Coining in: How crypto is buying right-wing politics

From Donald Trump’s crypto empire to Nigel Farage’s £72m windfall, wealthy cryptocurrency backers are pouring money into right-wing politics, raising questions about whose interests politicians ultimately serve.

Reform UK’s £72m donation from cryptocurrency investors Christopher Harborne and Ben Delo in September was an enormous political story. It exceeded the total received by all UK political parties in 2025, while the pair have accounted for more than 80% of Reform’s funding since its founding in 2019.

But while the scale of the donation made headlines, its potential political significance is an even bigger story. The money is more than a spectacular boost to Reform’s finances. It shines a light on the growing influence of cryptocurrency interests in politics, and the increasingly close relationship between wealthy crypto investors and right-wing politicians.

The concern goes beyond the ability of the ultra-rich to bankroll political parties. It’s whether politicians who benefit from such extraordinary generosity will shape policy in ways that advance their donors’ financial interests. The real story is not simply how much money crypto can buy politicians, but what that money might buy in return.

Crypto’s political spending spree

As is so often the case with the latest developments on the right, America provides an indication of what could lie ahead in Britain.

Analysis of Federal Election Commission records by CNBC found 14 of the 20 biggest donors and donor groups in the 2026 US midterm election cycle had backed exclusively, or almost exclusively, Republican candidates and aligned organisations.

A new wave of political money is coming from cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and online gambling executives and companies. Together, these interests have poured more than $377m into candidates, political action committees and industry-backed groups.

Super PACs, which are political organisations that can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and other permitted sources, can spend vast sums supporting or opposing candidates, provided they operate independently of the campaigns they seek to influence. Although they can’t donate directly to candidates or coordinate their spending with them, they offer wealthy interests a powerful means of shaping electoral outcomes.

The scale of this spending raises an obvious question: what do these donors expect in return?

We only have to look at Trump as a troubling case study.
Trump’s crypto conversion

In 2021, Trump dismissed cryptocurrency as a “scam,” telling Fox News: “I like the currency of the United States.”

Fast-forward a few years and the picture looks very different. The President has embraced the industry, championed its expansion and rolled back regulatory constraints, while his family has established commercial interests in the sector.

In 2024, Trump formally announced his support for the family-linked cryptocurrency venture World Liberty Financial. Its website describes the business as “Inspired by Donald J Trump,” presenting it as part of a new era of finance.

Trump also turned cryptocurrency into a campaign issue. As the 2024 presidential election approached, his campaign announced that it would accept digital currency donations, declaring: “We proudly offer you a chance to contribute to the campaign with cryptocurrency.”

On Truth Social, he promised that all remaining Bitcoin should be “MADE IN THE USA,” claiming this would help America achieve energy dominance. For Trump, crypto was no longer a threat to the American financial system but an industry his administration should actively promote.

The financial stakes are enormous. Analysis published by Public Citizen shows cryptocurrency interests accounted for $274m of corporate political spending in the 2024 election cycle, representing 44 percent of the total covered by its analysis. That dwarfed the $28.25m in contributions cited for Koch-linked political organisations.

Trump’s family has also profited hugely from its crypto ventures. Deutsche Welle reported that Trump made more than $1bn from cryptocurrency sales in 2025.

This is where the relationship becomes particularly troubling. A president who can influence the rules governing an industry while his family benefits commercially from that same industry, presents an obvious conflict-of-interest concern.

As Peter Geoghegan, editor of Democracy for Sale, put it: “What Big Oil took decades to achieve, crypto has done in one election cycle: it’s bought the political process.”

Could Britain could be heading in the same direction?
Farage’s crypto revolution

Reform is among a small number of British political organisations to have accepted cryptocurrency donations, alongside the far-right Homeland Party and the Other Party, which describes itself as a direct-democracy movement.

Byline Times reports that Reform uses the Polish company Radom Pay to process crypto donations and check donors’ eligibility. Byline’s report also raises questions about other parties’ arrangements. Advance, the short-lived party founded by former Reform deputy leader Ben Habib, also reportedly considered accepting Bitcoin and Ethereum. Habib said the party was wound up in July 2026 to avoid splitting the right and clear the way for Rupert Lowe’s Restore party.

