{"id":325116,"date":"2025-12-02T01:23:14","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T01:23:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/325116\/"},"modified":"2025-12-02T01:23:14","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T01:23:14","slug":"silicon-valley-ghouls-melt-down-over-report-on-david-sacks-business-conflicts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/325116\/","title":{"rendered":"Silicon Valley Ghouls Melt Down Over Report on David Sacks Business Conflicts"},"content":{"rendered":"

You are not going to believe this, but Silicon Valley has chosen the side of David Sacks in the Great Sacks v. New York Times feud of 2025. After the Times ran a story highlighting Sacks\u2019s many conflicts of interest, including more than 430 investments<\/a> in crypto and artificial intelligence companies while holding the position of Trump\u2019s AI and crypto czar, the worst people you know all took to X (notably owned by Sacks\u2019s fellow PayPal Mafia member Elon Musk) to say that actually it is good for the guy responsible for policy on emerging technologies to also be heavily invested in their success.<\/p>\n

Sacks himself led the charge<\/a> on trying to diminish the Times\u2019 reporting<\/a>, which highlighted how the venture capitalist has given tech executives unprecedented access to the White House and tried to profit off of his ties to the administration, which he called a \u201choax.\u201d He posted<\/a> a letter his lawyer sent to the Times in response to questions they sent to Sacks while reporting the story, and complained the paper engaged in \u201cconstant goalpost-shifting\u201d to prove he has financial conflicts in his role in the administration. Sacks seems to suggest that asking about things and then choosing not to publish details about them when those details are refuted is proof that the Times had an agenda and not just how journalism works.<\/p>\n

David Sacks @DavidSacks<\/a> is a throwback to the era of American greatness in which the most capable private sector citizens selflessly volunteered for government service in moments of peril for a dollar a day. He is a credit to our nation, and we need more like him, not fewer. \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8<\/p>\n

\u2014 Marc Andreessen \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@pmarca) November 30, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n

And then came the rest of the Silicon Valley Superfriends, as if someone hit up the group chat and said their boy needed some help. Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce and owner of Time Magazine, claimed<\/a> the Times\u2019 report \u201cisn\u2019t journalism\u2014it\u2019s almost strategic sabotage.\u201d (Side note: very AI-generated vibes to that post.)<\/p>\n

Benioff also said, \u201cAmerica wins the century by elevating builders, not tearing them down,\u201d which became a bit of a refrain for the Sacks defenders. Others floated the idea that if Sacks wins, we all win, like Andreessen Horowitz\u2019s chief egghead, Marc Andreessen. He said<\/a> Sacks is a \u201cthrowback to the era of American greatness in which the most capable private sector citizens selflessly volunteered for government service.\u201d Gavin Backer, a partner at investment firm Atreides Management, argued<\/a>, \u201cLeading in AI is good for America. And there is no way for America to lead in AI without American investors in AI doing well.\u201d<\/p>\n

David Sacks really understands AI and cares about the US leading in innovation. I am grateful we have him. https:\/\/t.co\/6I0PCjtmjH<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Sam Altman (@sama) December 1, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n

This probably sounds like a good argument to the ears of the guys who also have big bets placed on the same sectors that Sacks does, but the defense doesn\u2019t actually address the Times\u2019 central premise, which is that Sacks is still invested in areas where he is dictating policy. The implied answer to that is basically, \u201cSo what?\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, Sacks\u2019s All-In \u201cbesties\u201d had some takes to fire off, too. Chamath Palihapitiya, he of failed SPAC fame<\/a>, called<\/a> the Times the \u201cPrivate Equity Wife of newspapers,\u201d whatever that means. Jason Calacanis, a human suckerfish, pondered<\/a> \u201cwhat would happen if we bought up all the shares [of] the Nytimes we could and joined the board.\u201d Pretty funny tweet from the bestie who seemingly has the lowest net worth. Who\u2019s \u201cwe,\u201d Jason? You bumming a couple billion off your friends?<\/p>\n

The Sachs piece illustrates the exact problem with the NYTimes. Voters specifically want THIS type of person, not a bureaucrat who has never worked a real job (Lina Khan, K street, Beltway type) https:\/\/t.co\/ZDi0SsCPa8<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Martin Shkreli (@MartinShkreli) November 30, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n

Calacanis also got into a back-and-forth with Axios reporter Dan Primack for reasons that are unclear, given that Primack has spent the last day downplaying the Times\u2019 report as a \u201cnothingburger.\u201d In his newsletter<\/a>, Primack said the report highlighted \u201cthe sorts of things most of us already knew, although \u2018we\u2019 aren\u2019t the NYT\u2019s target audience\u201d\u2014which isn\u2019t really a criticism of the reporting at all. Primack argues that Sacks\u2019s positions are basically in line with what he\u2019s always believed and that \u201cit\u2019s nearly impossible to be an active venture capitalist and not have investments that will be impacted by AI policy.\u201d Which is fair enough, but also there is no rule that we have to have a venture capitalist serving in this role. He could just not be the AI and crypto czar!<\/p>\n

One thing that seems to be missing from the ongoing back-and-forth is the fact that Sacks is something of a totem for the divide happening in MAGA at the moment. Sacks stands as the pro-corporatist, self-dealing rich guy, the type of person who bankrolled Trump\u2019s second run to the White House\u2014the exact type of guy who the more populist positioned people in Trump\u2019s orbit would like to oust. Steve Bannon, the figurehead of MAGA populism, told the Times<\/a>, \u201cThe tech bros are out of control.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those factions have butted heads quite a bit in recent months, over everything from the Epstein files to the attempt to ban states from regulating AI<\/a>, and it has led to people like Marjorie Taylor Greene ultimately jumping ship<\/a>. The next test in that split will come this week with the National Defense Authorization Act, which may include<\/a> a rule to block states from passing their own AI-related laws. If that sneaks in, put a win in Sacks\u2019 column and hang an L for everyone not currently profiting from the AI industry.<\/p>\n