new report examines how david sacks might profit from trump administration role

David Sacks and Potential Conflicts of Interest

Recent reporting by The New York Times suggests that David Sacks’ position as an advisor to President Donald Trump on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency matters may be advantageous to his personal investments and those of his associates.

Sacks’ Response to the Report

Mr. Sacks refuted the claims in a statement posted on X, asserting that a five-month investigation yielded accusations that were thoroughly disproven. He characterized the published article as lacking substance and relying on unsubstantiated anecdotes.

Previous Concerns Raised

This is not the initial instance of scrutiny regarding potential conflicts between Sacks’ governmental duties and his investment portfolio. Earlier this year, Senator Elizabeth Warren, representing Massachusetts, highlighted that Sacks concurrently manages a firm with significant cryptocurrency holdings while simultaneously shaping national crypto policy.

The New York Times Investigation

The NYT’s investigation, attributed to five reporters, presents a detailed analysis of Sacks’ financial disclosures. It reveals that out of his 708 tech investments, a substantial 449 are in companies focused on AI, potentially benefiting from the policies he advocates.

Ethics Waivers and Disclosure Gaps

While Sacks has obtained two White House ethics waivers authorizing the sale of a majority of his crypto and AI assets, the NYT points out that his public filings do not reveal the current value of his remaining investments. Furthermore, the filings lack specifics regarding the timing of the asset divestitures.

Expert Commentary on Ethics

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University specializing in government ethics, previously described the situation as “graft” following a review of Sacks’ crypto waiver in July.

Classification of Investments

The NYT also noted that Sacks’ filings categorize numerous investments as general hardware or software, despite the companies actively promoting themselves as AI-driven businesses.

White House Summit and All-In Podcast

Illustrating the perceived interconnectedness of Sacks’ interests, the NYT reported an incident at a White House AI summit. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, intervened to prevent the All-In podcast – co-hosted by Sacks – from being the sole host of the event.

Sponsorship and Funding

The All-In podcast reportedly sought $1 million from potential sponsors for access to a private reception and related events during the summit, according to the NYT’s reporting.

Nvidia and International Chip Sales

The NYT further alleges that Sacks has fostered a close relationship with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and has been instrumental in easing restrictions on Nvidia chip sales globally, including to China.

Criticism from Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor and right-wing media figure, characterized Sacks as representative of an administration where “the tech bros are out of control.”

Sacks’ Defense

Jessica Hoffman, Sacks’ spokesperson, asserted that the conflict of interest narrative is inaccurate. She stated that Sacks has fully complied with regulations for special government employees and that the Office of Government Ethics determined which investments required divestment.

White House Support

Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, affirmed that Sacks has been “an invaluable asset for President Trump’s agenda of cementing American technology dominance.”

Legal Challenge to the Reporting

Sacks engaged the law firm Clare Locke, who sent a letter to The New York Times, alleging that reporters were given a directive to uncover a conflict of interest between Sacks’ White House role and his private sector background.

Details Regarding the AI Summit

Sacks’ legal team clarified that the AI summit was a non-profit event and that the All-In podcast incurred a financial loss hosting it. They stated that two sponsors contributed to offset costs in exchange for logo placement only.

Access and Reception Claims

The letter explicitly denied that access to President Trump was offered or that a VIP reception took place.