For Reform, however, cryptocurrency is about more than a convenient way to collect donations. Farage has made the industry’s interests a clear part of his political agenda.

The Reform leader has insisted that Harborne expects nothing in return for the millions he has donated to the party and the separately reported £5m personal gift disclosed in April. But there is no need to assume an explicit bargain to recognise the potential for a conflict of interest when a politician receives such extraordinary financial backing from an industry stakeholder.

Farage has already signalled where he stands on one issue of direct relevance to crypto investors, that is the proposed digital pound, dubbed ‘Britcoin.’

In June, Farage reportedly urged Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey to abandon the plans. Speaking at the Zebu Live cryptocurrency conference in 2025, he told an audience of crypto enthusiasts that he would be “prepared to go to prison” to stop a central bank digital currency being introduced under a digital ID system.

Farage presents his opposition as a defence of personal freedom and privacy. But while such concerns may deserve consideration in any debate about digital money and state surveillance, the wider commercial implications also matter.

Harborne is a major shareholder in Tether, holding an estimated 12% stake in the company behind USDT, the world’s most widely traded stablecoin. Stablecoins are digital currencies designed to maintain a stable value, typically by being pegged to a conventional currency such as the US dollar.

Industry representatives have argued that a digital pound could threaten demand for privately issued stablecoins. A state-backed alternative could therefore have consequences for companies operating in this market, like Tether.

Tax breaks, Bitcoin reserves and lighter regulation

Speaking at a cryptocurrency conference in Las Vegas in 2025, Farage unveiled a draft Crypto Assets and Digital Finance Bill, promising a ‘crypto revolution,’ if Reform entered government.

His proposals included cutting capital gains tax on crypto assets to 10%, compared with the then maximum rate of 24%, and establishing a Bitcoin digital reserve at the Bank of England.

The announcement came a month after then chancellor Rachel Reeves published draft legislation to bring crypto asset firms within a regulatory framework similar to traditional finance.

While clear regulation can protect consumers without stifling innovation, it’s very different from offering tax cuts and other favourable policies to an industry whose wealthy participants have helped finance a political party.

Farage’s proposals would raise fundamental questions about who benefits from his vision of Britain’s financial future. A lower capital gains tax rate could deliver substantial savings to investors, while a state-backed Bitcoin reserve would expose public policy to a notoriously volatile asset.

Reform must explain how these measures serve the public interest and why their benefits justify the risks. The extraordinary financial support Reform has received from crypto investors makes those questions all the more pressing.

Could crypto undermine British democracy?

The more immediate problem with cryptocurrency donations is establishing who is really behind the money.

Digital wallets can facilitate rapid cross-border transactions, while the use of intermediaries and complex ownership structures can make it harder to establish the ultimate source of funds. Crypto transactions aren’t inherently anonymous, and many can be traced on public blockchains. But tracing a transaction is not necessarily the same as establishing the identity, eligibility or intentions of the person ultimately funding a political donation.

That creates risks in a system that restricts foreign donations and requires political funding to be transparent. Crypto donations could provide a route for ineligible foreign interests to influence British elections, particularly where checks are inadequate.

The government has moved to address these concerns. Before Parliament’s summer recess, ministers announced plans to amend the Representation of the People Bill to ban cryptocurrency donations and introduce an annual £100,000 cap on political donations from British citizens living overseas, alongside a corresponding limit on regulated transactions such as loans.

The measures are intended to protect UK democracy from foreign interference and financial influence. A ban would close one potential route for money of uncertain origin to enter politics, although effective enforcement and transparency would remain essential.

Electoral integrity requires more than preventing fraud. Voters must also trust that political parties cannot be financially captured by powerful private interests.

In America, Trump’s transformation from crypto sceptic to presidential champion has coincided with the expansion of his family’s commercial interests in the sector. In Britain, Farage is promising tax cuts, a Bitcoin reserve and a crypto-friendly economic revolution as his party receives extraordinary sums from cryptocurrency investors.

Crypto may promise a financial revolution. But if its richest investors can use their wealth to influence politics and secure favourable treatment, the rewards risk flowing to those who already have the most – at everyone else’s expense.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch