TLDR
- David Sachs said he divested his major holdings before joining management in January.
-
Sacks shared a legal letter stating that he received two separate ethics clearances.
-
The New York Times article claimed that Sachs’s forward policies helped the technology partners.
-
Five New York Times reporters spent five months investigating, Sachs said.
David Sachs, who serves as the White House’s AI and cryptocurrency official, rejected a New York Times article published on November 30 alleging a conflict of interest related to his government duties. In a public response, Sachs claimed the story was based on unproven allegations and said he met all ethical requirements when joining the administration.
Sachs published a statement to X on Sunday, arguing that Times reporters sought to build a narrative despite a lack of evidence. He added that five journalists spent several months examining his activities and investments, but failed to prove any wrongdoing.
“Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that it has gathered together a collection of anecdotes that do not support the main headline,” Sachs wrote.
David Sachs’s legal team defends moral clearance
Sachs said he hired the defamation law firm Clear Locke during the reporting process. The company sent a detailed letter to The New York Times challenging the article’s content and conclusions.
The letter stated that Sachs had provided all required financial disclosures and received two ethics letters – one for artificial intelligence and one for cryptocurrencies – from the US Office of Government Ethics. She said neither the agency nor other officials raised any ethical concerns during his time in the administration.
Saks’ legal team also disputed the idea that it failed to disclose remaining investments. They said he followed all required divestment procedures before taking office, and his investment portfolio was reviewed.
“Mr. Sachs complied with all steps,” the letter said [U.S. Office of Government Ethics] “I found it necessary to address any potential conflicts.”
Disputed claims regarding policy and access
A New York Times article titled “Silicon Valley Man in White House Benefits Himself and His Friends” accused Sachs of using his position to promote policies that might favor his past investments in technology. This included easing export restrictions on chips and promoting The law of geniuswhich could benefit the portfolio company.
Other allegations in the article included his role in a chip-related deal with the United Arab Emirates and how his role in the White House increased the exposure of his “All-In” podcast.
Sachs denied all of these allegations. He said one of the article’s claims was based on a fabricated dinner with a technology executive. He also stated that the Times repeatedly revised its story when previous accusations were refuted.
“Every time we proved the accusation false, the New York Times focused on the next allegation,” he said.
David Sachs’s statement urges full transparency
In his post, Sacks also announced Clear Locke’s message. He said the document would give readers a full context of his exchanges with journalists. The letter accused the Times of presenting a selective and misleading version of events.
like that unacceptable Any suggestion that Sachs influenced government procurement or promoted companies in which he had financial interests. Such claims are unsubstantiated and, in some cases, “completely fabricated,” the letter said.
Sachs concluded his statement by saying that the article was the product of a failed effort to uncover irregularities that did not exist
