On May 22, 2026, multiple media outlets pointed to a new document from Washington: Republican Congressman Nick Begich from Alaska formally introduced the American Reserve Modernization Act (ARMA) in the House of Representatives, attempting to write the "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve," which originally existed only in an executive order from the Trump era, into U.S. statutory law. Unlike past administrative experiments that could be overturned by the next president, ARMA aims to establish a formal U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and clearly states that this portion of Bitcoin will be locked or held for at least 20 years, not used as a tool for the Treasury's daily asset management or budget balancing, but to be nailed down in a corner of the national balance sheet as "not easily sellable." The bill requires the design of a purchasing pathway without increasing the federal budget deficit, deliberately packaged as a "budget-neutral" accumulation plan, while inserting protective mechanisms in the text to prevent future governments or Congress from actively liquidating this reserve, enhancing the irreversibility of this arrangement. According to several Chinese crypto media reports, ARMA had already gathered 16 Congress members as original co-sponsors at the time of its introduction, securing an unprecedented position for Bitcoin within the U.S. legislative system—it is no longer just a financial experiment in an executive order but is being pushed into a long-term legislative game around national strategic reserves.

From Trump's Executive Order to Congressional Bill Upgrade

During the Trump administration, the "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" was merely an arrangement written in an executive order, essentially a policy unilaterally decided by the executive branch: it took effect quickly but could also be swiftly reversed. Any subsequent administration could simply sign a new order to revoke or rewrite this framework, making Bitcoin's position within the national asset hierarchy particularly vulnerable. ARMA chooses to go through the legislative pathway of approval from the House of Representatives and the Senate, attempting to anchor this presidential order, which could be easily overturned, at the statutory level, transforming "U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" from a governmental decision into an institutional arrangement that future administrations must face.

More importantly, ARMA does not concoct a new mechanism from thin air but explicitly bases itself on the existing strategic Bitcoin reserves, incorporating the clause to lock it for twenty years, the prohibition on regular sales, and protection from liquidation into law, directly aligning the market narrative of "digital gold" with traditional strategic reserve assets as long-term holding tools. The upgrading of executive orders to congressional legislation symbolizes Bitcoin’s transition from a "policy experiment subject to reversal by the next president" to a "national-grade asset that requires a complete congressional system rewrite," fundamentally changing Bitcoin’s status and imaginative space within U.S. political narratives.

The Gamble of 20-Year Lock and Budget Neutrality

Writing "not to be used as a regular adjustment tool and frequently sold for at least 20 years" into ARMA essentially pushes Bitcoin from a liquid chip into a strategic reserve asset position similar to gold that spans economic cycles. The logic of strategic reserves is as a "bottom line" that withstands inflation and geopolitical shocks, rather than serving the short-term macroeconomic operations of any one administration; this 20-year lock-in period effectively prescribes a role for Bitcoin at the legislative level that will only be slowly validated over time, rather than being treated as a "cash machine" swayed by daily market sentiment.

Corresponding to this extraordinary long holding period is the "budget-neutral" acquisition requirement—explicitly stating that the federal budget deficit must not be increased and exploring obtaining Bitcoin through some form of asset substitution or non-deficit financing, although the specific tools have not yet been determined in public texts. The deliberate emphasis on fiscal discipline serves to plug the political critique of "betting on new assets with taxpayer money" and to transform Bitcoin reserves from a traditional mindset of "spending money to buy risk" into "rebalancing within asset portfolios." Moreover, adding clauses to prevent future governments or Congress from actively liquidating this strategic reserve, ARMA effectively attempts to extend the decision-making timeline from the alternating party changes of one or two administrations to a commitment of at least 20 years, betting that treating Bitcoin as "digital gold" locked into the national balance sheet will be historically validated as a rational allocation rather than a shortsighted political impulse.

16 Congress Members Align: Consensus and Divergence

According to multiple Chinese crypto media outlets such as BlockBeats, Odaily Planet Daily, and PANews, when ARMA was submitted to the House of Representatives, 16 Congress members had already stood alongside Nick Begich as "original co-sponsors." For a newly introduced topic, this number itself signals that "writing Bitcoin into national strategic reserves" is not an isolated personal adventure, but that someone in Congress is willing to publicly support this direction. The number of co-sponsors is usually interpreted in the House of Representatives as a quantitative measure of "visibility" and "initial support," but it is far from a ticket for passage; it is more like turning on a light in the legislative chamber, letting other Congress members know that someone has formally voiced support for this issue.

