September 16, in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee on Financial Services advanced the “2026 American Reserve Modernization Act” with a vote of 28 to 21—H.R. 8957. In simple terms, Trump’s strategic Bitcoin reserve has been upgraded from an executive order to a federal law.
First, what exactly is this bill meant to do?
In one sentence: Lock up the U.S. government’s 324,000 bitcoins for at least 20 years so they can’t be sold. The value is about $24.77 billion.
They can’t be sold, exchanged, auctioned, or pledged as collateral. The Treasury Department must establish secure storage facilities, regularly receive independent third-party audits, and issue reserve-proofs reports each year.
It sounds pretty tough, right? But then you look one layer deeper.
The original version was called the BITCOIN Act, aiming to buy 1 million bitcoins within five years using a budget-neutral strategy. Now, in the ARMA version, they’ve removed the purchase target. What did they change? They take the bitcoins the government already has—seized from criminals—and put them into the reserve.
Think about the difference.
In the original version, “we actively go buy.” In the new version, “we lock up what we already have.”
One is offense, the other is defense.
Why did it become defense? Because of political reality.
This bill has 23 co-sponsors: 22 Republicans, and the only Democratic co-sponsor, Jared Golden, isn’t even a member of the Financial Services Committee. Within the committee, there are 23 Democratic lawmakers—none of them signed on.
This isn’t cross-party consensus; it’s a partisan line. Republicans have a 30–23 majority on the committee, so they can pass it without any Democratic votes. But what happens when it gets to the full House? And the Senate?
There isn’t even a corresponding bill in the Senate. The House members left Washington after September 17 and don’t return until after the November midterm elections. The only realistic pathway is to attach it to the year-end National Defense Authorization Act.
So why push it anyway?
A few years ago, what was the U.S. government doing? Suing exchanges, pursuing penalties against project teams, treating cryptocurrency as a money-laundering tool to crack down on. Now? The gap between then and now—prices rising from 3,000 to 78,000—is huge.
But don’t confuse “a show of posture” with a “buying signal.” Those are two different things.
If this bill really could pass, that would be a long-term, structural positive. The problem is: it probably won’t pass. And the market is currently pricing in the assumption that “it might pass.”
—— clean stream channel #美众院推进比特币储备法案
First, what exactly is this bill meant to do?
In one sentence: Lock up the U.S. government’s 324,000 bitcoins for at least 20 years so they can’t be sold. The value is about $24.77 billion.
They can’t be sold, exchanged, auctioned, or pledged as collateral. The Treasury Department must establish secure storage facilities, regularly receive independent third-party audits, and issue reserve-proofs reports each year.
It sounds pretty tough, right? But then you look one layer deeper.
The original version was called the BITCOIN Act, aiming to buy 1 million bitcoins within five years using a budget-neutral strategy. Now, in the ARMA version, they’ve removed the purchase target. What did they change? They take the bitcoins the government already has—seized from criminals—and put them into the reserve.
Think about the difference.
In the original version, “we actively go buy.” In the new version, “we lock up what we already have.”
One is offense, the other is defense.
Why did it become defense? Because of political reality.
This bill has 23 co-sponsors: 22 Republicans, and the only Democratic co-sponsor, Jared Golden, isn’t even a member of the Financial Services Committee. Within the committee, there are 23 Democratic lawmakers—none of them signed on.
This isn’t cross-party consensus; it’s a partisan line. Republicans have a 30–23 majority on the committee, so they can pass it without any Democratic votes. But what happens when it gets to the full House? And the Senate?
There isn’t even a corresponding bill in the Senate. The House members left Washington after September 17 and don’t return until after the November midterm elections. The only realistic pathway is to attach it to the year-end National Defense Authorization Act.
So why push it anyway?
A few years ago, what was the U.S. government doing? Suing exchanges, pursuing penalties against project teams, treating cryptocurrency as a money-laundering tool to crack down on. Now? The gap between then and now—prices rising from 3,000 to 78,000—is huge.
But don’t confuse “a show of posture” with a “buying signal.” Those are two different things.
If this bill really could pass, that would be a long-term, structural positive. The problem is: it probably won’t pass. And the market is currently pricing in the assumption that “it might pass.”
—— clean stream channel #美众院推进比特币储备法案