A House panel is set to vote on whether to make the US government's Bitcoin holdings a permanent federal asset, testing the limits of bipartisan support for crypto regulation as lawmakers weigh fiscal and political risks.
The US government's Bitcoin reserve is about to face a crucial House committee vote that will determine whether lawmakers want to make Bitcoin a permanent federal asset or leave it as a policy that could disappear with a change in administration.
Statutory reserve or political football
The American Reserve Modernization Act (ARMA), H.R. 8957, is scheduled for markup in the House Financial Services Committee on September 16, 2026, at 10:00 ET. If approved, the bill would put the federal Bitcoin reserve into law for the first time, shifting control from the executive branch to Congress and preventing future presidents from dissolving the reserve on their own. The bill has 23 cosponsors-22 Republicans and one Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who is not on the committee. No Democratic committee members have signed on, setting up a clear test of bipartisan support for federal Bitcoin ownership.
The US government is estimated to control between 324,000 and 328,000 BTC, making it one of the largest institutional holders globally.
Unlike earlier crypto bills that focused on regulating private markets, ARMA would require Congress to take direct responsibility for holding Bitcoin as a strategic asset. The bill calls for consolidating all government-held Bitcoin at the Treasury, creating a formal Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, and setting up a separate Digital Asset Stockpile for other digital assets. Key provisions include a minimum 20-year holding period for Bitcoin, annual public proof-of-reserve reports verified by independent auditors, and a required study on acquiring more Bitcoin without new borrowing, taxes, or deficit spending. These fiscal guardrails are meant to address concerns about volatility and government exposure, but have not drawn broader Democratic support.
Bitcoin's price swings are central to the debate. The government's estimated Bitcoin holdings-valued at about $26 billion at current prices-have ranged from $19.7 billion at August lows to $41.4 billion at last October's peak. These fluctuations raise questions about the wisdom of holding Bitcoin on the federal balance sheet, especially as the Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will rise from $1.9 trillion this year to $3.1 trillion by 2036, with federal debt climbing from 101% to 120% of GDP. Supporters argue that Bitcoin could gain value as debt grows, while critics warn that its volatility could increase fiscal risk.
Internationally, skepticism remains. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has said reserve assets must be liquid and secure, and World Bank research finds that crypto assets still fall short on safety, liquidity, and maturity for central bank reserves. The ARMA bill tries to address these concerns with strict custody, reporting, and acquisition rules. Still, the lack of Democratic support shows that volatility and governance remain sticking points for US lawmakers.
The ARMA bill mandates annual proof-of-reserve reports with independent third-party verification, aiming to set a new transparency standard for government-held digital assets. This approach mirrors best practices in the crypto industry, where proof-of-reserves has become a critical tool for building trust among institutional and retail stakeholders.
Bipartisan crypto divide
Recent legislative history shows that bipartisan support for crypto regulation is possible. In 2025, 78 House Democrats voted for the CLARITY Act, which set rules for private crypto markets, after it passed the same committee with a 32-19 bipartisan vote. But ARMA asks lawmakers to go further: not just how to regulate Bitcoin, but whether the US government should hold it as a strategic asset. With a 30-23 Republican majority on the committee, ARMA can advance without Democratic votes, but a party-line result would send a different political message.
Democratic amendments could still shape the bill. Some members may oppose ARMA as written but propose changes to custody, reporting, or Treasury authority that keep the reserve in principle. The clearest sign of bipartisan legitimacy would be Democratic votes or amendments that accept the reserve while refining its management. A party-line rejection would show that, for now, the bipartisan coalition behind crypto market rules does not extend to federal Bitcoin ownership.
What the vote means for crypto policy
The committee vote will show whether Congress is ready to treat Bitcoin as a strategic asset or keep it as a policy that can be reversed by the executive branch. Even a few Democratic votes for ARMA would mark a shift in Washington's approach to digital assets-not just as markets to regulate, but as assets to hold. If not, the reserve remains a partisan experiment, open to reversal and political cycles.
Bitcoin's recent rebound from a two-year low near $60,000 to around $79,000 has not erased underlying anxiety. As reported earlier, traders are still spending heavily on downside protection, reflecting persistent uncertainty even as institutional and government-linked holdings remain substantial.
According to committee documents, the ARMA bill would require the Treasury to publish an annual proof-of-reserve report, including independent third-party verification of Bitcoin holdings, transactions, and private key control. The bill prohibits new borrowing, taxes, or pledging government assets to acquire more Bitcoin, and requires a 180-day study on budget-neutral acquisition methods. These measures are meant to address fiscal and transparency concerns, but have not yet broadened support beyond the Republican caucus.
Whether ARMA moves forward with bipartisan support or as a Republican-only measure, the outcome will shape the future of federal crypto policy. The vote will clarify whether Congress is ready to make Bitcoin a permanent part of the government's financial toolkit or keep it as a policy experiment that could change with the next administration.
When governments consider holding Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies as reserve assets, they face risks that do not apply to traditional reserves like US Treasuries or gold. Crypto assets are highly volatile, can be hard to sell in large amounts without affecting the market, and require specialized custody to prevent loss or theft. Proof-of-reserve reports and independent audits can improve transparency, but they do not remove price risk or operational challenges. For US lawmakers, the decision to formalize Bitcoin holdings is not just about market exposure-it is about whether digital assets deserve the same status as legacy reserves, and whether Congress is willing to accept the trade-offs that come with that choice.
