Marketdash
Back to News

Silicon Valley's Elite Rally Behind David Sacks After Conflict of Interest Claims

MarketDash Editorial Team
6 days ago
White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks is drawing fierce defense from tech heavyweights including Bill Ackman and Marc Andreessen, who dismiss conflict allegations as baseless attacks on public service.

When David Sacks, the White House's AI and Crypto Czar, called a recent New York Times investigation a "nothing burger" from the paper's "hoax factory," he wasn't left to fight alone. Silicon Valley's power players quickly formed ranks around him, reframing what critics see as conflicts of interest into what supporters call patriotic sacrifice.

The Valley Closes Ranks

Marc Andreessen, general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, led the charge by casting Sacks as "a throwback to the era of American greatness." His argument? Sacks is volunteering for "a dollar a day" when the country needs him most. Bill Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square, kept his endorsement simple but effective: "Agreed."

The support extended beyond the venture capital crowd. Greg Brockman, President and Co-Founder of OpenAI, thanked Sacks for his service, highlighting his "deep integrity and resilience." Brockman's take gets at something interesting—maintaining U.S. leadership in cutting-edge technology requires people who actually understand the technology. And those people, almost by definition, are going to have skin in the game.

Questioning the Numbers

Some defenders went after the reporting itself. Max Levchin, CEO of Affirm and fellow "PayPal Mafia" member, called the investigation "poor taste," questioning why anyone would manufacture conspiracy theories about someone advising "for free."

Gavin Baker of Atreides Management took a different approach, dissecting the financial math. He zeroed in on a claim that selling 500,000 GPUs to the UAE would generate $200 billion for Nvidia Corp. (NVDA), suggesting the authors needed "remedial math education." Baker's broader point was more nuanced: sure, Sacks has conflicts, but anyone qualified to regulate AI is going to have them. The question is whether they're being managed properly.

Sacks Fires Back

At the heart of the controversy sits Sacks's portfolio of 708 tech investments, including substantial positions in AI and cryptocurrency. Critics argue these holdings could balloon in value based on the very regulations he's crafting from inside the White House.

Sacks pushed back hard, accusing the newspaper of stringing together "a bunch of anecdotes" to fit a predetermined narrative after coming up empty on actual wrongdoing. He pointed to a retracted claim about a "fabricated dinner" with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang as evidence of bad faith reporting. "Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don't support the headline," Sacks argued.

The defense from Silicon Valley's elite reveals an interesting tension. In their view, the most qualified people to regulate emerging technologies are exactly those who've built companies and made investments in those sectors. But that expertise comes packaged with financial interests that can look uncomfortable from the outside. Whether you see this as unavoidable complexity or disqualifying conflict probably depends on where you sit.

Back to News

Silicon Valley's Elite Rally Behind David Sacks After Conflict of Interest Claims

MarketDash Editorial Team
6 days ago
White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks is drawing fierce defense from tech heavyweights including Bill Ackman and Marc Andreessen, who dismiss conflict allegations as baseless attacks on public service.

When David Sacks, the White House's AI and Crypto Czar, called a recent New York Times investigation a "nothing burger" from the paper's "hoax factory," he wasn't left to fight alone. Silicon Valley's power players quickly formed ranks around him, reframing what critics see as conflicts of interest into what supporters call patriotic sacrifice.

The Valley Closes Ranks

Marc Andreessen, general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, led the charge by casting Sacks as "a throwback to the era of American greatness." His argument? Sacks is volunteering for "a dollar a day" when the country needs him most. Bill Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square, kept his endorsement simple but effective: "Agreed."

The support extended beyond the venture capital crowd. Greg Brockman, President and Co-Founder of OpenAI, thanked Sacks for his service, highlighting his "deep integrity and resilience." Brockman's take gets at something interesting—maintaining U.S. leadership in cutting-edge technology requires people who actually understand the technology. And those people, almost by definition, are going to have skin in the game.

Questioning the Numbers

Some defenders went after the reporting itself. Max Levchin, CEO of Affirm and fellow "PayPal Mafia" member, called the investigation "poor taste," questioning why anyone would manufacture conspiracy theories about someone advising "for free."

Gavin Baker of Atreides Management took a different approach, dissecting the financial math. He zeroed in on a claim that selling 500,000 GPUs to the UAE would generate $200 billion for Nvidia Corp. (NVDA), suggesting the authors needed "remedial math education." Baker's broader point was more nuanced: sure, Sacks has conflicts, but anyone qualified to regulate AI is going to have them. The question is whether they're being managed properly.

Sacks Fires Back

At the heart of the controversy sits Sacks's portfolio of 708 tech investments, including substantial positions in AI and cryptocurrency. Critics argue these holdings could balloon in value based on the very regulations he's crafting from inside the White House.

Sacks pushed back hard, accusing the newspaper of stringing together "a bunch of anecdotes" to fit a predetermined narrative after coming up empty on actual wrongdoing. He pointed to a retracted claim about a "fabricated dinner" with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang as evidence of bad faith reporting. "Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don't support the headline," Sacks argued.

The defense from Silicon Valley's elite reveals an interesting tension. In their view, the most qualified people to regulate emerging technologies are exactly those who've built companies and made investments in those sectors. But that expertise comes packaged with financial interests that can look uncomfortable from the outside. Whether you see this as unavoidable complexity or disqualifying conflict probably depends on where you sit.