A new inquiry into David Sacks’s government role raises pointed questions about how his policymaking might enrich his private portfolio and his friends, even as he and his team insist that he has abided by ethics rules.
The report focuses on his efforts shaping policy for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, and the overlap with dozens of personal bets he has placed in those sectors.
What the investigation claims about Sacks’s investments
Sacks’s financial disclosures suggest a large investment in enterprises directly related to AI, the New York Times reports. Of the 708 tech investments he is connected to, 449 are companies working with artificial intelligence that could be potential beneficiaries of friendlier access to compute power, relaxed export restrictions, or faster adoption of AI systems by the federal government, the report says.
It also points out that many Sacks-linked holdings show up in filings under the catchall “hardware” or “software,” even though those same companies market themselves to the public as AI-first.
That classification gap is important, because ethics rules turn on how assets are described and when they are sold.
The Times continues to emphasize appearances tied to a White House AI summit that Sacks’s All-In podcast helped organize, and it details sponsorship pitches for seven-figure commitments in conjunction with the event.
It also cites Sacks’s increasing closeness to chipmaking powerhouses and accuses him of backing efforts to liberalize restrictions on sales of advanced processors in critical foreign markets like China.
Where policy could tip markets in AI and cryptocurrency
AI policy is capital-intensive policy. Decisions about federal cloud procurement, model safety standards, liability frameworks, and the government’s own use of A.I. can direct billions in demand at infrastructure providers and model developers. Export regulations around high-end chips have a direct impact on data center buildouts globally, and by extension the valuation of suppliers and start-ups predicated on that compute.
Crypto is also sensitive to the federal stance. Market revaluations to signals on stablecoin supervision, bank custody, and token classification can be sharp. In the past, enforcement actions or certainty proclamations from financial regulators have caused double-digit shifts in major tokens within days — venture valuations tend to flow along with those tides with a lag.
Even if policy shifts are neutral or even widely popular, Association of Venture staff write in their agenda-setting document that partialities can diminish that appearance of inclusivity when they’re shaped by someone with “deep venture ties.” That’s the crux of the concern: It’s not only whether rules are violated, but also whether we undermine public trust when private bets and public power collide.
The ethics guardrails and the waivers for special employees
Sacks is a special government employee, a designation that permits limited-time service — generally up to 130 days per year — under conflict-of-interest rules grounded in 18 U.S.C. §208.
Officials in that status are eligible for waivers from the Office of Government Ethics, and they may have to divest assets or recuse themselves on certain matters.
The Times notes that Sacks got two waivers and promised to sell off most crypto and AI shares. But the public filings do not reveal how many millions remain in positions or when exactly he sold down assets — information that would enable outsiders to gauge exposure. The degree of transparency around dates and amounts often ends up being the difference between a routine divestment and an unresolved conflict.
To experts in ethics, the gray area resides in how broadly “AI” is defined. Reclassification: If an investor moves AI-heavy companies to the generic software or hardware buckets, we can potentially miss significant exposure through screening. The question for watchdogs is whether the nature of a company’s business, not just its category label, influenced the review.
Sacks and allies push back against conflict allegations
Sacks has denied the accusations as a patchwork of anecdotes that offers no proof of self-dealing. In both of his posts on X, he said the reporting process turned up allegations that he refuted point by point and argued that the final piece blew up anecdotes that don’t add up to what was indicated in the headline.
His spokesman notes that he followed the rules for special government employees and that OGE told him what assets to offload. They say the job has taken away from him financially, not enriched him. The White House has lauded Sacks as a leading source of advice about technology-related matters for the administration, citing results including progress toward maintaining American leadership in A.I.
According to a legal letter by Sacks’s attorney, the defense challenges certain claims from the report — such as that event sponsorships purchased access to power. The letter says the AI event was “not-for-profit,” that sponsors were only given branding visibility, and that no VIP access to senior officials was provided.
What the investigative focus will be next on disclosures
Expect continued pressure for even more granular disclosures: out-of-date divestiture information, value ranges of any remaining stakes, and names on a specific recusal list.
Watchdogs will also be on the lookout for regular updates reporting whether new policy assignments overlap with earlier investments or businesses belonging to close associates.
Policy inflection points could soon bring the picture into focus of who the winners will be. Any reversal on AI chip export controls, federal cloud procurement frameworks, or crypto rulemaking will be cross-referenced with known Sacks-related holdings. Congressional oversight — especially from critics who have already raised questions about conflicts of interest — could demand testimony and independent ethics reviews.
The bottom line is simple and profound: in markets where one memo can determine valuations by double digits, the line dividing public duty from private capital has to be seen, and verified. Whether Sacks’s waivers and disclosures meet that bar is the question the report placed squarely before the public.
