David Sacks Pushes Back Against New Conflict of Interest Claims in White House AI and Crypto Role

David Sacks has pushed back against a recent New York Times investigation that questioned whether his work as the White House’s AI and crypto czar overlaps improperly with his background as a prominent tech investor. In a statement posted on X, Sacks said the paper spent months trying to connect him to conflicts of interest and failed to produce evidence that supported its claims.

According to Sacks, five Times reporters began looking into the issue over the summer. He said the team cycled through several theories as their earlier claims were challenged. Sacks argued that the published article, titled "Silicon Valley’s Man in the White House Is Benefiting Himself and His Friends," relies on anecdotes that do not match the headline.

The Times report detailed several areas where Sacks allegedly stood to gain. These included support for easing chip export rules, interest in an AI chip deal with the United Arab Emirates, and backing for legislation known as the GENIUS Act, which the article said could benefit a company in his investment portfolio. The piece also noted concerns about how his government role may have raised the profile of his "All-In" podcast.

Sacks has previously said he sold a large amount of cryptocurrency and other assets before the Trump administration took office in January. The Times report, however, suggested his formal disclosures may not have captured the full scope of his remaining investments.

In his response, Sacks said the accusations were misplaced.

"Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that do not support the headline," he wrote.

As the reporting moved forward, Sacks hired defamation law firm Clare Locke. The firm sent a detailed letter to the Times accusing the outlet of mischaracterizing his actions and overlooking ethics guidance that had already cleared him. The letter said Sacks submitted all required financial disclosures upon joining the administration as a Special Government Employee. It added that he received two ethics letters, one addressing AI and another addressing cryptocurrency, following agency review.

Clare Locke argued that the Times incorrectly implied Sacks went without an AI ethics letter for a time and may have shaped policy without proper clearance. The firm also disputed claims that additional disclosures were required because of investments tied to AI or crypto. According to the letter, Sacks met all obligations set by the Office of Government Ethics and no officials flagged conflicts of interest in either policy area.

The letter also rejected suggestions that Sacks promoted policies benefiting companies connected to his venture investments. It said he had already divested from relevant holdings within the required timeframes and that allegations of influence over procurement or specific tech firms were baseless.

Sacks said the Times shifted focus whenever earlier claims fell apart, which he argued explained why the reporting stretched over five months. He called the final article a "nothing burger" and published the Clare Locke letter to give readers full context.

In closing, the letter urged the Times to reconsider its claims, warning that continuing down the same path would signal a disregard for accuracy. Sacks said the newspaper ignored key facts and misrepresented the situation.