Trump’s AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks Slams The New York Times for Sensationalist Reporting

David Sacks, the newly appointed AI and cryptocurrency advisor to the Trump administration, just took a public swing at The New York Times. His target? What he calls a descent into click-driven sensationalism that undermines serious journalism.

The Core of the Critique

Sacks didn't mince words. He argues that the pursuit of viral headlines and engagement metrics has led venerable institutions to prioritize alarmism over nuanced analysis. For a figure now steering policy at the intersection of artificial intelligence and digital assets, this isn't just media criticism—it's a warning about the information ecosystem shaping public understanding of critical technologies.

A Finance Veteran's Perspective

Coming from a seasoned venture capitalist and tech operator, the jab carries extra weight. Sacks implies that the media's hunger for drama creates market noise, distracting from substantive developments. It's the kind of short-term thinking that makes traders rich and gives long-term investors ulcers—another case of Wall Street's favorite game: profiting from the chaos they help create.

The stakes here are concrete. Clear, accurate reporting on AI and crypto regulations directly impacts innovation and investment. When major outlets trade credibility for clicks, everyone loses—except maybe the hedge funds betting on the resulting volatility.

Sacks's message is blunt: In the age of algorithmic feeds and financialized attention, even the gray lady isn't immune to the lure of a cheap headline. The question now is who will hold the narrative accountable.

NYT article triggers Sacks

The New York Times recently shared a report detailing how Sacks’ government advisory role could benefit him and those around him, and Sacks was not impressed. 

In a post on X, Sacks claimed that despite having “debunked in detail” several similar allegations from the Times over the past five months, the outlet has continued to talk about his supposed conflicts of interest.

According to Sacks, the accusations have ranged from a fabricated dinner with a leading tech CEO to nonexistent promises of access to the President, and baseless claims of influencing defense contracts, a fact they often gloss over in their reporting. 

“Every time we WOULD prove an accusation false, NYT pivoted to the next allegation. This is why the story has dragged on for five months,” Sacks wrote. “Today they evidently just threw up their hands and published this nothing burger. Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don’t support the headline. And of course, that was the whole point.” 

The NYT has drawn attention to Sacks’ history as a co-founder and partner at the venture firm Craft Ventures, and his special government employee role at the WHITE House. 

The issue has also drawn scrutiny in the past, with Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren saying in May that he is “financially invested in the crypto industry, positioning him to potentially profit from the crypto policy changes he makes at the White House.”

Never mind that before he became crypto czar, Sacks and Craft divested over $200 million in crypto and crypto-tied stocks, at least $85 million of which Sacks owned, with the White czar only retaining an interest in several illiquid investments of “private equity of digital asset-related companies.”

That retention has been brought up by the NYT, which has reported that its analysis of Sacks’ financial disclosure found he has retained 708 tech investments, 449 of which are AI-related and 20 are tied to crypto, all of which could benefit from the policies Sacks supports.

The Times has also noted that Sacks’ ethics waivers, which were shared in March, stated he would sell his interests in AI and crypto; however, they don’t disclose the timing of the sale and do not detail the value of his remaining investments.

Sacks plans to defend himself 

As far as Sacks is concerned, the NYT is unrepentant and “at no point in their constant goalpost-shifting” have they been “willing to update the premise of their story” to reflect that he has no conflicts of interest to uncover. 

Sacks says he has hired the law firm Clare Locke, which specializes in defamation law, and he attached Clare Locke’s letter to the NYT so readers can have full context on their interactions with NYT’s reporters over the past several months. 

In his post, Sacks also accused the outlet of setting out “to write a hit piece” and giving their reporters “clear marching orders” to find conflicts of interest.

“Once you read the letter, it becomes very clear how NYT willfully mischaracterized or ignored the facts to support their bogus narrative,” he wrote. 

The attacks persist, he says, even though his spokesperson Jessica Hoffman has told the Times that he has complied with rules for special government employees, and the Office of Government Ethics has given him the opportunity to sell his investments in certain types of companies but not others.

Sacks’ post on X about the recent “nothing burger” posted by the NYT has triggered a discourse on biased mainstream journalism and its dangers, and some industry leaders have weighed in. 

Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong, quoting Sacks’ post, wrote: “The NYT is a political propaganda machine, selling anger to unhealthy people, more than anything approaching real journalism at this point. Which is a shame, because real journalism can actually be quite valuable.” 

In the end, he concluded that “one of the best gifts you can give your friends and family this holiday season is to unsubscribe from the NYT.” 

If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.