Trump’s AI and Crypto Advisor David Sacks Slams New York Times for Sensationalism in 2024
- Why Is David Sacks Calling Out the New York Times?
- The NYT’s Allegations vs. Sacks’ Defense
- Industry Backlash: Crypto Leaders Side With Sacks
- What’s Next for Sacks and Media Accountability?
- FAQs: David Sacks vs. NYT Controversy
In a fiery critique that’s gone viral, David Sacks—former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and now Trump’s appointed AI and crypto advisor—has accused the New York Times of prioritizing sensationalism over factual reporting. The controversy stems from a recent NYT article alleging Sacks’ potential conflicts of interest due to his tech investments. Sacks fired back, calling the piece a “nothingburger” and revealing he’s hired a defamation law firm to set the record straight. Here’s the full breakdown of the clash, Sacks’ rebuttal, and why this debate matters for media credibility in the crypto space.
Why Is David Sacks Calling Out the New York Times?
David Sacks isn’t mincing words. In a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter), he accused the NYT of a five-month “witch hunt” where reporters allegedly shifted accusations whenever he debunked their claims. The latest article suggested his government role could benefit his private investments in AI and crypto—a claim Sacks says is baseless. “Every time we refuted one allegation, they pivoted to another,” he wrote. “Today, they just published this garbage.”
The NYT’s piece highlighted Sacks’ past as a co-founder of Craft Ventures, a VC firm, and noted his retained stakes in 708 tech holdings (449 tied to AI, 20 to crypto). While Sacks disclosed plans to divest these in ethics filings, the Times questioned the timeline and transparency. But Sacks argues the article ignored key context: his sales of $200M+ in crypto assets before joining the WHITE House and clearance from the Office of Government Ethics.
The NYT’s Allegations vs. Sacks’ Defense
The heart of the dispute? Whether Sacks’ investments create conflicts. The NYT cited Senator Elizabeth Warren’s May 2024 remarks that Sacks could “profit from crypto policies he influences.” But Sacks’ team counters that he’s complied with all ethics rules—selling liquid assets while keeping illiquid private equity stakes, which are harder to offload. His spokesperson, Jessica Hoffman, told the Times he’s “followed every requirement for special government employees.”
Sacks also claims the NYT omitted his detailed rebuttals, like disproving a supposed “secret dinner” with a tech CEO. “They’ve ignored facts to fit their narrative,” he said, attaching a legal letter from Clare Locke LLP, a top defamation firm. The letter reportedly outlines how NYT reporters “cherry-picked” anecdotes without proving systemic conflicts.
Industry Backlash: Crypto Leaders Side With Sacks
The drama has sparked wider criticism of mainstream media’s crypto coverage. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong tweeted: “The NYT sells outrage, not journalism. It’s sad—real reporting has value.” Others in crypto circles echoed the sentiment, with some joking about canceling NYT subscriptions as “Christmas gifts.”
Notably, the NYT has faced prior accusations of anti-crypto bias, like its 2023 coverage of Sam Bankman-Fried that some called overly credulous. Sacks’ case adds fuel to claims that legacy outlets struggle with nuanced tech reporting—especially when politics and finance collide.
What’s Next for Sacks and Media Accountability?
Sacks says he’s done “playing whack-a-mole” with the NYT and will let legal action speak for itself. Meanwhile, the debate raises bigger questions: How should media handle conflicts of interest in the crypto era? And can regulators balance transparency with innovation?
For now, the saga underscores a rift between Silicon Valley and traditional media—one that’s unlikely to fade as AI and crypto keep reshaping policy. As Sacks put it: “When ‘fact-checking’ ignores facts, it’s not journalism. It’s activism.”
FAQs: David Sacks vs. NYT Controversy
What did the New York Times accuse David Sacks of?
The NYT alleged Sacks’ dual role as a government advisor and tech investor creates conflicts, citing his retained stakes in AI/crypto firms. Sacks denies this, noting pre-appointment asset sales and ethics compliance.
How has Sacks responded?
He publicly debunked claims, hired defamation lawyers, and accused the NYT of ignoring rebuttals. Legal filings suggest the Times omitted exculpatory evidence.
Why does this matter for crypto?
Critics argue media bias hampers fair crypto coverage. Sacks’ case highlights tensions between regulators, tech leaders, and journalists in fast-moving industries.
