Tucker Carlson: Bitcoin Is CIA Creation, Won’t Invest

At the heart of Tucker Carlson’s refusal to invest in Bitcoin is a specific and provocative claim: that the Central Intelligence Agency is the real force behind the digital asset. During his speech, Carlson leveraged his background growing up in Washington, D.C., in a ‘government family’ to lend credence to his assertion, stating, ‘so, CIA.’ His skepticism is rooted in what he perceives as the impossibility of a trillion-dollar asset having an entirely anonymous creator. He questioned the narrative surrounding Satoshi Nakamoto, asking why this ‘mysterious guy who apparently died’ has never moved his estimated one million BTC, a hoard worth tens of billions of dollars.

Carlson’s fears extend beyond mere origin stories into the realm of societal control. He expressed a profound distrust of digital currency, warning that it represents the pinnacle of ‘totalitarian control.’ His argument posits that if a central authority can ‘punish people, zero out their bank account and keep them from eating,’ it would guarantee ‘total obedience.’ Despite admitting he loves the *idea* of financial autonomy that Bitcoin represents, Carlson concluded that the reality is a ‘scam’ run by a ‘coalition of beneficiaries’ designed to further consolidate power over American society. In contrast, he identified himself as a gold buyer, preferring to invest only in things he claims to understand.

Carlson’s comments were met with swift and widespread criticism from prominent figures within the cryptocurrency space. The core of their rebuttal centered on Bitcoin’s fundamental nature as an open-source protocol. Jack Mallers, CEO of the Bitcoin payment app Strike, responded directly on social media platform X, stating, ‘If you think knowing who created Bitcoin matters, you don’t understand it. Bitcoin is open source. Nobody has special rights, and everyone can verify that.’ This sentiment underscores a key philosophical tenet of Bitcoin: its code is transparent and can be inspected by anyone, theoretically making it resistant to covert control by any single entity, including a government agency.

Other industry voices echoed this defense while dismissing the CIA narrative. Broadcaster Max Keiser rejected the claim as contradictory to the ‘well-documented history of Bitcoin’s development.’ Marty Bent, host of the Tales from the Crypt podcast, took a more pragmatic approach, arguing that the creator’s identity is ultimately irrelevant. He remarked, ‘Even if the CIA did create Bitcoin (it didn’t), anyone can audit the code to see what it does. That’s all that matters.’ This collective response highlights the community’s reliance on cryptographic proof and verifiable code over trust in any individual or institution.

While the specific CIA creation theory was widely mocked, some industry leaders acknowledged that Carlson’s underlying anxiety about financial surveillance and government overreach holds merit. Mert Mumtaz, CEO of Helius Labs, laughed off the idea of CIA involvement but conceded that Carlson’s fear is ‘valid.’ Mumtaz issued a more nuanced warning, stating that cryptocurrency technology, if ‘built poorly,’ can indeed be used for negative purposes instead of the good for which it was intended. This creates a critical distinction between dismissing a conspiracy about Bitcoin’s origins and acknowledging the legitimate risks of how digital currencies could be co-opted or mismanaged in the future.

This part of the discussion connects to a historical event that has fueled such conspiracy theories: a 2020 report by The Washington Post revealing that the CIA had secretly owned the Swiss encryption firm Crypto AG for decades. The agency used the company to spy on over 120 countries by selling them rigged encryption devices. For skeptics like Carlson, this real-world precedent of a government agency deploying sophisticated cryptographic technology for surveillance provides a plausible, if highly speculative, backdrop for the Bitcoin origin theory.

The mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto, which Carlson cited as a primary reason for his distrust, remains one of the greatest unsolved puzzles in the tech and financial worlds. The creator, or creators, behind the pseudonym completely vanished from public view in 2011, leaving behind a revolutionary protocol and a vast fortune. The search has involved numerous false leads and legal battles. In the past year alone, an HBO documentary suggested late cryptographer Len Sassaman could be Satoshi, while the film’s director separately pointed to former Bitcoin developer Peter Todd, who firmly denied the claim.

The most prominent legal chapter in this saga involved computer scientist Craig Wright, who has long claimed to be Bitcoin’s creator. However, a UK judge formally ruled last year that Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto. Despite these setbacks, the pursuit continues. As recently as April 2025, crypto lawyer James Murphy took legal action, suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records that might finally reveal the true identity behind the pseudonym. This ongoing quest underscores the profound impact of Satoshi’s anonymity, which continues to fuel both intrigue and suspicion, as evidenced by Carlson’s very public reservations.