David Sacks’ position as President Donald Trump’s czar for artificial intelligence and crypto may prove advantageous for both his investments and those of his associates, as indicated by a new report from The New York Times.

In response, Sacks defended himself in a post on X, outlining a five-month investigative process during which the claims were “thoroughly debunked.”

“Today, they seemingly just gave up and released this trivial piece,” Sacks stated. “Anyone who examines the article closely can tell that they cobbled together a collection of anecdotes that fail to substantiate the headline.”

This is not the first occasion where critics have pointed out potential conflicts of interest between Sacks’ political duties and his investments. For instance, Senator Elizabeth Warren — a Democrat from Massachusetts — remarked earlier this year that Sacks “simultaneously manages a firm that invests in crypto while shaping the nation’s crypto policy,” an “obvious conflict of interest” that would “typically” be barred under federal law.

However, the NYT’s article (under the title “Silicon Valley’s Man in the White House is Benefiting Himself and His Friends,” attributed to five named reporters) appears to provide a deeper insight, analyzing his financial disclosures which indicate that out of Sacks’ 708 tech investments, 449 are AI firms likely to gain from the policies he supports.

Sacks has received two ethics waivers from the White House asserting he would divest most of his crypto and AI assets. Nonetheless, the NYT claimed that his public ethics disclosures do not reveal the remaining worth of his crypto and AI investments, nor do they specify when he sold the assets he divested.

Kathleen Clark, a government ethics law professor at Washington University, echoed similar sentiments in July after assessing Sacks’ crypto waiver, telling TechCrunch, “This constitutes graft.”

The NYT also reported that Sacks’ disclosures categorize hundreds of investments as hardware or software instead of AI, despite the companies marketing themselves as AI businesses.

To exemplify Sacks’ “interconnected interests,” the NYT referenced the White House summit in July where Trump revealed his AI strategy — White House chief of staff Susie Wiles allegedly intervened to ensure the All-In podcast (which Sacks co-hosts) was not the sole host of the event. Furthermore, All-In reportedly solicited potential sponsors for $1 million for access to a private reception and additional events, the NYT asserted.

The NYT also mentioned that Sacks developed a close relationship with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang this spring and has been influential in lifting restrictions on Nvidia chip sales worldwide, including to China.

Right-wing media figure and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon (who has openly expressed disdain for some of Trump’s Silicon Valley allies) stated that Sacks exemplifies an administration where “the tech bros are out of control.”

Sacks’ spokesperson Jessica Hoffman informed the NYT that “this narrative of conflict of interest is unfounded.” Hoffman asserted that Sacks has adhered to the regulations for special government employees, that the Office of Government Ethics determined which investments he needed to divest, and that his role in government has been more of a financial cost than a benefit.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston remarked that Sacks has been “an invaluable asset for President Trump’s mission of establishing American technology supremacy.”

Sacks’ response to the NYT includes a letter addressed to the newspaper from Clare Locke, a law firm that Sacks enlisted, claiming that the reporters were given “specific directives: to uncover and report on a conflict of interest between Mr. Sacks’ responsibilities in the White House and his experience in the private tech sector.”

The letter also clarifies aspects of the NYT article, including the All-In podcast’s involvement in the White House AI event. Sacks’ legal team stated that the AI summit was a not-for-profit affair, and that the All-In podcast “incurred losses in hosting the event.”

“Two sponsors were engaged to help cover some of the event’s expenses, for which they received nothing except for logo placements,” the letter stated. “No access to President Trump was offered, and no VIP gathering ever took place.”