As random companies snap up Bitcoin and Donald Trump hails the creation of a national crypto stockpile, state legislatures across the U.S. are racing to introduce their own Bitcoin reserve legislation.

Legislation has been approved in three states, rejected in five, and remains under consideration in 17, according to Bitcoin Reserve Monitor.

Those where legislation is still pending include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

What exactly constitutes a “Bitcoin reserve” varies from state to state. While some measures aim to actively purchase Bitcoin on the open market, others focus on permitting the retention of digital assets seized through enforcement actions or forfeitures.

Many of the proposals theoretically allow for the holding of other crypto too. In practice, strict market capitalization thresholds mean Bitcoin is typically the only digital asset that qualifies.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire became the first U.S. state to formally adopt a Bitcoin reserve law in early May with the passage of HB 302. Signed by Governor Kelly Ayotte, the law permits the state to allocate up to 5% of public funds into precious metals and digital assets.

However, digital assets must meet strict requirements of an average market capitalization of at least $500 billion over the past calendar year. This leaves Bitcoin as the only viable option.

The move sparked considerable political debate, with the bill scraping through the House by a margin of just 13 votes. Still, Ayotte declared it a win for state innovation and financial foresight.

“New Hampshire is once again first in the nation!” she wrote on X after signing the bill.

Under the law, New Hampshire can hold these reserves directly through secure custody solutions, via a qualified custodian, or through regulated investment vehicles.

Arizona

Arizona’s attempt to embrace Bitcoin reserves has been marked by legislative back-and-forth and repeated pushback.

In May 2025, Arizona passed HB 2749, which updated the state’s unclaimed property laws to allow crypto assets to be held in their original form, rather than being liquidated as previously required.

This opened a pathway for the state to maintain custody of seized or forfeited Bitcoin, effectively creating a form of reserve through enforcement actions.

However, efforts to expand on this have faced significant hurdles. Two more bills, SB 1025 and HB 2324, were both vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs.

SB 1025, which would have allowed state treasurers and retirement systems to allocate up to 10% of state funds into digital assets, was vetoed in May.

 “Arizonans’ retirement funds are not the place for the state to try untested investments like virtual currency,” Hobbs said in a letter on her decision.

The second bill, HB 2324, sought to create a “Bitcoin and Digital Assets Reserve Fund” managed by the state treasurer and funded through crypto seized in criminal investigations.

Hobbs vetoed the bill, arguing it “disincentivizes local law enforcement from working with the state on digital asset forfeiture by removing seized assets from local jurisdictions.”

Texas

Texas is perhaps the most aggressive adopter of Bitcoin reserve legislation. 

In June 2025, Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 21 and House Bill 4488 into law, establishing the Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve with robust legal protections ensuring the reserve cannot be easily dismantled by future legislatures.

Texas’ law allows Bitcoin and potentially other digital assets to enter the reserve through purchases, forks, airdrops, or donations.

However, only digital assets with a market capitalization of at least $500 billion over a 24-month period are eligible, effectively limiting the reserve to just Bitcoin.

States Which Rejected Bitcoin Reserves

Several states attempted to follow similar initiatives but ultimately fell short due to political resistance and financial concerns.

In Montana, lawmakers considered House Bill 429, which would have allowed the state to allocate up to $50 million into a combination of crypto, stablecoins, and precious metals.

The bill failed to gain enough support in the House of Representatives and was killed before reaching a full vote, joining previous failed efforts in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. 

South Dakota also saw its effort falter. A proposal from State Representative Logan Manhart would have allowed up to 10% of state funds to be allocated to Bitcoin investments. However, the House Commerce and Energy Committee voted to defer the bill indefinitely, effectively killing it.

In Utah, a broader blockchain-related bill did pass in March, but lawmakers stripped out the provisions that would have authorized a Bitcoin reserve.

Lawmakers in these states cited concerns over Bitcoin’s notorious price fluctuations, potential legal liability, and questions regarding the long-term viability of crypto as a reserve asset.