Receive our comprehensive overview of AI Agents Crypto Ecosystem: what it delivers!
More about the White House AI and Crypto Czar’s attack on “NYT’S HOAX FACTORY”
David Sacks has entered into an open confrontation with The New York Times, publish a thread titled “INSIDE NYT’S HOAX FACTORY” and attached a letter from the law firm Clare Locke, which specializes in defamation cases. Sacks claims that a NYT team of five reporters spent five months trying to find evidence of a conflict of interest between his government role and his past activities in the technology and crypto sectors, but never found any concrete evidence.
Sacks outlines his views on the NYT investigation and his own compliance steps since being appointed special government employee. He emphasizes that after entering government, he completed the OGE 450 form, declared his financial interests, obtained ethics opinions from the Office of Government Ethics and the relevant agency, and subsequently reduced his interests in a number of technology projects. His central complaint against the newspaper is that the editors ignore these steps and continue to look for violations despite the explanations given.
“Every time we proved an allegation was false, the NYT moved on to the next allegation. That’s why the story has dragged on for five months.”
A separate block of Sacks’ claims concerns specific episodes around which the NYT builds its story. In Clare Locke’s letter, the lawyers analyze the story about a dinner with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, which the newspaper links to attempts to influence US export policy. Sacks’ side directly states that no such dinner took place and that he only met Huang after his appointment, without having any stake in Nvidia. Similarly, Sacks’ team disputes the link between his role and defense contracts involving Craft Ventures portfolio companies, insisting that he followed the terms in his ethics letters and left positions that could have created overlap with his government roles.
“Today they apparently just threw up their hands and published this nothingburger.”
Clare Locke’s lawyers place the dispute with the NYT in a legal context and attempt to set the stage for further discussion. In their version, the NYT initially builds a hypothesis of a conflict of interest, then receives data from Sacks and his team that defuses some of the allegations, but does not revisit the original thesis and continues to look for new angles. The letter describes this as a series of failed attempts to link individual episodes — from the All-In podcast and Sacks’ participation in the AI Summit to defense contracts with portfolio companies — to personal gain for the official.
“Once you read the letter, it becomes very clear how NYT deliberately mischaracterized or ignored the facts to support their bogus story.”
Conclusion
The publication of the wire and letter changes the status of the conflict between Sacks and the NYT. Until now, the interaction has consisted of questions from reporters and answers via lawyers, but Sacks is now bringing his version directly to X and inviting the public to read the legal document in full. The move could strengthen its standing among supporters and raise the stakes for the paper itself, as the situation now involves not just a dispute over a single article, but also potential defamation claims if the parties fail to reach mutually acceptable changes to the wording. Overall, it is an indicator of how politicized the intersection between AI and crypto regulation is becoming, and of the role of key figures who simultaneously influence policy and have a background in the venture capital and technology sectors.
#White #House #Crypto #Czar #NYT #David #Sacks #Calls #Investigation #Hoax #Factory