it aims to move away from the legislative difficulties of previous efforts and broaden support.

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 these Bitcoins for at least 20 years. The only exception to the disposal ban is repayment of national debt.

The decisive difference from the previous bill is that ARMA contains essentially nothing. The BITCOIN Act mandated the purchase of 200k BTC annually, but ARMA completely removes this obligation. Instead, it instructs the Treasury and the Department of Commerce to study and report within 180 days whether additional purchases can be made in a budget-neutral manner. The study is not a purchase mandate.

In essence, ARMA is a custodial and holding bill, not a purchase bill. Its purpose is to gain legislative approval, hence the structural adjustments.

Short-term Outlook: Limited Market Impact

Currently, two bills are advancing in parallel: the BITCOIN Act (S.954) in the Senate Banking Committee, and ARMA in the House. Their goals differ: the BITCOIN Act is a purchase bill, while ARMA is a custodial bill.

ARMA has a higher probability of passage. The BITCOIN Act has been stalled in committee for over a year, hindered by fiscal costs and support only from Republicans. ARMA has Democratic support and does not impose a purchase obligation, removing the most common objections.

Even so, the passage of ARMA itself would not produce short-term bullish effects on the Bitcoin market. If ARMA becomes law, the approximately 320k BTC currently held by the federal government would be legally prohibited from entering the market for at least 20 years. The potential selling pressure from the government would disappear. But the issue is that without any purchase obligation, there is no new demand. The market’s primary interest is in the government directly buying Bitcoin, which ARMA does not provide. Its actual effect is closer to elevating the March 2025 executive order to a legal status.

The key question is what might happen after ARMA. Nick Begich has held Bitcoin since 2013 and is one of the co-sponsors of the March 2025 BITCOIN Act in the House. He publicly supports Bitcoin as a strategic asset. The structure of ARMA hints at a phased approach rather than an all-at-once solution: first establishing a legal framework, then building a purchase mandate on top of it.

If ARMA passes, Bitcoin would gain an official legal status as a national reserve asset, and the debate over mandatory purchases could be revived on a more solid foundation. The path to this outcome is longer than the market initially priced during Trump’s campaign promises, but the direction remains unchanged.

In short, the passage of ARMA would have limited short-term price impact. In the long run, it remains a constructive factor for the market, and if ARMA passes, the probability of eventual purchase legislation will become more visible.