Billionaires rally around David Sacks after NYT exposé
David Sacks has seen considerable support from a raft of high-profile billionaires and Trump cabinet members following the publication of a damning New York Times article that shows the conflicts of interest between his investments and his role in the federal government.
Within hours of the article’s publication, dozens of wealthy investors, entrepreneurs, and executives took to X to show their support for the so-called crypto and AI czar, who continues to hold hundreds of illiquid investments that seemingly conflict with his position in the Trump administration.
The replies appeared quickly and with furor, though they never actually argued about the facts in the article.
Instead, they claimed that Sacks’ expertise was great for the government, that holding his investments is what makes him an expert, and suggested that the article amounted to little more than a witch hunt.
Angry billionaires that leapt to Sacks’ defense include Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, Shaun Maguire, Bill Ackman, Don Wilson and Brian Armstrong, amongst dozens of others.
Read more: Donald Trump is suing the New York Times for harming his memecoin
Feelings don’t care about your facts
While many of the wealthiest individuals alive like to say they only trust facts, it’s become obvious that most of them are more invested in their feelings.
Indeed, none of the retorts described inaccurate reporting or a reason for the article to be considered an “op-ed,” as a legal threat letter to the NYT from Clare Locke stated it should be.
Marc Andreessen, the founder of a16z, called Sacks “a credit to our nation,” Don Wilson of DRW declared he was cancelling his subscription to the NYT, Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, stated the NYT is “a political propaganda machine,” and Shaun Maguire, partner at Sequoia, characterized the article as “an attempted hit piece.”
None of them were able to pinpoint a reason for their animus outside of Sacks being a “badass,” “selfless volunteer,” and “courageous.”
The sheer volume and speed at which the replies flooded in points to an irrational defense of a clearly conflicted special government employee who’s maintained his investments despite having nearly a year to divest.
It’s unknown why Sacks has refused to divest from these companies in the face of unprecedented access to the White House and foreign leaders, outside of not being forced to divest by a heavily crypto and AI invested Trump family.
In response to suggestions that the wealthy and powerful had sent texts to one another to push forward a cohesive narrative, David Friedberg of the All-In podcast responded that Sacks “asked me and others not to post anything because the NYT doesn’t deserve the airtime but looks like folks ignored him because they wanted to do the right thing and speak the truth.”
This is an odd description, considering that Sacks immediately, regularly, and often reposted any posts made in support of him.
Accurate reporting on oligarchs is a step too far
Telling was how many other deeply conflicted individuals were the first to defend Sacks, from OpenAI executives and billionaires over-invested in AI and crypto, to a congressman who represents Silicon Valley.
While all of them refused to engage in a discussion of the merits of the NYT article, they were more than happy to shower Sacks with praise. Many of the respondents have received direct investment from Sacks or his VC firm Craft Ventures.
A narrative has quickly coalesced around the idea that centimillionaire Sacks couldn’t properly be a guiding force to the White House and Trump without remaining invested in hundreds of AI and crypto companies and is, in general, a good guy.
There’s nothing wrong with the extremely wealthy publicly discussing how much they like a fellow wealthy person, but disparaging the NYT’s reporting without proving malice, incorrectness, or unreliability is bad faith.
The NYT has responded to Sacks’s legal threats, stating that it “remains confident in [its] reporting on Mr. Sacks,” and that its “reporters do not have an agenda — they examine leads, verify them in good faith with the subjects involved, and publish what [they can] confirm.”
It implies that it doesn’t plan on making changes, moving the article to the op-ed page, or “abandoning the article,” as requested by Clare Locke.
Despite this, Sacks replied by saying the NYT is “spiraling,” and reposting an extensive “debunk” from an entrepreneur he had made a direct investment in through Craft Ventures.
It’s safe to assume that while the wealthy and powerful have united around a message, the Streisand effect is pushing the accurate and fair reporting from the NYT into the hearts and minds of many who would have otherwise ignored it.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.