Why is Silicon Valley rallying behind David Sacks? | The VergeSkip to main contentThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.The VergeThe Verge logo.TechReviewsScienceEntertainmentAIHamburger Navigation ButtonThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.Hamburger Navigation ButtonNavigation DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Login / Sign UpcloseCloseSearchTechExpandAmazonAppleFacebookGoogleMicrosoftSamsungBusinessCreatorsMobilePolicySecurityTransportationReviewsExpandLaptopsPhonesHeadphonesTabletsSmart HomeSmartwatchesSpeakersDronesScienceExpandSpaceEnergyEnvironmentHealthEntertainmentExpandGamesTV ShowsMoviesAudioAIVerge ShoppingExpandBuying GuidesDealsGift GuidesSee All ShoppingCarsExpandElectric CarsAutonomous CarsRide-sharingScootersOther TransportationFeaturesVideosExpandYouTubeTikTokInstagramPodcastsExpandDecoderThe VergecastVersion HistoryNewslettersExpandThe Verge DailyInstallerVerge DealsNotepadOptimizerRegulatorThe StepbackArchivesStoreSubscribeFacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSThe VergeThe Verge logo.Silicon Valley is rallying behind a guy who sucksComments DrawerCommentsLoading commentsGetting the conversation ready...ColumnCloseColumnPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ColumnAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicySilicon Valley is rallying behind a guy who sucksThe coordinated support of David Sacks after a New York Times report is only drawing more attention to the story.by Tina NguyenCloseTina NguyenSenior Reporter, WashingtonPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Tina NguyenDec 2, 2025, 9:47 PM UTCLinkShare Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty ImagesColumnCloseColumnPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ColumnAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicySilicon Valley is rallying behind a guy who sucksThe coordinated support of David Sacks after a New York Times report is only drawing more attention to the story.by Tina NguyenCloseTina NguyenSenior Reporter, WashingtonPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Tina NguyenDec 2, 2025, 9:47 PM UTCLinkShareTina NguyenCloseTina NguyenPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Tina Nguyen is a Senior Reporter for The Verge and author of Regulator, covering the second Trump administration, political influencers, tech lobbying and Big Tech vs. Big Government.Hello and welcome to Regulator, a newsletter for Verge subscribers that covers the political intrigue and power struggles between Big Tech and Big Government. Subscribe here for a weekly dispatch of tech oligarchs fighting regular oligarchs.Prior to last week, only highly specialized political insiders knew the extent of David Sacks’ influence in the Trump White House: tech policy hawks, lobbyists, reporters, and right-wing operatives infuriated that the billionaire venture capitalist was turning Donald Trump toward artificial intelligence and against the interests of the MAGA base. A deeply reported New York Times article published on Sunday pulled the curtain back further, revealing that the podcaster-turned-“special government employee” had hundreds of conflicts of interest due to his undisclosed investments in AI and crypto companies, and yet has become Silicon Valley’s best backchannel to Trump.Below, I talk to Ryan Mac, one of the Times reporters who worked on the story, about how Sacks managed to get this close to Trump, why AI heavyweights are eager to protect Sacks’ status, and what’s made it hard for MAGA factions to push him out. When it comes to understanding the tech mindset, I’ll cede authority to Mac: I’m fairly confident that most Regulator readers will immediately recognize his byline from his coverage of Silicon Valley over the years, including his reporting on Peter Thiel’s lawsuit against Gawker and Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Sacks’ brazen power grab may have shocked Washington, but as Mac put it, the Valley views it as just another version of moving fast and breaking things: “You’re seeing what happens when tech realizes that something is influenceable.”But I am an expert on the art of political clout farming, and watching Sacks’ response to the Times article has been utterly fascinating. Though he has yet to dispute the actual facts in the story, Sacks has threatened to sue them for publishing it, demanding that they “abandon” the story and “reconsider” the story’s premise. These are not actual things that one could legally compel a publication to do, but that hasn’t stopped Sacks from hiring a defamation firm to make those claims on his behalf or from voicing MAGA-ish grievances about unfavorable press coverage to an audience on X. And the more he talks about those grievances, and the more that his fellow tech titans tweet their support of him, the more people pay attention to the Times’ story, which paints him as — gasp — a tech billionaire with significant political influence.Before all this, if you had 30 seconds to write a list of the most influential tech billionaires in politics, Sacks probably wouldn’t have made it — not because he objectively has the least influence, but because you’d immediately think of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk first. Sure, Sacks has a very popular podcast, and if you dug deep enough into All In lore, you might have seen his appearances at the White House, or watched his speech at the Republican National convention, or known that he’d held a fundraiser for Trump in 2024. But Thiel and Musk were famous public figures long before Trump entered politics — long before social media put culture in an internet chokehold, even — and a single interaction between them and Trump could generate a week’s worth of headlines and memes (especially the memes).All I’m saying is, Sacks has an awful lot of aura farming to do in order to catch up.This week at The Verge:“IBM CEO Arvind Krishna says there is no AI bubble after all,” Decoder: IBM was early, you might argue too early, to AI. Now, CEO Arvind Krishna tells The Verge editor-in-chief Nilay Patel that he thinks big bets like Watsonx and quantum computing will start to pay off.“The race to AGI-pill the pope,” Robert Hart: A team of believers want the Vatican to take AI doomsday scenarios seriously. (Incidentally, my favorite read of the week.) “A nationwide internet age verification plan is sweeping Congress,” Lauren Feiner: Pinterest announced its endorsement of the federal version of a model that’s already passed in some states.“Why can’t ChatGPT tell time?”, Elissa Welle: As a personal assistant, ChatGPT is remarkably, annoyingly bad at this one basic thing.“The US dodged a bullet this Atlantic hurricane season,” Justine Calma: It narrowly escaped the strongest hurricanes as DOGE cuts and a government shutdown hit federal agencies.