Mined in America Act Targets US Bitcoin Hardware Risk

Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bill Cassidy have introduced the Mined in America Act, a bill that would push U.S. Bitcoin mining away from foreign-linked hardware while also codifying President Donald Trump's Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. That makes this more than a mining story. It is a test of whether Washington wants crypto leadership to rest on domestic infrastructure rather than imported machines.

What the Mined in America Act would actually do

The core of the bill is industrial policy. According to Cassidy's March 30 press release, the legislation

would create a voluntary "Mined in America" certification run through the Department of Commerce for mining facilities and mining pools. Certified operators would have to move away from equipment made by companies tied to foreign adversaries. The bill also says certified projects could tap existing federal energy and rural-development programs instead of drawing on new spending autho rity. On top of that, it directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership to help U.S. manufacturers build secure, energy-efficient mining hardware. The same package would also establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve inside the Treasury by codifying Trump's prior executive order. Crypto Briefing's report matches those broad contours and adds that the push is framed as a bid to reduce dependence on

The immediate takeaway is simple: the bill is trying to tie three policy threads together that are often

discussed separately. One is mining. One is manufacturing. One is federal Bitcoin accumulation and custody. By packaging them together, Lummis and Cassidy are arguing that Bitcoin policy is no longer just a question of securities law or tax treatment. It is now being pitched as supply-chain policy and national strategy.

Why this matters for market participants

For miners, the bill's significance is less about headline symbolism and more about compliance costs and procurement risk. If a facility wants the "Mined in America" certification and the federal-program access that could come with it, it may eventually need to swap out or avoid machines tied to foreign adversaries. That matters because the U.S. remains a major mining jurisdiction, but hardware manufacturing is still concentrated abroad. Cassidy's release cites Dennis Porter of Satoshi Action Fund saying the U.S. controls 38% of global Bitcoin hash rate while 97% of the hardware powering it comes from China. Independent market data is directionally consistent on the hash-rate point: Hashrate Index estimated the U.S. at 37.5% of global hash rate in its January 2026 update, while CoinShares said the U.S. had gained market share and remained one of the dominant countries in mining. Reuters also reported in June 2025 that more than 90% of mining hardware originated in China, underscoring the supply imbalance the bill is targeting. That means the bill is aimed at a real structural issue, even if the 97% figure comes from an advocacy- backed source. For miners and investors, the "so what" is clear: policy risk is moving upstream. The next phase of U.S. mining regulation may focus less on whether mining is allowed and more on what machines are allowed, where they come from, and whether operators can prove their supply chains.

The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve angle is bigger than the mining angle

The reserve piece is what turns this from a sector bill into a broader political signal. Trump's Executive

Order 14233, published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2025, established the policy of creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile. Under that order, Treasury-held forfeited BTC would be transferred into the reserve and, once deposited, not sold unless narrow legal exceptions apply. The order also directed Treasury and Commerce to develop budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional government BTC and asked Treasury to evaluate whether legislation would be needed to fully operationalize the framework. In other words, the executive order created the policy architecture, but it also left room for Congress to harden it into statute. Federal Register That is why the Mined in America Act matters beyond miners. It is not just pro-Bitcoin messaging. It is a congressional attempt to lock in part of the reserve concept and bind it to industrial capacity at home. A legal analysis published in July 2025 noted that Lummis had already introduced the BITCOIN Act of 2025 after the executive order, with that earlier proposal designed to codify the reserve and create a framework for long-term federal BTC accumulation. This new bill appears narrower in one respect and broader in another: narrower because it is framed through mining and certification, broader because it links reserve policy to manufacturing and supply security.

Who is affected and how

Public miners are the clearest first-order stakeholders. Any operator seeking federal support or official certification would need to think about fleet replacement cycles, vendor exposure, and how quickly domestic alternatives could be sourced. U.S.-based hardware entrants and manufacturing partners could benefit if procurement shifts away from foreign-linked ASIC supply. Federal agencies also become more central under the bill, especially Commerce, Treasury, NIST, and programs connected to energy and rural development. U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy There is also a political audience. Lummis has spent the past year trying to translate crypto support into durable law. Crypto Briefing notes that this bill arrives as she approaches the end of her Senate tenure, and other reporting in late 2025 said she would not seek reelection in 2027. That gives the proposal added weight as part of a final legislative push rather than just another messaging bill. For market participants, the practical implication is that crypto policy in Washington is being shaped less around abstract innovation language and more around concrete state power: custody, energy access, manufacturing support, and national-security screening.

What to watch next

The first thing to watch is whether the full bill text attracts co-sponsors beyond the initial pair and

whether any committee process clarifies how "foreign adversary-linked" hardware would be defined. That phrase will matter. If it is narrow, the bill becomes a procurement screen. If it is broad, it becomes a major reshoring mandate. The second thing to watch is whether Treasury or Commerce says anything new about implementing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve beyond the 2025 executive-order framework. The Federal Register version of that order explicitly anticipated further legislation if needed.

The third thing is market structure. If Washington is serious about building a domestic Bitcoin stack,

then miners, hardware vendors, and power partners will all need to show that U.S. mining can be secure, politically acceptable, and economically competitive at the same time. That is a harder task than passing a headline bill. The market is now watching whether "Made in America" becomes a branding line for Bitcoin mining or the start of a new compliance regime.

The bill does not guarantee a domestic ASIC renaissance. It does show where the policy center of gravity

is moving. The next milestone is not a soundbite. It is whether Congress turns reserve politics and hardware security into binding law.