On September 16, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee passed the "American Reserve Modernization Act" (ARMA) with a vote of 28 to 21.
At first glance, this seems like an ordinary legislative advancement. But behind the numbers lies a key fact—
Of the 23 co-sponsors, 22 are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat.
The sole Democrat, Representative Jared Golden from Maine, is not even a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Cross-referencing the co-sponsor list with the committee roster reveals:
Among the 23 Democrats on the committee, there was zero support.
Not a single one co-sponsored or voted in favor.
A year ago, the situation was completely different.
In July 2025, the CLARITY Act passed the House with a vote of 294 to 134, with 78 Democrats voting yes. In the Financial Services Committee, CLARITY passed bipartisanly at 32 to 19.
Back then, crypto legislation was a bipartisan affair. Republicans pushed, Democrats followed, and those 78 Democratic votes were the best proof.
One year later, the same group has turned against it.
Crypto policy analyst Diana Chen pinpointed the key:
"Regulating how Bitcoin is traded is a consumer protection issue; putting it on the federal balance sheet is a fiscal and monetary policy issue—the alliance starts to loosen there."
In plain terms: We can talk about how coins are traded. But putting taxpayers' money into Bitcoin? No way.
Maxine Waters put it even more bluntly.
The Democratic leader of the Financial Services Committee and California Representative Waters has previously clearly opposed Trump's strategic Bitcoin reserve executive order.
Her core logic is: Strategic reserves are usually used to support key goods for the U.S. economy and everyday family life. Cryptocurrency itself has no intrinsic value and does not belong in this category.
Waters also warned that this reserve could benefit Trump's close allies.
This is the underlying logic behind the Democrats' collective silence—not a lack of understanding of crypto, but distrust of linking the national balance sheet with crypto.
Looking at the practical side, ARMA itself is in a tough spot.
The bill requires the government to lock approximately 324,000 Bitcoins for at least 20 years, valued at about $26 billion.
But with Republicans holding a 30 to 23 majority in the Financial Services Committee, ARMA can pass without any Democratic votes.
It can pass the House. What about the Senate?
The corresponding Senate bill has not yet passed, and prediction markets estimate only a 6% chance that ARMA will become law before 2027.
CLARITY was just rejected in the Senate by 49 to 50, and the window for crypto legislation is closing.
The most dangerous aspect of this is not the bill itself.
It’s that the Bitcoin reserve is becoming a Republican party platform.
Consider the consequences:
If ARMA passes along purely partisan lines, future Democratic administrations will not repeal it—it's codified law, and repeal costs are too high.
But they also won’t expand it.
A "national strategic asset" will be labeled Republican and then cold-shouldered by the next administration.
This is not a victory for Bitcoin.
This is the beginning of Bitcoin being politically hijacked.
$BTC$ETH$ZEC#美国加密税收与BTC储备法案获推进
Disclaimer: OKX Orbit content is provided for informational purposes only. Learn more
