According to Gizmodo, a November 30, 2025 New York Times report revealed that David Sacks, serving as a top advisor on AI and crypto to the Trump administration, holds over 430 personal investments in those exact sectors. The report detailed how the venture capitalist has facilitated unprecedented White House access for tech executives and attempted to profit from his administration ties. In response, Sacks called the story a “hoax” and posted a legal letter challenging the Times’ reporting. High-profile figures like Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and investor Marc Andreessen immediately defended Sacks on X, arguing his success is synonymous with American leadership. Meanwhile, figures like Steve Bannon criticized the “tech bros” as being “out of control,” highlighting a growing populist versus corporatist rift within the MAGA movement.
The “So What?” Defense
Here’s the thing about the Silicon Valley counter-offensive: it almost completely sidesteps the core issue. The Times’ central premise isn’t that investing in AI is bad. It’s that having a person who is actively, personally invested in hundreds of AI and crypto companies also be the guy shaping federal policy for those industries is a textbook conflict of interest. The defense from Benioff, Andreessen, and others basically boils down to, “But America needs to win!” And that’s a compelling, patriotic-sounding argument. But it’s also a total non-sequitur. It doesn’t address the mechanism. It just assumes that the person with the most skin in the game is the right person to write the rules. That’s a hell of an assumption.
A Totem For A Split
What’s getting lost in the tech-bro pile-on is that Sacks isn’t just any VC. He’s become a totem for a major internal fight. On one side, you have the corporatist, self-dealing rich guys like Sacks who bankrolled Trump’s return. On the other, you have the more populist, America-First wing led by people like Steve Bannon, who told the Times the “tech bros are out of control.” They see Sacks as the epitome of everything wrong with the swamp—a guy who bought access and is now using his government role to protect and enhance his portfolio. This isn’t just about journalism ethics. It’s a power struggle, with upcoming battles like the National Defense Authorization Act, which might block states from regulating AI, serving as the next proxy war. If that passes, it’s a huge win for Sacks and his portfolio companies.
The Media Circus Response
And then you had the All-In podcast crew chiming in, which was… predictable. Chamath Palihapitiya’s “Private Equity Wife of newspapers” jab is nonsense, but at least it’s creative nonsense. Jason Calacanis dreaming about a hostile takeover of the NYT with his friends’ money is just sad. Who’s “we,” Jason? But the weirdest response might have been from Axios’s Dan Primack, who called the report a “nothingburger” because it just confirmed what everyone in the bubble already knew. That’s a wild critique! Basically, he’s saying the story is true but old news to insiders, which is an admission that this conflict is just business as usual in their world. And that’s the real story. To them, this level of self-dealing isn’t a scandal; it’s the system working as designed.
The Unasked Question
Look, Primack accidentally nailed one point: it’s nearly impossible to be an active VC and not have AI investments. That’s true. But so what? That’s not a defense of Sacks. It’s the strongest argument *against* appointing an active VC to this role in the first place. The implied solution from his defenders is that we just shouldn’t care about conflicts. But there’s another, simpler solution: don’t put someone with 430 relevant investments in charge of policy. The fact that this isn’t even part of the conversation in Silicon Valley tells you everything. They’ve fully internalized the idea that their financial interests and the national interest are one and the same. That’s a dangerous, and incredibly convenient, fiction.
