The American Reserve Modernization Act (ARMA), introduced this week in Congress, would establish a U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve — authorizing the government to acquire 1 million BTC over five years. If passed, the legislation marks the first time the United States has formally proposed holding a strategic stockpile of a digital asset. The bill’s authors frame it as a hedge against dollar debasement and a way to maintain financial sovereignty.
What the bill says
ARMA directs the Treasury to purchase bitcoin in regular tranches, spreading accumulation across half a decade. The target — 1 million BTC — equals roughly 5% of the total supply that will ever exist. The legislation does not specify funding sources or custody arrangements, leaving those details for later rulemaking. Critics have already questioned whether the government should hold a volatile asset that has swung more than 50% in a single year.
Why now
The bill arrives amid growing global interest in strategic bitcoin reserves. El Salvador and a handful of other countries already hold bitcoin on their balance sheets. Several U.S. states have floated similar proposals. The timing also tracks with a broader push in Washington to regulate — and, in some cases, embrace — digital assets after years of enforcement-heavy policy. ARMA’s sponsors argue that waiting risks ceding first-mover advantage to rivals like China, which has been quietly building its own crypto mining infrastructure.
Political odds
The bill faces a steep climb. Even in a more crypto-friendly Congress, a direct federal bitcoin buy program is far from guaranteed. Some lawmakers question the strategic value of an asset with no industrial use case. Others worry about market manipulation: a 1 million BTC order book could take years to fill without distorting prices. The Treasury Department has not taken a public position. For now, ARMA is a marker — a signal that the conversation about a U.S. bitcoin reserve has shifted from think tanks to the floor of Congress.
What happens next
The bill has been referred to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee. No hearing date has been set. Sponsors are expected to push for a vote before the midterm elections in November. If it stalls, the concept could resurface in the next Congress or at the state level. For the moment, it’s a legislative proposal — nothing more. But the fact that it exists at all says something about how far the debate has moved.
