House committee advances bill to codify Trump’s Strategic Bitcoin Reserve
The American Reserve Modernization Act cleared Financial Services on a 28–21 vote, but a full House vote, Senate passage and presidential signature would still be required.
By The Third AnglePublished 5 min read
The House Financial Services Committee advanced H.R. 8957 on Sept. 16, 2026; the measure is not yet law. Photo: Kanchanara / Unsplash · Unsplash License
A committee milestone for a federal reserve
The House Financial Services Committee advanced the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026, H.R. 8957, in a 28–21 vote Wednesday, according to reporting by The Block and Cointelegraph. The bill would establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate Digital Asset Stockpile inside the Treasury Department.
The measure would move President Donald Trump’s existing reserve policy from executive action toward statute. Under the reported framework, federally held bitcoin acquired through criminal or civil forfeiture would be held under a reserve structure, while other digital assets could be placed in a stockpile with separate reporting and management rules.
Committee approval is not enactment. The bill is not yet law. It would still need a vote by the full House, passage in the Senate and the president’s signature. The sources reviewed do not establish a schedule for floor consideration.
What the proposal would lock in
The legislation is intended to make the reserve harder for a future administration to dissolve with a new executive order. Coverage of the markup describes a 20-year holding requirement and provisions addressing proof-of-reserves reporting and assets created through blockchain forks, although the final text and any amendments remain the controlling documents.
The reserve would not necessarily mean the government buys bitcoin with new taxpayer funds. The measure focuses on digital assets already held by the federal government through forfeiture and on budget-neutral mechanisms for any additional acquisitions. The exact funding, custody and disposal rules depend on the bill text and subsequent regulations.
That distinction matters because a government holding is not the same as a purchase program. A reserve can affect policy signaling and custody requirements without guaranteeing that agencies will buy at a particular price, that holdings will grow or that private investors will benefit.
The political and market test
The committee vote came one day after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, a broader market-structure bill. The two measures now sit on different legislative tracks: one seeks to codify a strategic holding policy, while the other would set rules for market participants, platforms and regulators.
Supporters argue that a statutory reserve could give the United States a durable digital-asset strategy and clarify how seized tokens are managed. Critics may focus on concentration, volatility, custody security, accounting and whether Congress should direct Treasury to hold a speculative asset for decades. Those are policy arguments, not settled effects.
The next evidence is procedural: committee text, a House floor vote and any Senate companion. A committee vote is not a buying mandate. Bitcoin remains volatile, and the proposal does not change private investors’ risk, tax obligations or suitability decisions.
