New report examines how David Sacks might profit from Trump administration role

David Sacks’ role as President Donald Trump’s artificial intelligence and crypto czar could turn out well for his investments, but also for his friends. according to a new report The New York Times.

However, Bags shot back in a post on Xin which he described a five-month reporting process in which allegations were “debunked in detail.”

“Today they apparently just threw up their hands and published this nothingburger,” Sacks said. “Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they have strung together a number of anecdotes that do not support the headline.”

This isn’t the first time critics have suggested there may be conflicts of interest between Sacks’ political role and his investments. Senator Elizabeth Warren – a Democrat from Massachusetts – said earlier this year that Sacks “simultaneously leads a company that invests in crypto and directs the nation’s crypto policy,” an “explicit conflict of interest” that would “ordinarily” be prohibited under federal law.

But the NYT story (under the headline “Silicon Valley’s man in the White House takes advantage of himself and his friends,” and attributed to five reporters) appears to offer a more comprehensive picture, with an analysis of his financial disclosures suggesting that of Sacks’ 708 technology investments, 449 are AI companies that could benefit from the policies he supports.

Sacks has received two ethics waivers from the White House stating that he would sell most of his crypto and AI assets. However, the NYT said his public ethics filings do not reveal the remaining value of his crypto and AI investments, nor when he sold the assets he divested.

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at the University of Washington who specializes in government ethics, made similar comments in July after reviewing Sacks’ crypto exemption, telling TechCrunch: “This is bribery.”

The NYT also said that Sacks’ documents classify hundreds of investments as hardware or software, rather than AI, while the companies market themselves as AI companies.

To illustrate Sacks’ “intertwined interests,” the NYT pointed to the July White House summit where Trump unveiled his AI roadmap — White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles reportedly intervened to prevent the All-In podcast (which Sacks co-hosts) from becoming the sole host of the event. And All-In asked potential sponsors to pay $1 million for access to a private reception and other events, the NYT alleged.

The NYT also reported that Sacks became close to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang this spring and has played a role in lifting restrictions on Nvidia chip sales around the world, including in China.

Right-wing media personality and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon (who is… made no secret (due to his hostility toward some of Trump’s allies in Silicon Valley) said Sacks is emblematic of an administration in which “the tech bros are spiraling out of control.”

Sacks’ spokesperson Jessica Hoffman told the NYT that “this conflict of interest story is false.” Hoffman said Sacks has complied with rules for special government employees, that the Office of Government Ethics determined which investments he should sell, and that his role in government has cost him rather than benefited him.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston said Sacks has been “invaluable to President Trump’s agenda to strengthen America’s technology dominance.”

Sacks’s post in response to the NYT includes a letter to the newspaper from Clare Locke, a law firm that hired Sacks, claiming that the reporters were given “clear marching orders: find and report on a conflict of interest between Mr. Sacks’ duties in the White House and his background in the private technology sector.”

The letter also addresses some details of the NYT story, including the All-In podcast’s role in the White House AI event. Sacks’ attorneys said the AI ​​summit was a nonprofit event and that the All-In podcast “lost money hosting the event.”

“Two sponsors were brought in to partially cover the costs of the event, for which they received nothing other than logo placement,” the letter said. “There was never access to President Trump and there was never a VIP reception.”