David Sacks’s position as President Donald Trump’s point person on artificial intelligence and crypto might be highly advantageous for his investments, along with those of his inner circle, per a recent report by The New York Times.
However, Sacks responded sharply in an X post, referring to a five-month reporting period during which claims were “debunked in detail.”
“Today, they apparently just gave up and released this nothing burger,” Sacks stated. “Anyone who carefully examines the article will notice that they combined a series of unconnected events that do not support the title.”
This is not the first time that critics have implied a potential conflict of interest between Sacks’s political responsibilities and his financial holdings. For instance, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat representing Massachusetts, stated earlier this year that Sacks “simultaneously heads a company invested in crypto while advising the nation on crypto policy,” a clear “conflict of interest” that would “typically” be prohibited by federal regulations.
But the NYT’s article (titled “Silicon Valley’s Man in the White House is Benefiting Himself and His Friends,” and attributed to five reporters) appears to present a more in-depth perspective, with an examination of his financial disclosures indicating that among Sacks’s 708 tech investments, 449 are AI firms that could gain from the policies he advocates.
Sacks has been granted two White House ethics waivers stipulating that he would sell the majority of his crypto and AI assets. However, the NYT noted that his publicly available ethics documents do not reveal the remaining value of his crypto and AI investments, nor do they specify when he disposed of the assets he divested.
Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University specializing in government ethics, echoed similar sentiments in July after reviewing Sacks’s crypto waiver, telling TechCrunch, “This is corruption.”
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
The NYT also mentioned that Sacks’s filings categorize hundreds of investments as hardware or software, rather than AI, even though the companies promote themselves as AI businesses in their marketing materials.
To exemplify Sacks’s “intertwined interests,” the NYT highlighted the White House summit in July where Trump revealed his AI strategy. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles reportedly intervened to prevent the All-In podcast (which Sacks co-hosts) from being the exclusive host of the event. The NYT also alleged that All-In solicited potential sponsors to contribute $1 million for access to a private reception and other activities.
The NYT further reported that Sacks developed a close relationship with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang this spring and has been instrumental in easing restrictions on Nvidia chip sales globally, including in China.
Right-wing media figure and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon (who has openly expressed his hostility toward some of Trump’s Silicon Valley allies) stated that Sacks represents an administration where “the tech bros are out of control.”
Sacks’s spokesperson, Jessica Hoffman, informed the NYT that “this conflict of interest narrative is untrue.” Hoffman stated that Sacks has followed the regulations for special government employees, that the Office of Government Ethics determined which investments he was required to sell, and that his government service has cost him money rather than benefited him.
White House spokesperson Liz Huston stated that Sacks has been “an invaluable asset for President Trump’s objective of solidifying American technological leadership.”
Sacks’s response to the NYT includes a letter to the newspaper from Clare Locke, a law firm engaged by Sacks, asserting that the reporters were given “clear instructions: to identify and report on a conflict of interest between Mr. Sacks’s responsibilities in the White House and his experience in the private technology sector.”
The letter also addresses specific points in the NYT article, including the All-In podcast’s involvement in the White House AI event. Sacks’s attorneys claimed that the AI summit was a non-profit event and that the All-In podcast “lost money hosting the event.”
“Two sponsors were brought in to assist in partially offsetting the event’s costs, for which they received only logo placements,” the letter stated. “No access to President Trump was ever offered, and no VIP reception ever occurred.”