“It’s their job to keep AI from destroying everything”, Hayden Field: Spoiler: the nine-person team works for Anthropic.“You’re seeing what happens when tech realizes that something is influenceable”This interview has been edited for clarity.As someone reporting out of Silicon Valley, what has it been like watching the universe of people you covered suddenly enter the White House and the MAGA dynamic? Ryan Mac: I think about it from the perspective of 2016. Back then I was a younger reporter at Forbes covering Peter Thiel, and I remember when he endorsed Trump. I had just broken a series of stories about him funding the Gawker lawsuit, when he did a very odd move and announced himself as a delegate for Trump at the Republican National Convention. Everyone was like: Huh, Thiel’s an eccentric guy. This might be another eccentric move. I can’t remember what the sequence of events was now, but he makes this strange move to become a delegate, and then is announced later as a speaker at the RNC, and he shows up in Cleveland, gives a speech. It’s a very “rah rah” speech. But at the time, he was a pariah [in the tech world] for going for and supporting Donald Trump. Even someone like David Sacks, who was very much a Thiel acolyte, supported Hillary [Clinton] in that election cycle.I say that story now because fast-forward eight years later, and seemingly everyone in tech has fallen in line with Trump, or is outwardly supporting him, or has joined his administration. It’s just bizarre. It’s really weird to see that change in dynamic. And in some ways, it makes sense. I mean, they’re protecting their businesses, they’re protecting their interests, and they’re going to do everything they can to protect those things. They’ve learned over the years that the best way to do that is praising Donald Trump and being close to him and essentially tying themselves to the administration.Here’s another example: I covered Sergey Brin at the Muslim ban protests at San Francisco Airport at the very start of the Trump administration, and now you get him standing behind Trump at the inauguration. Bizarre flip. He’s not unique in that sense. Name anyone standing behind Donald Trump at the inauguration, and they probably said something about him in 2016 or disavowed him in some way. Now we get this kind of political moment where they’re all aligned with him. And in some ways, there’s no better representative of that than David Sacks.So when you’re talking about their alignment with the president, do you find that there’s any aspect of an ideological match between what they want and what Trump represents? 
To some extent, I think it’s opportunistic. It’s more advantageous for them to stay quiet, or to massage his ego, or to compliment him, because at this point, they’ve learned that there’s really no path forward with resistance. There’s really nothing to be gained. You see companies like Google, YouTube, and Meta settle these cases with Trump and the administration, and pledge money to his library. There’s more opportunity for fealty.The White House has always been known for factionalism, and my assumption at the beginning of the year was that there would be a stronger MAGA presence in the White House: more populist, more protectionist. The fact that they turned on AI was astonishing, but the fact that they haven’t been able to completely divorce Trump from the presence of these tech billionaires is also astounding. What do you think accounts for their longevity? You make a great point. In our story, we quote Steve Bannon, who is very vocal against some of these tech billionaires. I think Trump is attracted to success. He’s attracted to wealth and power, and the tech industry offers him all that. These are the most successful people in the world, judging by their net worth and the power they hold and the companies they run. If these people are going to pledge their loyalty to Donald Trump, I think he’s going to view that as a win. He gets to now be very influential when it comes to AI, and that speaks to him. I mean, sure, there are some elements of the MAGA base that are going to be upset by that, but by and large, they’ve kind of fallen in line, or are at least kind of moving forward with that.Another disagreement that they had even before this administration took power, was over H-1B visas. Laura Loomer and Bannon were criticizing the approach to H-1Bs, and Loomer went specifically after Sriram Krishnan, who’s David Sacks’ number two. But eventually Trump said he’s in favor of them. There are inconsistencies seemingly with the rest of his policies, but it just shows the extent by which the tech set has influenced him and gotten their way. That’s the case with H-1Bs and that’s certainly the case with AI now.So, about David Sacks specifically: Once upon a time, there were two South African tech billionaires in the White House with a lot of influence. Currently, there is only one.Well, there used to be a previous one in 2016.Ha, yeah, Thiel was one, too. Elon Musk’s falling out with Trump was engineered by MAGA people: earlier this year, you and other Times reporters wrote about how [White House staffer] Sergio Gor put together this massive file on Elon’s people who might be disloyal to Trump. Now that you mentioned that David Sacks was a Hillary supporter, why is it that Trump hasn’t outed him for disloyalty? 
Great question. I think he has met the right people, said the right things, and been able to maybe shield some of that past away. So you’re referring to Jared Isaacman [Musk’s pick for NASA administrator whose nomination was withdrawn by Trump]. Isaacman was dinged supposedly for donating to the Democrats. Well, David Sacks has done the same. It’s just that it hasn’t been focused on, at least to my understanding, as publicly as Isaacman’s was, where it was brought against him as a kind of a black mark. 
But if you just look at his recent history, Sacks has not been a full-time Trump supporter. Going into the 2024 election, he was a DeSantis guy. If you remember, he held the event on X with Ron where they announced DeSantis’ candidacy, this very troubled livestream that was mocked widely for failing. It wasn’t until a year out from 2024 that, with DeSantis unviable, he moved to Trump. He also held a fundraiser for Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but at some point, he held a massive fundraiser for Trump at his home in San Francisco. And it kind of went from there. He spoke at the RNC, and he’s moved up the ladder to the point where it seems like Donald Trump trusts him to some extent.The question of “why this guy and not the others that have voted for Trump’s enemies in the past” is a very interesting one. I’ve never been able to wrap my head around why some guys work [in Trumpworld] and why some guys don’t. I don’t understand the MAGA logic there.What do you make of the way that Sacks has responded to the Times’ story? I’m frankly surprised. I mean, I don’t think the same amount of people would have read or engaged with the story if he hadn’t brought attention to it. It’s kind of a classic Streisand effect, in a way. It is interesting to see the extent to which they and every AI leader responded: Sam Altman this morning just tweeted something in support of David Sacks and I’m like, “Where is this coming from?” I guess they all feel strongly about him being their guy in the White House, and that surprised me, that they’ve come out very strongly.But still, no one’s been able to interrogate the actual content of the story in itself or find any inconsistencies or inaccuracies, and that’s because I think our reporting is pretty sound.
