Bitcoin prices broke the $100,000 mark. President Donald Trump declared cryptocurrency “amazing” and praised it for “the jobs that it produces”. Trump has made a sharp U-turn, crediting Bitcoin for job growth and positioning the U.S. as a crypto leader.
Trump’s remarks came at a White House news conference on June 27, 2025. He told reporters, “It’s become amazing … it’s the jobs that it produces.” The president even claimed credit for building a “crypto industry.” This follows months of pro-crypto actions by his administration, including new regulations and a push for a national Bitcoin reserve
Trump argues that Bitcoin adoption is strategically vital and notes that crypto held up better than stocks in recent declines. But did Bitcoin really generate a significant wave of new U.S. jobs, as he claims?
The U.S. civilian labor force is about 163 million, so 31,000 jobs are roughly 0.02% of all workers. By comparison, conventional industries add millions of jobs each year.
Outside mining, the broader crypto industry — exchanges, fintech firms, and blockchain startups — also employs people, but comprehensive job tallies for those sectors are not readily available.
Critics caution that Bitcoin’s benefits come with trade-offs. The group notes many crypto farms “fail to provide promised jobs” even as they pay low rates. Lawsuits over noise and pollution have followed rapid mining growth.
Many Bitcoin mining jobs are technical roles (power technicians, engineers), often filled locally. Mining boosters highlight infrastructure and training investments in rural areas, but critics say those commitments do not always materialize.
Trump’s job-creation claim has a basis, but it has important caveats. An April Perryman Group report confirms tens of thousands of U.S. jobs tied to Bitcoin mining, generating more than $4.1 billion in gross product annually for the U.S. economy.
However, that is a very small slice of total U.S. employment. Those jobs are concentrated in a few energy-rich states and often rely on special power incentives. Analysts say the net economic impact must account for higher energy costs and community concerns.
