What To Know:
- Sacks disputed NYT’s reporting, saying the newspaper pursued a preset narrative and repeatedly shifted allegations after earlier claims were disproven.
- He cited full ethics compliance, including divestments, filings and guidance from the Office of Government Ethics, arguing he had no avenue for personal gain.
- Sacks escalated the dispute legally, releasing a detailed letter from Clare Locke accusing the NYT of mischaracterizing facts and implying conflicts without evidence.
David Sacks, the White House official heading artificial intelligence and crypto policy, has pushed back sharply against reporting by The New York Times that questioned if he had conflicts of interest during his time as a Special Government Employee. The conflict escalated after Sacks published a detailed account of his interactions with Times reporters and released a letter from his legal team accusing the media house of misrepresenting his conduct.
David Sacks Fires Back at NYT Claims
The NYT started reviewing his role five months earlier by what Sacks called a predetermined effort to uncover ethical lapses tied to his background in the technology sector. A group of reporters repeatedly approached him with a series of questions. Each one, he said, focused around possible conflicts related to business relationships, policymaking influence or personal gain. Sacks says he addressed each accusation with documentation and explanations, only to have the reporters turn their attention to new claims.
He has accused the newspaper of relying on anecdotes, unverified tips and assumptions. In his posts, he pointed to what he called a fabricated description of a private dinner with a major technology CEO. Another claim suggested he had provided irregular access to President Donald Trump. A third alleged that he played a role in steering defense-related opportunities to a company with ties to his venture portfolio. Sacks said each claim collapsed once his team presented evidence showing the events did not occur or that his financial interests had already been divested under the requirements of his ethics agreements.
Sacks emphasized that he served the administration under the formal category of Special Government Employee, a designation that allows private-sector experts to work in government provided they follow strict disclosure and divestment rules. He said he completed the necessary filings with the Office of Government Ethics, obtained written guidance, and sold stakes in several companies at personal financial cost. His view is that these steps eliminated the possibility of personal benefit from AI or cryptocurrency policy decisions made at the White House.
The Times later published its story, which Sacks described as lacking in substance. He argued that the reporting stitched together unrelated episodes while ignoring explanations provided by his representatives. Sacks stated that the result reflected a pattern of pursuing a storyline rather than assessing evidence. He said that after months of exchanges, he concluded that the process had become adversarial and one-directional.
As the dispute intensified, Sacks retained the law firm Clare Locke, which is known for defamation work. He then released the firm’s letter to the Times, asserting that the newspaper disregarded established facts, overlooked corrections and continued searching for conflicts after earlier theories had been disproven. The letter highlights several occasions when reporters were informed that Sacks had pulled out of companies mentioned in their investigations or had no role in government procurement decisions.
The article claims reporters persisted in implying unethical behavior despite evidence to the contrary. It was that Sacks, in his comments to the Times in a number of public forums, wanted to provide his readers with full details about his conversations with the Times before calling into question the paper’s reporting. He would also continue fighting for US leadership in emerging technologies and also not let the paper’s shoddy reporting eclipse the work around policy initiatives being done, he added.
His lawyers said that more action may come based on what the newspaper will do next. Sacks’ lawyers informed the Times that after months of interviews and fact-checking by investigators, the reporters did not come across any conflict of interest and made the theories even more pronounced as claims earlier were disproved. The letter also maintained the Times flouted rules on ethics, bungled the details of events, and followed a story without evidence.
Also Read: Donald Trump’s CFTC Pick Mike Selig Now Closer to Confirmation Vote
