The bill, H.R. 3798, sponsored by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), aims to codify Executive Order 14233, signed by Trump.
“This is our digital Fort Knox,” Treasury Secretary Vivek Ramaswamy said at the March rollout, promising “budget-neutral and innovation-positive” implementation.
Under the bill, no taxpayer dollars would be spent to acquire more Bitcoin. Instead, BTC must come from future enforcement seizures, asset swaps, or market-neutral transfers. Altcoins acquired in similar ways would be held in a separate “Digital Asset Stockpile,” which the Treasury could sell at its discretion.
The legislation mandates inter-agency BTC transfers to Treasury custody and bars any sales without presidential waiver, effectively nationalizing the U.S. government’s Bitcoin position unless reversed by future legislation.
Supporters compare the reserve to a digital gold standard, a decentralized asset immune to inflation, geopolitical manipulation, or central bank defaults. The reserve’s proposed five-year target is 1 million BTC, about 5% of the total supply.
But critics argue that Bitcoin’s volatility and cybersecurity risks make it a poor candidate for a national strategic asset. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a vocal crypto skeptic, called the bill “crypto cosplay that risks taxpayer dollars and global credibility” at an April House Financial Services hearing.
That conference also marked the first public unveiling of the reserve concept, a campaign promise that has since morphed into federal policy, and now, possibly law. Presidential Executive Orders are not law unless ratified by Congress.
With Bitcoin reaching an all-time high of $111,900 in May and corporate treasuries increasing BTC allocations, Burchett’s bill taps into growing belief in Bitcoin as a financial backstop.
H.R. 3798 has been referred to the House Financial Services Committee. Chair Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is expected to schedule a hearing this summer, with Senate action likely to follow.
How Treasury will securely manage BTC custody, whether through cold wallets, multisig arrangements, or third-party custodians, remains an open question.
It is also unclear how reserve holdings might affect broader fiscal or monetary policy, including debt ceiling negotiations or Federal Reserve collateral frameworks.
