Three U.S. states — Texas, New Hampshire, and Arizona — have signed Bitcoin reserve legislation into law. At least 16 states introduced similar bills during 2025-2026 legislative sessions. Five states — Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma — rejected or shelved their proposa...
"This is a placeholder investment until the agency formally contracts with a cryptocurrency custodian." — Kevin Lyons, Representative for the Texas Comptroller's Office
Three U.S. states — Texas, New Hampshire, and Arizona — have signed Bitcoin reserve legislation into law. At least 16 states introduced similar bills during 2025-2026 legislative sessions. Five states — Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma — rejected or shelved their proposals. Missouri advanced a new bill (HB 2080) to its House Commerce Committee on February 23, 2026, and Florida filed fresh legislation (HB 1039) for the 2026 session after withdrawing a prior effort.
The state-level push runs parallel to a federal executive order signed March 6, 2025, establishing a U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve from approximately 207,000 BTC in forfeited assets. Senator Cynthia Lummis's BITCOIN Act proposes acquiring up to 1 million BTC over five years. The combined state and federal effort represents the largest experiment in sovereign Bitcoin accumulation outside El Salvador.
The timing is complicated. Bitcoin has fallen from approximately $125,000 in October 2025 to roughly $63,000 in late February 2026 — a 50% decline. Texas's initial $5 million ETF purchase, made at $91,336 per BTC in November 2025, is now underwater. The crash raises immediate questions about whether state treasurers are equipped to manage an asset class this volatile on behalf of taxpayers.
At least 16 U.S. states introduced Bitcoin reserve legislation during the 2025-2026 legislative cycle, according to tracking data compiled by Bitcoin Reserve Monitor. The bills share a common structure: authorize the state treasurer or chief financial officer to allocate a portion of state funds to Bitcoin or Bitcoin-adjacent instruments, typically through ETFs, with provisions for custody, auditing, and holding periods.
The outcomes have split into three categories:
| Status | States | Count | |--------|--------|-------| | Signed into law | Texas, New Hampshire, Arizona | 3 | | Actively advancing | Missouri, Florida, Massachusetts, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina | 6 | | Failed or withdrawn | Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Florida (2025 bill) | 6 |
The pass rate is roughly 3 out of 9 states where bills reached a final vote — a 33% conversion rate. The pattern suggests Republican-led states with existing crypto-friendly policy frameworks have been most receptive.
Texas was the first state to move from legislation to actual purchase. Governor Greg Abbott signed S.B. 21 on June 22, 2025, creating the Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and appropriating $10 million for an initial allocation. The Comptroller's office bought $5 million in BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) on November 20, 2025, at a per-Bitcoin price of $91,336. A second $5 million tranche is earmarked for self-custodied BTC once the state contracts with a qualified custodian.
At current prices near $63,000, the initial $5 million position has lost approximately 31% of its value — roughly $1.55 million in unrealized losses. The total appropriation of $10 million is modest relative to Texas's $321 billion biennial budget, but the precedent is the point.
New Hampshire moved faster on paper. Governor Kelly Ayotte signed HB 302 on May 6, 2025, authorizing the state treasurer to invest up to 5% of state funds in digital assets with a market cap exceeding $500 billion — a threshold currently met only by Bitcoin. More significantly, in November 2025, the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority approved a $100 million Bitcoin-backed municipal bond, the first of its kind in the United States. The bond structure requires borrowers to post Bitcoin collateral at 160% of the borrowed amount, with liquidation triggered if collateral falls below 130%. BitGo Trust Company serves as custodian.
The municipal bond structure represents a more sophisticated integration of Bitcoin into public finance than a direct treasury allocation. It transfers price risk to borrowers while allowing the state to facilitate Bitcoin-collateralized lending.
Arizona took the most restrictive approach. Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed SB 1025, which would have authorized direct Bitcoin purchases, but signed HB 2749, which allows the state to hold Bitcoin only from seized assets. Arizona will not buy Bitcoin on the open market. It can only retain forfeited cryptocurrency that passes through law enforcement channels.
Missouri's HB 2080, referred to the House Commerce Committee on February 23, 2026, proposes creating a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve Fund within the state treasury. The bill authorizes the state treasurer to accept Bitcoin donations, grants, and bequests from Missouri residents or government entities, and to invest, custody, and hold Bitcoin. A five-year mandatory holding period applies to all deposits. The treasurer would publish biennial reports and maintain independent audits.
This is Missouri's second attempt. A nearly identical bill, HB 1217, was introduced in February 2024, received a public hearing, but never reached a committee vote. The reintroduction suggests sustained legislative interest despite the prior failure.
Florida filed HB 1039 for the 2026 session after withdrawing a prior bill. The new legislation establishes a Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve Fund as a special fund outside the State Treasury. The CFO would have discretion over timing and allocation amounts. Like New Hampshire's law, the bill limits eligibility to digital assets maintaining an average market cap of at least $500 billion over 24 months — effectively restricting investment to Bitcoin. The bill includes provisions for independent audits and an advisory committee. If passed, the effective date is July 1, 2026.
The Senate companion bill (SB 1038) has already been referred to the Banking and Insurance Committee and two Appropriations committees.
Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania all rejected or delayed reserve bills, citing Bitcoin's price volatility and associated risks for taxpayers. Oklahoma's HB 1203 passed the state House 77-15 in March 2025 but was killed by the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee in a 6-5 vote on April 14, 2025. Oklahoma has since introduced a new bill (SB 1456) in the 2026 session proposing a reserve funded by mineral royalties.
