As recently as 2021, he described cryptocurrency as “a disaster waiting to happen” and a “scam.” But digital, decentralized currency made Donald Trump well over $1 billion (€878 million) in 2025 alone, according to annual financial disclosures released on Tuesday.
Most of the profits came from his World Liberty Financial business selling new crypto products ($500 million) and sales of so-called “meme coins” ($600 million).
It comes at a time when the US president’s policies on crypto have become increasingly favorable, with regulation cut and federal rules for stablecoin introduced.
Trump is not alone in backing crypto as the future of finance. Over in the United Kingdom, populist leader Nigel Farage is facing a public backlash threatening the seemingly unstoppable rise of his Reform UK party over a £5 million ($6.6 million/€5.8 million) personal “gift” from Thailand-based British crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne. Reform, too, has a pro-crypto stance, with Farage promising to “bring crypto in from the cold” should he win power.
Elsewhere in Europe, Pavel Blazek resigned from his position as justice minister in Czechia last year after accepting 468 bitcoins worth $45 million from convicted criminal Tomas Jirikovsky, while Spanish right-wing MEP Luis “Alvise” Perez Fernandez has also been accused of taking crypto financing from a convicted fraudster.
In Argentina, Trump-friendly President Javier Milei has come under fire from financial authorities and the public over his promotion of boom and bust crypto scheme $LIBRA, which spiked after he made a social media post about it, before collapsing soon after. He has denied wrongdoing, saying he made the post in good faith.
How big is crypto’s influence on politics?
While there is no simple global answer, cryptocurrencies are an increasingly essential part of global economics. Governments are, as a result, grappling with how to regulate them.
“Crypto is becoming increasingly significant in politics — not just as a form of political donation, but as a well-resourced industry seeking to shape regulation, a source of personal and campaign-related wealth, and a financial technology that can move value rapidly across borders,” Eliza Lockhart, a senior research fellow, at the Centre for Finance and Security at the RUSI think tank in the UK, told DW.
“Its political influence is rising as crypto businesses become more integrated into mainstream finance and governments make increasingly consequential decisions about how the sector should be regulated.”
Edoardo Beretta, adjunct macroeconomics professor at Swiss university USI, agreed, while also noting that a recent downturn — which came after the period of Trump’s financial filings — has generally had a cooling effect.
“With bitcoin’s price having more than halved since its peak on October 6, 2026 ($126,198) and the crypto market capitalization having behaved similarly, there is currently less political but also economic hype around cryptocurrencies. However, this does not mean that economic actors might have lost their interest in the crypto market: the environment surrounding them has simply become a little bit quieter,” he told DW.
Do cryptocurrencies make foreign political interference easier?
The anonymity and speed of digital wallets across borders make tracking campaign donations and suchlike a much trickier task than traditional transactions. This, in turn, makes tipping electoral scales a simpler task for those inclined to do so, said Lockhart.
“A blockchain records transactions, but it does not necessarily reveal the real-world identity of the person controlling a wallet or the original source of the funds,” she said.
“Money can also be moved through multiple wallets, exchanges and jurisdictions before reaching politics. Therefore, the principal foreign interference risk is often upstream of the donation received by a political party. Attribution needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, but crypto creates vulnerabilities that hostile states and other malign actors can exploit.”
A 2025 report from Chainalysis, which tracks and analyzes blockchain activity, found that European extremist groups’ use of cryptocurrencies is catching up to that of those in the United States. “Between 2022 and 2024, Europe’s share rose dramatically, commanding nearly 50% of total inflows,” the report said. That’s partly because crypto companies lack the policies that bar extremist groups from using more traditional offers.
These sorts of issues pushed the UK to introduce a temporary ban on political donations made by cryptocurrency earlier this year, bringing it in line with countries like Brazil and Ireland, along with certain US states.
Is crypto more significant on the right or the left of politics?
It’s hard to be entirely precise but, in the US at least, Trump’s presidency has seen a surge in cryptocurrency usage by Republicans, over Democrats, according to a Pew Research Center poll. It found that 22% of Republicans had invested in, traded or used a cryptocurrency, as opposed to 17% of Democrats.
While Lockhart said “crypto should not be characterized as inherently or exclusively right-wing,” and that its political alignment varies across countries, it is also, she said, the case that the crypto industry’s alliances are often forged on the right wing.
“This reflects its preference for financial deregulation and decentralisation, which has resulted in the crypto industry’s strategic support of politicians offering a more favorable regulatory environment,” she said.
Should crypto investments and ownership be kept out of politics?
The vast sums paid to politicians, whether directly or in the form of campaign financing, from crypto companies raise conflict of interest concerns for many observers.
In Trump’s case, the White House has said his business interests are managed by his sons while in office. “Neither the president nor his family has ever engaged — or will ever engage — in conflicts of interest,” said spokesperson Anna Kelly on Tuesday.
In a broader sense though, crypto should be treated the same as any other business interest, in Lockhart’s view.
“The central issue is whether a public office-holder should be allowed to have a substantial financial or commercial interest in a business whose profitability or asset values can be directly affected by government decisions,” she said. “Where that is the case, disclosure alone may not adequately manage the perceived or actual conflict of interest.”
It is, adds Beretta, a matter for each country to decide. “If the law allows politicians to have earnings in addition to those deriving from their political activity, there is nothing to be done unless laws are changed.”
Edited by: Andreas Illmer
