A new report examines how David Sachs could benefit from the Trump administration’s role

David Sachs’s role as President Donald Trump’s AI and cryptocurrency chief could be very good for his investments, as well as his friends, according to a new New York Times report.

However, Sachs responded in a post on X, where he described the five-month reporting process in which the accusations were “debunked” in detail.

“They obviously raised their hand today and popularized this burger,” Sacks said. “Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that it has gathered together a collection of anecdotes that do not support the main headline.”

This is not the first time critics have pointed out a potential conflict of interest between Sachs’s political role and his investments. For example, Senator Elizabeth Warren — a Democrat from Massachusetts — said earlier this year that Sachs “simultaneously leads a company that invests in cryptocurrencies while directing the nation’s cryptocurrency policy,” an “explicit conflict of interest” that would “ordinarily” be prohibited under federal law.

But a New York Times story (titled “Silicon Valley Man in White House Benefits Himself and Friends,” which was attributed to five of the reporters on the list) appears to offer a more comprehensive view, with an analysis of his financial disclosures suggesting that of Sachs’s 708 technology investments, 449 are AI companies that could benefit from the policies he supports.

Sachs received two ethics waivers from the White House announcing that he would sell most of his cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence assets. However, the New York Times said his public ethics filings do not reveal the remaining value of his investments in cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence, nor do they say when he sold the assets he gave away.

Kathleen Clark, a University of Washington law professor who specializes in government ethics, made similar points in July after reviewing Sachs’ cryptocurrency waiver, telling TechCrunch: “This is a scam.”

The New York Times also said that the Sachs Files classify hundreds of investments as hardware or software, not as artificial intelligence, while the companies promote themselves as AI companies in their marketing.

To illustrate Sachs’ “overlapping interests,” the New York Times pointed to the White House summit in July where Trump unveiled his AI roadmap — and where White House chief of staff Susie Wiles reportedly intervened to prevent the All-In (which Sachs is co-hosting) from being the event’s sole host. The New York Times claimed that All-In asked potential sponsors to pay $1 million in exchange for access to a private reception and other events.

The New York Times also reported that Sachs became close to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang this spring and played a role in removing restrictions on Nvidia chip sales around the world, including in China.

Steve Bannon, the right-wing media personality and former Trump adviser (who has made no secret of his animosity toward some of Trump’s allies in Silicon Valley), said that Sachs symbolizes an administration in which “the tech bros are spiraling out of control.”

“This conflict of interest story is false,” Saks spokeswoman Jessica Hoffman told the New York Times. Hoffman said that Sachs complied with rules about private government employees, that the Office of Government Ethics determined which investments he had to sell, and that his role in government cost him, rather than benefited him.

White House spokeswoman Liz Houston said Sachs was “an invaluable asset to President Trump’s agenda to advance American technology dominance.”

Sachs’s response to The New York Times includes a letter written to the newspaper from Clear Locke, a law firm hired by Sachs, alleging that reporters were given “clear orders to take action: to find and report on a conflict of interest between Mr. Sachs’ duties in the White House and his background in the private technology sector.”

The letter also addresses some details of the New York Times story, including the All-In podcast’s role in the White House AI event. Sacks’ lawyers said the AI ​​Summit was a non-profit event, and that the All-In podcast “lost money hosting the event.”

“Two sponsors were hired to help partially defray the cost of the event and received nothing other than logo placement,” the letter read. “No contact with President Trump was ever permitted, and no VIP reception was ever held.”