The rejection pattern reveals a recurring concern: state legislators willing to vote "yes" in principle often lose support when committees scrutinize the mechanics of public funds in a volatile asset. The Oklahoma House-to-Senate drop is instructive — broad enthusiasm narrows when fiscal committees run the numbers.
President Trump signed an executive order on March 6, 2025, establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve as a permanent federal reserve asset funded by forfeited Bitcoin held by the Treasury. The U.S. government holds approximately 207,000 BTC from law enforcement seizures, making it the largest known sovereign Bitcoin holder.
The executive order directs agencies to explore transferring their Bitcoin holdings to the reserve and states that the government will not sell these assets. It also mandates development of "budget-neutral strategies" for acquiring additional Bitcoin — language that avoids direct congressional appropriation.
Senator Lummis's BITCOIN Act (S. 954) goes further, proposing the government acquire up to 1 million BTC over five years. VanEck's modeling suggests that under optimistic assumptions — Bitcoin compounding at 25% annually from a $200,000 base, debt growing at 5% from $37 trillion — a 1 million BTC reserve could offset roughly 35% of national debt by 2049, approximately $42 trillion. The conservative scenario projects 18% offset against $116 trillion in projected debt.
Representative Byron Donalds introduced H.R. 2112 to codify the executive order into law, insulating it from reversal by future administrations.
The White House's Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President's Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, acknowledged in January 2026 that "obscure legal provisions" remain obstacles to full implementation. The reserve exists on paper but the operational framework — custody arrangements, accounting standards, congressional oversight — is still being constructed.
The U.S. state-level push occurs alongside a modest but growing list of sovereign Bitcoin holders:
| Entity | Estimated BTC | Status | |--------|--------------|--------| | U.S. Federal Government | ~207,000 | Executive order reserve | | El Salvador | ~6,068 | Active accumulation (1 BTC/day) | | Bhutan | ~6,000 | Mining-derived, state-linked | | Czech Republic | Proposed | CNB considering 5% of EUR 140B reserves |
El Salvador's experience is the closest precedent. The country holds approximately 6,068 BTC worth roughly $596 million, with $167 million in unrealized profits. However, its December 2024 agreement with the IMF for a $1.4 billion loan required discontinuing BTC tax settlements, removing mandatory merchant acceptance, and phasing out the state-operated Chivo wallet. The IMF subsequently acknowledged that its initial fears about El Salvador's Bitcoin adoption "never materialized," but the concessions demonstrate the institutional pressure that comes with sovereign Bitcoin holdings.
The IMF's Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7), published March 2025, classified cryptocurrencies in cross-border economic tracking for the first time, while the updated System of National Accounts (SNA) classifies eligible crypto assets as "non-produced nonfinancial assets." These accounting changes provide a framework for sovereign holdings but do not constitute endorsement. The IMF continues to recommend against Bitcoin as a reserve asset, citing volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and financial stability risks.
The core tension is structural. Public finance obligations are denominated in dollars, with predictable cash flow requirements. Bitcoin's annualized volatility routinely exceeds 60%, compared to roughly 5-10% for U.S. Treasury bonds.
The February 2026 crash illustrates the problem. Bitcoin fell from $125,000 in October 2025 to approximately $63,000 — a 50% drawdown driven by escalating tariff tensions, institutional selling, and broader risk-off sentiment. According to CryptoQuant, "institutional demand has reversed materially."
For Texas, the state's $5 million IBIT purchase at $91,336 per BTC has lost approximately 31% of its value in three months. The loss is manageable given the small allocation, but it sets a precedent: the first state Bitcoin purchase is underwater.
Missouri's HB 2080 attempts to mitigate this with a five-year holding period, preventing panic-driven liquidation. Florida's HB 1039 grants the CFO discretion over timing, allowing strategic entry points. New Hampshire's municipal bond structure offloads price risk to borrowers through overcollateralization requirements. Arizona sidesteps the problem entirely by limiting holdings to seized assets with zero taxpayer capital at risk.
These design choices suggest legislators are learning from each other's approaches, iterating toward structures that balance exposure with accountability. The question is whether any holding period or governance framework can adequately protect taxpayers from a prolonged bear market.
The U.S. state Bitcoin reserve movement is real, growing, and already producing measurable outcomes — including the first state-level Bitcoin purchase and the first Bitcoin-backed municipal bond. It is also producing measurable losses.
The 50% Bitcoin decline since October 2025 arrived at the worst possible time for advocates. Texas's underwater position, however small, gives ammunition to critics in states still considering legislation. Missouri and Florida will advance their bills against this backdrop, with committee votes likely in Q2 2026.
The emerging pattern is not a blanket embrace of Bitcoin as "digital gold" for state treasuries. It is a fragmented experiment in public finance, with each state calibrating exposure, governance, and risk differently. The states that passed legislation did so with narrow majorities and extensive guardrails. The states that rejected it cited the same volatility that is now visible in Texas's portfolio.
Whether this movement accelerates or stalls depends less on legislative momentum and more on what Bitcoin does next. A recovery to six figures would validate the early movers. A continued decline below $50,000 would likely freeze pending legislation and shift the conversation from strategic allocation to taxpayer liability.
The data does not yet tell us which outcome is more likely. It tells us that the experiment is underway, the stakes are public, and the results will be visible in real time.