Marketdash
Back to News

White House Crypto Czar David Sacks Fires Back at Conflict-of-Interest Claims, Calls Report 'Nothing Burger'

MarketDash Editorial Team
7 days ago
David Sacks is pushing back hard against a New York Times investigation that questions whether his advisory role benefits his tech investments, hiring a defamation law firm and accusing the outlet of deliberately mischaracterizing facts.

Sacks Unloads on the Times

David Sacks, the White House AI and crypto czar, is not happy with the New York Times. In a series of posts on X, he tore into a Sunday report questioning whether his advisory position might conveniently benefit his own investment portfolio and those of his Silicon Valley friends.

According to Sacks, he spent five months debunking the Times' allegations before the paper just gave up and published what he calls a "nothing burger" anyway.

"Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don't support the headline," Sacks wrote.

He rejected specific claims in the report, including what he described as a "fabricated dinner" with a top tech CEO and "unfounded claims" about manipulating defense contracts. His account suggests a pattern where each time he disproved one allegation, the Times simply pivoted to a new one, dragging the story out over months.

Sacks escalated the dispute by retaining Clare Locke, a law firm that specializes in defamation cases. He shared the firm's letter to the Times, which argues the outlet "deliberately misrepresented or omitted facts to advance its narrative." That's lawyer-speak for: we think you're making stuff up, and we're ready to sue about it.

What the Times Actually Reported

The Sunday article laid out concerns about potential conflicts between Sacks' policy work and his financial interests. The report claimed Sacks has used White House access to benefit tech companies, particularly AI firms like Nvidia Corp. (NVDA), which could see up to $200 billion in sales influenced by policy decisions.

Here's the thorny part: Sacks' AI policy recommendations have reportedly clashed with national security advice at times, raising eyebrows among his colleagues. And financial disclosures reveal he holds 708 tech investments, including at least 449 in AI-related firms. That's a lot of potential overlap between job duties and personal wealth.

Congress Wants Answers Too

This isn't just a media dustup. Senator Elizabeth Warren raised concerns back in September that Sacks might be extending his 130-day term specifically to influence cryptocurrency policy. Warren, along with Rep. Melanie Stansbury and Sen. Bernie Sanders, launched an investigation into what they're calling potential Trump administration corruption related to Sacks' tenure.

The core question is simple but important: Can someone with hundreds of investments in AI and crypto make unbiased policy decisions about AI and crypto? Sacks clearly thinks the answer is yes, and that the Times is manufacturing controversy. The Times, for its part, seems to think there's enough smoke to keep looking for fire.

Back to News

White House Crypto Czar David Sacks Fires Back at Conflict-of-Interest Claims, Calls Report 'Nothing Burger'

MarketDash Editorial Team
7 days ago
David Sacks is pushing back hard against a New York Times investigation that questions whether his advisory role benefits his tech investments, hiring a defamation law firm and accusing the outlet of deliberately mischaracterizing facts.

Sacks Unloads on the Times

David Sacks, the White House AI and crypto czar, is not happy with the New York Times. In a series of posts on X, he tore into a Sunday report questioning whether his advisory position might conveniently benefit his own investment portfolio and those of his Silicon Valley friends.

According to Sacks, he spent five months debunking the Times' allegations before the paper just gave up and published what he calls a "nothing burger" anyway.

"Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don't support the headline," Sacks wrote.

He rejected specific claims in the report, including what he described as a "fabricated dinner" with a top tech CEO and "unfounded claims" about manipulating defense contracts. His account suggests a pattern where each time he disproved one allegation, the Times simply pivoted to a new one, dragging the story out over months.

Sacks escalated the dispute by retaining Clare Locke, a law firm that specializes in defamation cases. He shared the firm's letter to the Times, which argues the outlet "deliberately misrepresented or omitted facts to advance its narrative." That's lawyer-speak for: we think you're making stuff up, and we're ready to sue about it.

What the Times Actually Reported

The Sunday article laid out concerns about potential conflicts between Sacks' policy work and his financial interests. The report claimed Sacks has used White House access to benefit tech companies, particularly AI firms like Nvidia Corp. (NVDA), which could see up to $200 billion in sales influenced by policy decisions.

Here's the thorny part: Sacks' AI policy recommendations have reportedly clashed with national security advice at times, raising eyebrows among his colleagues. And financial disclosures reveal he holds 708 tech investments, including at least 449 in AI-related firms. That's a lot of potential overlap between job duties and personal wealth.

Congress Wants Answers Too

This isn't just a media dustup. Senator Elizabeth Warren raised concerns back in September that Sacks might be extending his 130-day term specifically to influence cryptocurrency policy. Warren, along with Rep. Melanie Stansbury and Sen. Bernie Sanders, launched an investigation into what they're calling potential Trump administration corruption related to Sacks' tenure.

The core question is simple but important: Can someone with hundreds of investments in AI and crypto make unbiased policy decisions about AI and crypto? Sacks clearly thinks the answer is yes, and that the Times is manufacturing controversy. The Times, for its part, seems to think there's enough smoke to keep looking for fire.