A bipartisan House bill introduced on May 21, 2026 would transform President Trump's executive-order Bitcoin reserve from a White House policy into federal statute, removing it from the reach of future administrations or shifting congressional majorities.

The American Reserve Modernization Act — ARMA — was introduced by Rep. Nick Begich (R-AK) and co-led by Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), with 17 original co-sponsors in the House. The legislation directs the Treasury Department to create and maintain a Bitcoin reserve for a minimum of 20 years, consolidate digital assets already held across federal agencies through forfeitures and penalties, and publish proof-of-reserve reports to establish transparency.

The bill's core architectural choice is deliberate: it converts a presidential order into law. "A stockpile created under the ARMA Act would enjoy the 'weight of law,'" Golden said in a statement, distinguishing it from the current arrangement, in which "administrations have auctioned [crypto] off or held it in reserve, according to the whims of the executive branch." Begich framed it similarly, saying the bill is designed to safeguard the reserve from "the whims of Congress or future administrations."

The executive-order baseline

Trump signed the executive order establishing the strategic Bitcoin reserve in May 2025. More than a year later, it remains unbuilt. At a conference in Las Vegas last month, Patrick Witt, executive director of the President's Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, acknowledged the administration has spent months "figuring out" the legal interpretations associated with the initiative. No active allocations have been announced.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent put a harder ceiling on the ambition when he ruled out Bitcoin purchases by any federal agency — contradicting earlier signals from a former White House official who said the administration wanted to acquire as much Bitcoin as possible through "budget-neutral" means.

ARMA addresses a different question. Rather than directing new purchases, the bill focuses on consolidating and protecting assets the government already controls — seized and forfeited holdings accumulated across agencies over years of enforcement actions. The reserve's size under this approach would depend on what the government holds, not on discretionary acquisitions.

Legislative landscape

ARMA is not the only vehicle in play, but it is the first with bipartisan sponsorship to arrive in the House. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) re-introduced the BITCOIN Act last year, which takes a more aggressive posture: it directs Treasury to purchase one million Bitcoin over five years through mechanisms that avoid additional taxpayer cost. The two bills pursue different ends — Lummis's Act is an acquisition mandate, ARMA is a codification and preservation framework.

The political valence of ARMA is worth noting. Golden is a Democrat from Maine, a swing-district lawmaker who has broken from his party on economic issues before. His co-leadership signals the bill is being positioned as a fiscal-framework measure rather than a crypto-ideology one. Whether that framing holds as the bill moves through committee will determine whether the 17 original co-sponsors grow into a majority coalition.

Opposition has already been filed from the other direction. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, has criticized the strategic reserve concept since Trump's order was signed, arguing that Bitcoin lacks the characteristics of a genuine reserve asset. "Typically, when the government holds strategic reserves, it is for an essential input that powers the U.S. economy and day-to-day life for American families," she said. "Crypto, however, does not fall into these categories, because it has no inherent value."

What codification would change

The difference between an executive order and statute is not cosmetic. An executive order can be rescinded on the first day of any future administration. Statute requires an act of Congress to repeal — a higher bar by design, subject to procedural friction, committee hearings, and majority votes in both chambers.

If ARMA passes, a future Treasury secretary who wanted to liquidate the reserve or simply ignore it would need congressional approval. That is the structural change the bill's sponsors are seeking. It is also why ARMA matters even if the reserve currently holds little. Codification establishes the legal frame before the asset base is built — or before political conditions for building it change.

ARMA has cleared its first step: introduction with bipartisan support and 17 original co-sponsors. It now enters the House committee process, where most bills stall. The administration's own implementation record — a reserve that exists on paper but not yet in practice — is the most direct argument for statutory backing. Whether Congress will provide it is the open question the bill sets up.

Primary sources: Decrypt, May 21, 2026; Rep. Begich statement via X; Decrypt on Bessent.