New analysis explores the potential ways David Sacks could benefit financially from a position in the Trump administration

Scrutiny Over David Sacks’ White House Role and Investments

A recent New York Times article suggests that David Sacks, serving as President Donald Trump’s lead on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, could see personal and professional benefits from his government position, potentially extending those advantages to his associates.

Sacks, however, responded on X, criticizing the lengthy investigation and asserting that the allegations had been thoroughly disproven. He remarked, “Today they apparently gave up and published a story with no substance. Anyone reading closely will notice the anecdotes don’t support the headline.”

Concerns About Conflicts of Interest

Questions about possible conflicts between Sacks’ political responsibilities and his private investments are not new. Earlier this year, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts raised concerns, noting that Sacks manages a firm with crypto holdings while also shaping national crypto policy—a situation she described as a clear conflict of interest that would typically be barred by federal regulations.

The New York Times article, titled “Silicon Valley’s Man in the White House is Benefiting Himself and His Friends,” delves into Sacks’ financial disclosures. Their analysis indicates that out of his 708 technology investments, 449 are in AI companies that could stand to gain from policies he supports.

Ethics Waivers and Disclosure Issues

Sacks has reportedly received two ethics waivers from the White House, requiring him to divest most of his crypto and AI holdings. However, the Times notes that his public filings do not reveal the current value of his remaining assets or specify when he sold those he divested.

Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert at Washington University, reviewed Sacks’ crypto waiver and described the situation as “graft” in comments to TechCrunch.

The Times also points out that Sacks’ disclosures often categorize hundreds of investments as hardware or software, even though the companies themselves market their products as AI-driven.

Events and Relationships Highlighted

To demonstrate the overlap between Sacks’ interests, the Times references a July White House summit where Trump introduced his AI strategy. Reportedly, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles intervened to prevent the All-In podcast, co-hosted by Sacks, from being the sole host. The Times also claims that All-In solicited $1 million from potential sponsors for exclusive access to private events during the summit.

Additionally, the article states that Sacks developed a close relationship with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang earlier this year and has influenced the easing of restrictions on Nvidia chip sales globally, including to China.

Criticism and Defense

Steve Bannon, a conservative media figure and former Trump adviser, commented that Sacks represents an administration where “the tech bros are out of control.”

Jessica Hoffman, Sacks’ spokesperson, told the Times that the narrative of a conflict of interest is unfounded. She emphasized that Sacks has adhered to all regulations for special government employees, divested assets as directed by the Office of Government Ethics, and that his government service has come at a personal cost.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston described Sacks as “an invaluable asset for President Trump’s agenda of cementing American technology dominance.”

Sacks’ Legal Response

In his response to the Times, Sacks included a letter from the law firm Clare Locke, which he retained. The letter alleges that reporters were instructed to uncover a conflict of interest between Sacks’ White House duties and his private sector background.

The letter also addresses the All-In podcast’s involvement in the White House AI event, stating that the summit was a nonprofit initiative and that the podcast incurred financial losses from hosting. According to the letter, two sponsors contributed to partially offset event costs, receiving only logo placement in return. It further asserts that no special access to President Trump was offered and no VIP reception occurred.