The Bitcoin reserves promised by Trump have shrunk to "only in, not out"? ARMA has a high probability, but its short-term impact on BTC is limited.

Written by: Tiger Research (@tiger_research_)

Translated by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

News about the U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserves has been circulating for nearly two years. The original BITCOIN Act (to be launched in 2024) centered around the government proactively purchasing Bitcoin, while the ARMA bill has no such provisions. Whether the market should view this as a positive is still an open question.

Key Points

On March 2025, Trump signed an executive order, promising not to sell the Bitcoin already held by the federal government, but did not require the purchase of new coins. The market had previously anticipated a higher outcome, and when the order's content became clear, the Bitcoin price immediately fell by 5.7%.

The legislative efforts that began in 2024 have significantly retreated over the past two years: from a bill that required the purchase of 1 million BTC, it has devolved into a bill that only includes custody obligations without any purchase requirements.

The most optimistic prospect currently is the "American Retirement and Money Advancement Act" (ARMA), which is not a purchasing bill but forbids the government from selling the Bitcoin it currently holds for at least 20 years.

ARMA's short-term impact on the Bitcoin market is limited, but in the long run, establishing Bitcoin as a national reserve asset under legal status may reopen discussions about mandatory purchases, which would be favorable 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 and instructing to hold it permanently. This order did not direct the acquisition of new Bitcoin, only promising not to sell the Bitcoin the government already owns. When the content of the order became clear, the price of Bitcoin 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 supply of 21 million. All of these Bitcoins came from criminal and civil proceedings, none were purchased.

The situation has not changed. Aside from the executive order, nothing has been incorporated into law.

Legislative History

Discussions that began in 2021 produced the first concrete bill in 2024, were reintroduced in 2025, and restructured into ARMA in 2026. The main line of this evolution is continuous compromise with political realities: mandatory purchase amounts have gone from some to none. Each revision has made passage more feasible but simultaneously reduced market impact.

2024: Original Bill

Since Senator Lummis entered the Senate in 2021, she has been openly calling for Bitcoin to be included in the federal reserve. At that time, there was no consensus within Congress, and the crypto winter of 2022-2023, coupled with the collapse of FTX, made the environment even more unfavorable.

The situation changed in 2024, as Bitcoin broke through $100,000 and a spot ETF received regulatory approval. In July of the same year, Lummis proposed the first specific legislation: requiring the purchase of 1 million Bitcoins within five years, to be held for at least 20 years, funded by the Federal Reserve's surplus account.

The 1 million BTC accounted for 4.76% of the total supply, surpassing the approximately 840,000 held by the Strategy report. This bill automatically expired at the end of the congressional session.

2025: Reintroduction and Stagnation

In March 2025, coinciding with the executive order, Lummis reintroduced the BITCOIN Act as Senate Bill 954. The core structure remained unchanged: purchase 200,000 BTC annually, totaling 1 million over five years, to be held for 20 years. The revised version removed certain disposal prohibitions exemptions, tightened holding obligations, and added four co-sponsors.

Market reactions were generally positive, but the bill faced substantial resistance on three fronts:

• Fiscal cost: Based on prices at that time, 1 million Bitcoins were valued in the hundreds of trillions of Korean won. Fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party view gold as a stable store of value, while Bitcoin is seen as a speculative asset, opposing any mandatory purchase structure.
• Dollar hegemony: Democratic critics led by Representative Maxine Waters argue that viewing Bitcoin as a reserve asset would undermine the dollar's status as the global reserve currency.
• Position of the Treasury Secretary: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated that the government would not pursue additional Bitcoin purchases. As an official responsible for executing the law, he made his opposition clear.

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

2026: ARMA as Legislative Compromise

In May 2026, Representative Nick Begich proposed the "American Retirement and Money Advancement Act" (ARMA), with Democratic Representative Jared Golden joining as a co-sponsor. The name change itself is strategically significant: it aims to break free from previous legislative associations that hindered progress and expand the coalition of supporters.

ARMA does two things: it consolidates all the Bitcoin currently held or forfeited by the federal government into a single reserve managed by the Treasury Department and prohibits selling these Bitcoins for at least 20 years. The only exception to the disposal prohibition is for redeeming national debt.

The decisive difference from the predecessor bill is what ARMA does not include. The BITCOIN Act mandated the purchase of 200,000 BTC annually, while ARMA completely eliminates this obligation. Instead, it instructs the Treasury and Commerce Departments to study and report within 180 days whether additional purchases can be achieved in a budget-neutral manner. The research task is not a purchasing task.

ARMA is essentially a custody and holding bill rather than an acquisition bill. Its aim is to gain passage, so the structure has been adjusted accordingly.

Short-Term Outlook: Limited Market Impact

Currently, there are two bills progressing concurrently in Congress. The BITCOIN Act (S.954) is in the Senate Banking Committee; ARMA is in the House of Representatives. The goals of the two are different: the BITCOIN Act is an acquisition bill, while ARMA is a custody bill.

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

Even so, the passage of ARMA itself will not constitute a short-term boost for the Bitcoin market. If ARMA is enacted, the approximately 320,000 BTC currently held by the federal government will be legally prohibited from entering the market for at least 20 years. The potential pressure from government sell-offs will disappear. However, the issue is that without any purchase obligations, there will be no new demand. What the market wants is for the government to directly purchase Bitcoin, and ARMA does not provide that. Its actual effect is closer to elevating the executive order from March 2025 to statutory status.

The key lies in what might happen after ARMA. Nick Begich, who has held Bitcoin since 2013, was one of the co-sponsors of the BITCOIN Act in March 2025. He publicly supports Bitcoin as a strategic asset. The structure of ARMA suggests a phased approach rather than a one-step solution: first establish the legal framework, and then build acquisition tasks on that foundation.

If ARMA passes, Bitcoin will gain formal legal status as a national reserve asset, and the debate about mandatory purchases is likely to be reengaged on a more solid basis. 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 has limited short-term effects on prices. In the long run, it remains a constructive factor for the market, and if ARMA passes, the probability of eventual purchasing legislation will become more visible.