We point out that he holds hundreds of stakes in AI and crypto companies that are ostensibly going to be affected by these very pro-AI, pro-crypto policies. No one’s really engaging with the material of this article itself, they’re just saying David Sacks is a great guy, we love him kind of thing. And you know, they’re entitled to say that, but I’ve just been interested in the vigor in which [that feeling has] come across my feed on X.This is a much larger thematic question about this new administration: Regulator’s thesis is that people in government with the political power were having a hard time understanding the technology, and the people with the money and the technology were having a hard time navigating politics. But what is the tech world attitude when it comes to Washington now?I think it’s one where they see that they can clearly influence. You have groups like the Hill and Valley Forum, for example, which is very close with Sacks and his group through that AI summit with them, and they realize there is real influence they can have in Washington, if they can corral the right people. Some of these tech folks felt shut out by the Biden administration. They felt like the Biden administration went too hard at their companies or these industries as a whole, especially with regulation — Lina Khan has obviously been mentioned as the bogeywoman in a number of instances. They’ve found, I wouldn’t say a political home, but an alliance with Trumpism and the Trump administration, and they’re realizing that they can get a lot of wins. You look at something like the GENIUS Act, for example, which really benefits the crypto industry, or the White House’s AI action plan. I know you specifically wrote about the Sacks initiative to kill the attempts to have states regulate AI. These companies see an opportunity to have influence in that way, and they’re taking it.It’s far more aggressive than anything I’ve ever seen in Washington, but then again, Washington is, like, behind a lot of the times. I’ve never covered Washington to the extent that you have, but I always kind of thought that was kind of part of the game, I guess? But maybe not. Maybe these guys are taking it to the next level.There’s this idea in Washington that you have to persuade people to agree that they should do a specific thing, which takes time. I think the speed in which the tech industry is moving to codify things in law is really taking lawmakers by surprise. Like, when the preemption bill came up in the Senate, I don’t think the AI industry understood how furious the Republican lobbying against it was going to be. That’s the tech mentality. It’s always been to move fast, break things. And now you have the element of the amount of wealth that has been created — whatever paper wealth you want to talk about in terms of these AI companies raising hundreds of billions of dollars, or crypto as wealth — now you have those two combined, and you’re seeing what happens when tech realizes that something is influenceable.And now, a Holiday Season Recess.Image via @smoothdunk2.bsky.social.See you next week.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Tina NguyenCloseTina NguyenSenior Reporter, WashingtonPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Tina NguyenAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIColumnCloseColumnPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ColumnPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsRegulatorCloseRegulatorPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All RegulatorTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All TechMost PopularMost PopularOpenAI declares ‘code red’ as Google catches up in AI raceNetflix kills casting from phonesSamsung’s Z TriFold is official and it looks like a tablet with a phone attachedMKBHD is taking down his wallpaper appSteam Machine today, Steam Phones tomorrowThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adMore in ColumnAmazon’s bet that AI benchmarks don’t matterYou need to read the treatise on spacing out, Bored and BrilliantThe indie web is here to make the internet weird againThe dark side of optimizing your metabolismWhat the leaked AI executive order tells us about the Big Tech power grabApple TV wants to go bigAmazon’s bet that AI benchmarks don’t matterAlex HeathDec 2You need to read the treatise on spacing out, Bored and BrilliantTerrence O'BrienNov 30The indie web is here to make the internet weird againStevie BonifieldNov 30The dark side of optimizing your metabolismVictoria SongNov 28What the leaked AI executive order tells us about the Big Tech power grabTina NguyenNov 26Apple TV wants to go bigAndrew WebsterNov 23Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adTop StoriesDec 2Steam Machine today, Steam Phones tomorrowDec 2It’s their job to keep AI from destroying everythingDec 2Metroid Prime 4 excels when it’s actually being MetroidDec 2The Nikon ZR gets surprisingly close to a real RED camera (for a lot less money)Dec 2HBO Max’s Mad Men 4K release is the opposite of a remasterA minute agoFree x Updates.The VergeThe Verge logo.FacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSContactTip UsCommunity GuidelinesArchivesAboutEthics StatementHow We Rate and Review ProductsCookie SettingsTerms of UsePrivacy NoticeCookie PolicyLicensing FAQAccessibilityPlatform Status© 2025 Vox Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Silicon Valley is rallying behind a figure who is, frankly, creating a significant controversy and attracting considerable scrutiny. David Sacks, a venture capitalist and podcaster, has become a key backchannel for Donald Trump within the White House, despite possessing a vast array of conflicts of interest stemming from undisclosed investments in burgeoning AI and cryptocurrency sectors. This situation has sparked a complex and somewhat surprising dynamic within the tech industry, prompting a concentrated effort to protect Sacks' influence.

