David Sachs’ role as President Donald Trump’s artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency czar could work out very well for his investments and friends, according to a new report in the New York Times.
But Sachs fired back in a post on X in which he described a five-month reporting process in which the accusations were “debunked in detail.”
“Today they obviously just threw up their hands and put this nothing burger out there,” Sachs said. “If you read the article carefully, you’ll see that they’ve pieced together a lot of anecdotes that don’t support the headline.”
This is not the first time critics have suggested there may be a conflict of interest between Mr. Sachs’ political role and investments. For example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said earlier this year that Sachs is “guiding the nation’s crypto policy while at the same time leading a company that invests in cryptocurrencies,” an “explicit conflict of interest” that would “normally” be prohibited by federal law.
But the NYT article (headlined “Silicon Valley’s White House Man Benefits Himself and His Friends” and written by five byline reporters) appears to offer a more comprehensive view, with an analysis of his financial disclosures suggesting that of Sachs’ 708 technology investments, 449 are AI companies that could benefit from the policies he supports.
Sachs has vowed to sell most of his crypto and AI assets and has twice received White House ethics waivers. However, the New York Times said his public ethics filing did not disclose the residual value of his investments in cryptocurrencies and AI, nor did it say when he sold the assets he sold.
Kathleen Clark, a law professor at the University of Washington who specializes in government ethics, made a similar point in July after considering Sachs’ abandonment of cryptocurrencies, telling TechCrunch, “This is graft.”
tech crunch event
san francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
The NYT also said that while Sachs’ filing classifies hundreds of investments as hardware or software rather than AI, both companies tout themselves as AI businesses in their marketing.
To explain Sachs’ “intertwined interests,” the NYT pointed to the July White House summit where Trump announced his AI roadmap. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles reportedly intervened to prevent the podcast All-In (of which Sacks co-hosts) from becoming the sole host. All In then asked potential sponsors to pay $1 million for access to private receptions and other events, the NYT claimed.
The NYT also reported that Sachs became close to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang this spring and was instrumental in lifting restrictions on the sale of Nvidia chips around the world, including in China.
Steve Bannon, a right-wing media personality and former Trump adviser who has made no secret of his animosity toward some of Trump’s Silicon Valley allies, said Sachs was emblematic of an administration whose “tech bros are out of control.”
“This statement of a conflict of interest is false,” Saks spokeswoman Jessica Hoffman told the New York Times. Mr. Hoffman said that Mr. Sachs complied with special civil servant rules, that the Office of Government Ethics determined which investments Mr. Sachs had to sell, and that his role in the government suffered rather than benefited him.
White House press secretary Liz Houston said Sachs is an “invaluable asset to President Trump’s agenda to solidify America’s technological dominance.”
Mr. Sachs’ post in response to the NYT included a letter written to the paper from Claire Locke, the law firm he hired, alleging that reporters had been given “clear marching orders to identify and report conflicts of interest between their work at the White House and their careers in the private technology sector.”
The letter also addresses details from the NYT article, including the All-In podcast’s role in the White House AI event. Sacks’ attorney said the AI Summit was a nonprofit event and that All In Podcast “lost funding by hosting the event.”
“Two sponsors were hired to cover a portion of the event costs, but all they received in return was the appearance of their logo,” the letter said. “No access was provided to President Trump, and no VIP reception was held.”