Some materials suggest that ARMA could be a bipartisan bill, but as of now, the specific party distribution of the 16 co-leads has not been confirmed by official channels, and public information lacks a complete signatory list and formal document number, leaving the outside world still piecing together who the supporters actually are. It is foreseeable that once substantial deliberation begins, the bill will encounter several political reefs: fiscal conservatives will focus on the "budget-neutral" commitment, questioning the necessity of exposing federal balance sheets to price fluctuations for the long term; Congress members who are tighter on the boundaries between currency and assets may worry that this will blur the existing monetary policy framework; and those more cautious about crypto risks may cite volatility, compliance, and technical security as reasons for opposition. The 16 signatures demonstrate that ARMA is not a proposal destined to be neglected, but it still faces several rounds of difficult political debates and interest disputes before becoming a stable consensus across camps.

The Impact of U.S. Accumulation Signals on the Global Reserve Landscape

If ARMA is ultimately passed, the U.S. holding Bitcoin in the form of a U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, and locking it for "at least 20 years without regular sales," would elevate Bitcoin, originally a narrative primarily existing in the market, to a level comparable to that of strategic reserve assets like gold and oil. The keywords for strategic reserves are cross-cycle, inflation-resistant, and capable of responding to geopolitical shocks. Once the U.S. legally assigns Bitcoin the same status, other sovereign entities will not see it merely as a highly volatile emerging asset but as a potential reserve option that could be written into the balance sheets of major countries. Some nations might view this as “an insurance policy not to be missed,” considering reserving a small percentage of exposure under controllable risks; others may see Bitcoin as an additional bargaining chip due to vigilance over the dollar system’s discourse power. However, as of now, there is no conclusive evidence indicating that other countries have adjusted their reserve policies due to ARMA, and any following or opposing paths remain in the phase of observation and assessment.

For the crypto industry, once "national accumulation" escalates from an executive order to a statutory law, it would effectively provide a sovereign credit endorsement for the long-standing narrative that "Bitcoin is digital gold," which would also force the market to reassess the boundaries of long-term chip structures and on-chain behavior: the part of the supply locked in strategic reserves is designed not to enter regular secondary market sales. For geopolitical financial maneuvers, the transformation of Bitcoin from a hedging tool into a potential strategic asset will place its price volatility, technical security, and even protocol governance within the purview of great power competition, where future struggles concerning regulation, technical standards, and compliance infrastructure may long extend into the on-chain ecological level, and these uncertain policies and maneuver trajectories will themselves become variables that the market and developers must incorporate when assessing the long-term expectations of Bitcoin-related applications.

The Nationalization Outlook for Bitcoin After ARMA Becomes Reality

From the materials available now, ARMA seems more like a pressure test pushing Bitcoin toward the narrative core of "national-grade reserve assets," rather than a predetermined fact with a settled conclusion. If passed, it will legally solidify the status of U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, writing the 20-year lock, budget-neutral acquisition, and non-liquidation clauses into statutory law, clearly possessing stronger binding force and continuity compared to solely relying on executive orders from the Trump era. However, our understanding of ARMA still mainly derives from the proposal news by Nick Begich and various media reports, as the full text of the bill and official supporting explanations have not yet been fully disclosed. Some key information concerning the composition of co-sponsors, target reserve size, and specific acquisition tool design even remains from a single source, making it a long way from being regarded as an unwavering institutional arrangement. What is truly worth tracking going forward is its progress in the full legislative process within the U.S. (whether it will be shelved or rewritten in committee), whether terms will tighten to become a more conservative "symbolic reserve" or be weakened to vague policy declarations, and whether other countries will begin to replicate the framework of "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" and establish corresponding long-term holding addresses on-chain—these three lines will ultimately determine whether Bitcoin can cross the threshold from being spontaneously recognized as "digital gold" in the market to being formally acknowledged and constrained as a strategic asset by state machinery.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=10000322
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
Exclusive AiCoin Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive AiCoin Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。