Tucker Carlson has stirred controversy once again — this time within the cryptocurrency community — by voicing deep skepticism about the true origins of Bitcoin and raising alarms about the privacy risks associated with digital currencies. Speaking at a Turning Point USA event, Carlson posited that Bitcoin may have been created by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a theory that, while long circulating in conspiracy circles, is widely dismissed by the majority of crypto experts and enthusiasts.
Carlson’s remarks were met with visible disapproval from the audience, especially his labeling of digital currencies as instruments of “totalitarian control.” He expressed that although he appreciates the concept of financial independence, he remains wary of the direction in which cryptocurrencies are evolving. “Once the money is mine, I can do what I want with it,” he said, emphasizing his desire for autonomy in financial matters. Yet, he cautioned that crypto — in its current form — could be co-opted by political and financial elites to monitor and manipulate the public.
Despite some of his criticisms, Carlson is not universally opposed to cryptocurrencies. Notably, he voiced support for Roger Ver, a crypto entrepreneur facing legal pressure from U.S. authorities. Carlson argued that Ver’s prosecution was less about financial misconduct and more about controlling dissenters who challenge centralized financial systems. His statement was highlighted in a campaign advocating for Ver’s legal defense.
At the same time, Carlson questioned the legitimacy of the broader crypto movement, especially its appeal to younger generations. According to him, many young people are drawn to digital assets out of desperation, due to bleak employment prospects and lack of financial opportunities. He warned that this vulnerability could make them targets for exploitation by those who seek to control digital finance.
Carlson’s concerns align with global debates over central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which are state-controlled digital versions of national currencies. Countries like China have already implemented them, raising concerns about surveillance and loss of individual privacy. While the United States has not officially pursued a CBDC, discussions in government circles signal growing interest in digital financial infrastructure.
Under former President Donald Trump, the U.S. took a clear stance against the development of a centralized digital dollar. In 2025, Trump signed legislation barring the creation and circulation of CBDCs within the country. Instead, the U.S. has leaned toward the use of privately issued stablecoins like those pegged to the U.S. dollar, allowing the private sector to innovate without direct government issuance of digital currency.
Nonetheless, even as the government officially distances itself from CBDCs, the U.S. Treasury has begun exploring regulatory frameworks for stablecoins. In August, the department opened a public consultation on strategies for identifying illicit activities involving digital assets. While some welcomed this as a proactive approach to digital security, others viewed it as a step toward transforming stablecoins into surveillance instruments.
Carlson pointed to this duality — public promises of privacy versus behind-the-scenes data tracking — as a root of his unease. He underscored his reluctance to invest in technologies he doesn’t fully understand, particularly when the identity of Bitcoin’s mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, remains unresolved. “You’re telling me to trust a system where the founder is anonymous and sitting on billions in untouched Bitcoin? That’s suspicious,” he remarked.
The theory that the CIA might have developed Bitcoin hinges largely on the anonymity surrounding Satoshi Nakamoto and the early technological sophistication of the network. Some skeptics argue that such an advanced cryptographic system could only have been developed by a government-level organization. However, the crypto community largely dismisses this as unfounded speculation, pointing instead to the open-source and decentralized nature of Bitcoin’s development.
Adding to the debate, Carlson noted that even prominent Bitcoin holders he personally knows can’t explain Satoshi’s background — and that lack of transparency makes him uncomfortable. His concern reflects a broader anxiety among critics of digital currencies: that a technology promising freedom and decentralization might ultimately serve centralized interests if not properly regulated or understood.
Carlson’s statements diverge from the typical libertarian enthusiasm for crypto, which often champions it as a path to financial sovereignty and resistance to state control. Yet his critique touches on real issues within the crypto world — from opaque governance to increasing surveillance risks — that merit deeper examination.
Beyond Carlson’s perspective, the broader crypto landscape is indeed grappling with questions of transparency, regulation, and privacy. While the foundational ethos of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is decentralization, the reality is that centralized exchanges, government oversight, and data tracking mechanisms are becoming more common. This hybrid structure — decentralized in theory, centralized in practice — fuels concerns that the original vision of crypto is being eroded.
Moreover, the geopolitical implications of CBDCs cannot be ignored. Countries like China are using digital currencies to reinforce their surveillance state model, while others, such as Russia and members of the EU, are exploring digital currencies for reasons ranging from monetary policy efficiency to geopolitical leverage. These developments raise serious questions about how democratic societies can adopt digital finance without compromising civil liberties.
In the United States, the debate over digital currencies intersects with broader issues of financial regulation, personal freedom, and the role of government in the digital economy. As digital assets become more mainstream, policymakers are under pressure to strike a balance between innovation and oversight — a task made more difficult by the inherently borderless nature of blockchain technologies.
Furthermore, as artificial intelligence and digital identification systems become integrated with financial platforms, the potential for state or corporate surveillance grows exponentially. This technological convergence makes Carlson’s fears — while speculative — not entirely unfounded. It’s a future that demands vigilance from both consumers and regulators.
In conclusion, while Tucker Carlson may not be a crypto expert, his commentary reflects widespread uncertainties about the future of digital finance. His skepticism toward government motives, questions about crypto’s origins, and concerns about privacy echo debates taking place at the highest levels of policy and technology. Whether one agrees with his CIA theory or not, Carlson’s remarks underscore the need for greater transparency, accountability, and education in the world of cryptocurrencies.