House bill proposed a 20-year lock for the U.S. Bitcoin reserve

A bipartisan group in the U.S. House introduced legislation on May 21, 2026, that would require the Treasury Department to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and retain deposited bitcoin for at least 20 years.

H.R. 8957, the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026, was introduced by Alaska Republican Nick Begich with Maine Democrat Jared Golden among its cosponsors. The House record shows that the measure was referred to the Committee on Financial Services on May 21. Introduction and referral were procedural starting points: the bill had not passed either chamber and had not become law.

That distinction mattered because the proposal addressed how the federal government would custody and disclose digital assets, not merely whether officials favored bitcoin. Its introduced text called for a secure Treasury storage facility for qualifying bitcoin and a separate Digital Asset Stockpile for non-bitcoin assets. Treasury would have 180 days after enactment to establish the structures.

A long holding period with public attestations

Under the proposal, bitcoin deposited in the reserve would generally have to remain there for at least 20 years. During that period, the asset could not be sold, swapped, auctioned, encumbered or otherwise disposed of. Two years before a holding period ended, Treasury would report recommendations to Congress. After expiration, the secretary could recommend sales of up to 10% of reserve assets during any two-year period.

The bill also proposed an ongoing proof-of-reserve system. Treasury would publish quarterly reports covering total holdings, transactions and demonstrated control of the reserve’s private keys, including a public cryptographic attestation. An independent third-party auditor with relevant expertise would verify the reports, while the comptroller general would conduct continuing oversight.

Federal agencies would have 60 days after enactment to provide Treasury with a complete accounting of bitcoin and other digital assets they held, had seized or otherwise controlled. Once the reserve and stockpile were certified as operational, applicable holdings would be transferred within 30 days. The text preserved exceptions during the interim for national-security purposes, court orders and returning assets to identifiable crime victims.

These were proposed requirements, not evidence that Treasury had already consolidated every federal wallet or published a complete inventory. No public reserve balance can be inferred from the bill itself.

The proposal did not authorize an immediate buying program

The introduced text was narrower than a direct mandate to purchase a specified quantity of bitcoin. It required Treasury and Commerce to study, within 180 days of enactment, the risks, costs and potential benefits of acquiring additional bitcoin over the following five years.

Possible mechanisms identified for evaluation included converting non-bitcoin stockpile assets, using certain Federal Reserve resources or revalued gold certificates, accepting tax payments or gifts, and receiving assets through forfeitures or settlements. The legislation expressly said this study did not authorize borrowing, new taxation or deficit spending to acquire bitcoin.

That limitation is central to interpreting the development. H.R. 8957 proposed durable custody and transparency rules while leaving any additional acquisition program dependent on legal analysis, cost accounting and further authority.

From executive policy to proposed statute

The institutional backdrop was the White House executive order of March 6, 2025. That order declared a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate digital-asset stockpile as executive policy, directed agencies to account for government digital assets, restricted sales of reserve bitcoin and called for budget-neutral acquisition strategies.

H.R. 8957 sought to move parts of that framework into legislation. It added a defined minimum holding period, quarterly cryptographic reporting, independent audits, Government Accountability Office oversight and a voluntary program through which states could place bitcoin in segregated reserve accounts while retaining title.

As of May 21, 2026, however, the verified development was the introduction of a bill. Its market significance lay in Congress considering bitcoin as a potential long-duration federal reserve asset under explicit custody and disclosure rules—not in a completed purchase, an enacted spending commitment or a disclosed change in government holdings.