US Lawmakers Propose Bitcoin Reserve Bill With 20-Year Sale Restriction

Washington has taken a fresh step toward treating Bitcoin (BTC) as a sovereign asset, as U.S. lawmakers introduced a bill that would centralize federally held BTC into a Treasury-managed reserve and largely lock it away from the market for two decades. The proposal is being watched closely by global crypto investors because it could reduce long-feared ‘government sell pressure’ while signaling a more durable U.S. policy posture toward digital assets.

According to research from MEXC Ventures, the “American Reserve Modernization Act (ARMA)” was introduced on May 21, 2026 (UTC). The bill would require the federal government to consolidate Bitcoin (BTC) it already holds—along with BTC it may seize or forfeit in future enforcement actions—into a strategic reserve under the U.S. Treasury, with a default policy of restricting sales for 20 years.

ARMA was introduced on a bipartisan basis by Rep. Nick Begich and Rep. Jared Golden, and has drawn signatures from 17 lawmakers across party lines. In a polarized U.S. political environment, that alignment stands out, particularly for a crypto-related proposal that touches sensitive questions around law enforcement proceeds, fiscal flexibility, and the government’s role in asset markets.

The bill’s core mechanism is administrative but consequential: it would inventory Bitcoin holdings scattered across federal agencies and then transfer those coins—especially those obtained through investigations, forfeiture, and seizure—into a unified ‘Federal Bitcoin Reserve’ framework. That approach contrasts with the U.S. government’s long-running practice of disposing of seized BTC through auctions or public sales, events that have repeatedly raised concerns about abrupt supply hitting the market.

For years, even the movement of coins from government-linked wallets has periodically rattled sentiment among traders, as on-chain transfers can be interpreted as a prelude to liquidations. MEXC Ventures argues ARMA is intended to change that reflexive dynamic by shifting the default posture from monetization to long-term custody, effectively converting seized BTC from a near-term budget item into a strategic holding.

The clause drawing the most attention is the bill’s ‘20-year sale restriction’ principle. Under ARMA’s framework, Bitcoin placed into the reserve could not be sold for routine fiscal operations or market management. The bill would allow an exception primarily for debt-related purposes—narrowing the circumstances under which the government could liquidate BTC and, in turn, potentially reducing uncertainty around future federal supply.

Market participants have likened the concept to sovereign gold management: a strategic asset held for resilience and long-horizon optionality rather than for opportunistic trading. While the bill does not guarantee an increase in federal BTC holdings beyond future enforcement proceeds, its architecture would effectively quarantine reserve-designated coins from the market for long stretches of time, barring limited exceptions.

ARMA also draws a boundary between Bitcoin and other cryptoassets. While it contemplates separate handling for digital assets such as Ethereum (ETH), it does not automatically fold them into the same reserve structure as Bitcoin. Observers see that distinction as an effort by Congress to formalize Bitcoin’s status as a uniquely strategic asset category—an approach aligned with a broader global narrative that treats BTC differently from smart-contract platforms and tokens with more variable technical and regulatory profiles.

The bill includes language reinforcing the right to ‘self-custody’—seeking to prevent federal limitations on individuals holding crypto in personal wallets. That provision reflects ongoing U.S. debates about privacy, property rights, and the balance between financial surveillance and user-controlled ownership, particularly as stablecoin and market-structure legislation continues to move through Congress.

Transparency and oversight are another focal point. ARMA would require quarterly public reporting on reserve holdings, regular independent third-party audits, and explicit congressional supervision. Compared with how many sovereign asset management programs disclose information, those requirements represent a relatively high bar for visibility—one that some commentators believe could become a reference model for other jurisdictions exploring state-level digital asset custody.

Still, the bill’s path to becoming law remains uncertain. ARMA has only been introduced and must clear committee review, votes in both chambers, and eventual presidential approval. The process can take months to years, and the legislation could be amended materially—or stalled—especially as Congress addresses other digital asset bills that define market rules, oversight authority, and compliance standards.

Political pushback is also likely. Critics may argue that formalizing a national Bitcoin reserve legitimizes a volatile asset class, while fiscal hawks could question whether long-term sale restrictions reduce flexibility in managing government resources. Supporters, however, are expected to frame the measure as a modernization effort that aligns sovereign policy with the realities of digital assets and reduces market disruption tied to ad hoc liquidation of seized coins.

Even without passage, the introduction of ARMA marks a meaningful shift in the policy conversation: it recasts Bitcoin (BTC) from a confiscated byproduct of criminal cases into a potential long-term strategic asset contemplated at the federal legislative level. For global markets, the bill is now a bellwether for whether the U.S. intends to build a durable sovereign Bitcoin posture—and whether Washington’s evolving crypto framework will treat BTC as a special category within the broader digital asset ecosystem.