The catalyst for this renewed attention was a deeply researched New York Times article that detailed the extent of Sacks’ activities. The article unveiled hundreds of conflicts of interest, demonstrating how Sacks was leveraging his position to advocate for AI and crypto policies while simultaneously benefiting from their potential growth. This ignited a firestorm, prompting the immediate and coordinated response that has become the defining feature of this story.

Ryan Mac, one of the Times reporters who broke the story, provides crucial context. He emphasizes the rapid shift in the tech landscape, noting the parallels with the 2016 election when Peter Thiel, another tech figure, publicly endorsed Trump. Mac frames this current situation as a manifestation of “what happens when tech realizes that something is influenceable.” He highlights the speed at which tech companies are attempting to shape policy, a characteristic often associated with the industry’s mantra: “move fast and break things.”

However, the story is not simply about a rogue figure influencing a political administration. It touches on broader anxieties within the tech world regarding regulatory oversight, particularly concerning emerging technologies like AI and crypto. The tech industry, feeling targeted by initiatives from figures like Lina Khan, views Sacks as a key figure in pushing back against what it perceives as excessive regulation. The intense support for Sacks stems from a desire to protect existing investments and leverage influence within Washington.

The response to the Times article—characterized by threats of lawsuits and amplified grievances—is notable. While legally questionable, it signals a deliberate strategy to control the narrative and deflect criticism. It also reflects a deeper trend: the tech industry’s increasing willingness to engage directly with political power, a strategy that contrasts sharply with previous approaches.

The reaction highlights a significant shift in power dynamics. Sacks’ emergence as a key figure wasn’t immediately apparent, but his presence—alongside others like Thiel—demonstrates the evolving relationship between Silicon Valley and Washington. This has caused particular frustration and a degree of fear within many tech companies, who are concerned about regulators' desire to protect consumers, or the wider public, from the potentially negative impacts of AI and crypto.

The support for Sacks isn't merely about defending a single individual; it's a broader statement about a fundamental power struggle taking place within the tech industry. It represents the industry's determination to protect its interests and shape the future of technology policy. He has essentially built a mini-empire around his role as an advocate for these issues, and that has drawn support from other influential tech insiders.

The situation underscores a broader trend in the 2020s: the increasing convergence of financial capital and political influence. It’s a dynamic that raises important questions about accountability, transparency, and the long-term implications for innovation and societal well-being.