The US Bitcoin reserve faces a crucial bipartisan test Wednesday
The American Reserve Modernization Act (ARMA) would put the federal government’s Bitcoin reserve into law for the first time. But ahead of its first House committee vote on Sept. 16, the bill has attracted just one Democratic cosponsor, and he does not sit on the committee considering it.
That goes against Congress’s broader crypto push. Seventy-eight House Democrats voted for the CLARITY Act in 2025 after the crypto market structure bill advanced through the House Financial Services Committee on a bipartisan 32-19 vote.
The difference is what lawmakers are being asked to support now.
CLARITY establishes rules for private crypto markets. ARMA asks Congress to make Bitcoin a formal Federal Reserve asset and make the existing reserve harder for a future president to reverse unilaterally.
H.R. 8957 enters Wednesday’s House Financial Services markup with 23 cosponsors, according to the committee materials. Twenty-two are Republicans. The only Democrat is Maine Rep. Jared Golden, who does not sit on Financial Services.
Cross-referencing the cosponsor list with the committee roster shows six Republican committee members backing the bill and none of the panel’s 23 Democrats.
That sets up a straightforward test on Sept. 16: does the bipartisan coalition that supported rules for crypto markets extend to putting Bitcoin on the federal government’s balance sheet?
| Measure | Policy question | Democratic support cited in article | Committee signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLARITY Act | How should private crypto markets be regulated? | 78 House Democrats voted yes | Advanced through Financial Services 32-19 |
| ARMA / H.R. 8957 | Should the US government hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset? | 1 Democratic cosponsor | 0 active Financial Services Democrats currently cosponsor |
| Committee screen | Does reserve policy have bipartisan support where it must advance? | 23 active committee Democrats | 0 Democratic cosponsors on the panel |
ARMA is a considerably more restrained proposal than the earlier BITCOIN Act framework it descends from. The bill centers on consolidating qualifying government-held Bitcoin at the Treasury and creating a formal Strategic Bitcoin Reserve alongside a separate Digital Asset Stockpile for non-Bitcoin assets.
An amendment posted ahead of the Sept. 16 markup retains a minimum 20-year holding period for Bitcoin placed in the reserve. It also requires an annual public proof-of-reserve report covering holdings, transactions, and control of private keys, with verification by an independent third-party auditor.
The updated text also calls for a 180-day study of whether the government could acquire additional Bitcoin through budget-neutral methods. It does not authorize borrowing, new taxes, deficit spending or pledging government assets as collateral to fund those purchases.
That restraint was meant to broaden the bill’s appeal, yet the cosponsor list shows a more institutionally conservative reserve has so far failed to translate into more bipartisan support.
Statute changes what a Bitcoin reserve is
President Donald Trump created the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile through an executive order in March 2025.
That means the current reserve rests on presidential authority and could be changed by a future administration.
ARMA would instead establish the reserve through an act of Congress. A future Congress could still change or repeal the law, but a future president could not simply reverse the statutory reserve through another executive order.
That is what makes the Sept. 16 committee vote more consequential than another congressional vote on crypto regulation.
Bitcoin has recovered from a late-August two-year low near $60,000 to trade around $79,000 heading into the markup. Third-party trackers estimate US government-linked holdings at roughly 324,000 to 328,000 BTC, although those figures remain estimates rather than a confirmed Treasury balance.
At today’s price, roughly 328,000 BTC would be worth about $26 billion. The same holding would have been worth closer to $19.7 billion at August’s low and $41.4 billion at last October’s peak of $126,000.
That swing is large enough to make Bitcoin’s volatility one of the most important parts of the policy debate.
| Bitcoin price reference | Implied value of 328,000 BTC | Policy relevance |
|---|---|---|
| ~$60,000 late-August low | ~$19.7 billion | Shows downside volatility risk if BTC sits on the federal balance sheet |
| ~$79,000 current level | ~$25.9 billion | Approximate value heading into the Sept. 16 markup |
| ~$126,000 prior peak | ~$41.3 billion | Shows upside case proponents can cite as reserve optionality |
The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal deficit climbing from $1.9 trillion this year to $3.1 trillion by 2036. Debt held by the public would climb from 101% to 120% of GDP over the same period..
Supporters can argue that holding Bitcoin gives the government exposure to an asset that could appreciate while federal debt continues to rise.
Opponents can argue that it puts a highly volatile asset onto a federal balance sheet already facing growing fiscal pressure.
Similar concerns have surfaced outside the United States. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has argued that reserve assets need to remain liquid and secure. World Bank research has separately concluded that crypto assets are not yet suited to central bank reserve portfolios because they fall short on measures including safety, liquidity and market maturity.
The vote will show where bipartisan crypto support stops
Republicans hold a 30-23 majority on the House Financial Services Committee, giving ARMA a path to advance without Democratic support.
But the more revealing question is whether any Democrats vote for it.
A party-line vote would show that the bipartisan coalition behind private-market crypto legislation does not currently extend to federal Bitcoin ownership.
Even one or two Democratic votes would tell a different story. It would suggest that some lawmakers who crossed party lines to establish rules for private crypto markets are also willing to consider Bitcoin as an asset held by the federal government.
Democratic amendments could provide another signal. A member could oppose ARMA as written while proposing changes to custody, reporting, acquisition rules, or Treasury authority that leave the underlying reserve intact.
| Committee outcome | Political signal | What it would mean for the Bitcoin reserve |
|---|---|---|
| Zero Democratic yes votes | Reserve policy remains partisan | ARMA can advance, but the bipartisan crypto coalition stops at government ownership |
| One Democratic yes vote | First crack in the line | Bitcoin reserve policy gains a foothold, but not yet a durable coalition |
| Two or more Democratic yes votes | Coalition starts to stretch | ARMA begins to look less like a Trump-only executive policy and more like an institutional project |
| Democratic amendments accepting the reserve concept | Constructive opposition | Democrats may oppose the bill text while leaving room for a revised reserve framework |
| GOP defections | Republican ceiling emerges | The issue becomes not only bipartisan viability, but whether Republicans are fully aligned |
The strongest outcome for supporters would be Democratic votes or amendments that accept the reserve itself while seeking changes to how it is managed. That would move the debate beyond whether Bitcoin should be held by the federal government and toward how such a reserve should operate.
The opposite outcome would be a party-line vote, with Democrats rejecting the reserve over concerns such as volatility, fiscal governance, or Treasury authority.
ARMA could still advance under that scenario, but the political message would be different.
The 78 Democrats who supported CLARITY showed that regulating crypto markets can attract substantial bipartisan support. ARMA asks lawmakers to cross a different line: not how Washington should regulate Bitcoin, but whether it should hold it at all.
Wednesday’s markup will provide the first clear indication of how many Democrats are willing to cross that line.
Credit: Source link