David Sacks Criticizes NYT Article as 'Misunderstanding' of White House AI and Crypto Czar Role

An attorney representing David Sacks criticized a recent New York Times article, calling it a hit piece and a deliberate misrepresentation of his position as a special government employee advising the Trump Administration on AI and cryptocurrency. The legal team stated that numerous claims in the extensive report are easily refuted.

Sacks shared a copy of the four-page letter from his Virginia-based attorneys to the Times general counsel on X. In his post, he explained that five Times reporters had spent five months investigating alleged conflicts of interest in his White House role. Whenever we disproved one accusation, the NYT simply moved on to another, Sacks wrote, emphasizing the prolonged nature of the reporting.

The Times piece claimed Sacks contributed to the White Houses AI policy while maintaining substantial investments in Silicon Valley companies. According to the report, as an unpaid special government employee, Sacks was allowed to retain certain private business interests while advising the government, providing significant access to tech executives and promoting policies that could benefit major companies like Nvidia by up to $200 billion in potential global sales.

The article outlined Sacks 708 tech investments, including 449 connected to AI, many of which could have profited from policies he supported. The Times noted that his publicly filed ethics disclosures did not fully reveal the value of remaining stakes in crypto and AI firms or when certain assets were sold, making it challenging to assess whether his government service produced financial gain.

The story included statements from both a Sacks spokeswoman and White House spokeswoman Liz Huston, who affirmed that Sacks addressed potential conflicts prior to assuming the position and contributed valuable insights to President Trumps technology agenda.

Sacks, known for co-founding PayPal and other tech ventures alongside figures like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, joined the Trump Administration after the 2024 election while continuing involvement in select projects such as Craft. His attorneys noted that required divestments negatively impacted his personal finances.

Additionally, the Times suggested that some Sacks-supported policies, including selling American-made AI chips abroad, could pose national security concerns. His legal team argued the reporting stemmed from a misunderstanding of the special government employee designation, designed by Congress to allow private-sector experts in government roles. They described the articles narrative as a repeated shift from one weak claim to another.

The letter also refuted claims about any improper relationship with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and contested suggestions that Sacks All-In Podcast pursued financial gain from AI or crypto content, asserting he forfeited any such revenue. It further highlighted a perceived selective focus on Sacks while downplaying similar or greater conflicts involving Democratic advisors like Anita Dunn and Huma Abedin.

The correspondence concluded by urging the Times to retract the story, asserting that months of scrutiny revealed no misconduct and that the reporting was politically motivated rather than based on evidence of conflicts of interest.

Author: Sophia Brooks