David Sacks, recently appointed as the White House AI and crypto czar under President Donald Trump, has recently pushed back against allegations of leveraging his position for personal financial gain.
In a discussion on The All-In Podcast, Sacks has dismissed assertions that he manipulated cryptocurrency markets to inflate his personal digital assets holdings, calling such accusations baseless and even tantamount to criminal allegations.
While these statements cannot be fully confirmed, it is worth noting that the Bitcoin and crypto markets are now a multi- trillion dollar global ecosystem. So it may not be as easy to manipulate these markets in the same way as could have been possible several years ago.
Sacks said:
“People came out right away and were saying that somehow I was engaged in a scheme to pump my bags or to basically create exit liquidity for myself.”
To preempt any ethical concerns, Sacks revealed that he had divested all his cryptocurrency holdings before joining the administration.
This reportedly included selling off significant positions in Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Solana (SOL), totaling approximately $200 million in crypto assets managed by himself and his venture firm, Kraft.
He explained:
“Of that amount, $85 million was personally attributable to him. We cleared that before day one, paid taxes on it, and basically said there wouldn’t be a conflict.”
Yet, even after this divestment, critics shifted their focus, alleging that his investments in crypto-focused funds still posed a conflict of interest.
Addressing this, Sacks clarified that he also withdrew from multiple crypto investment funds, including Bitwise, Multicoin Capital, and Blockchain Capital.
According to Jason Calacanis, a fund manager familiar with the process, such divestitures often come at steep discounts—sometimes 25% to 50% off market value—potentially costing Sacks tens of millions, if not more.
However, there’s still no way to absolutely confirm these claims. But it would make sense to industry professionals to carefully monitor and observe these developments as they appear to be shaping the narrative around holding crypto-assets while occupying key positions in the government or other influential organizations.
Sacks added:
“At this point, I think they’ve basically given up on this narrative.”
Beyond defending his divestments, Sacks took aim at the broader assumption that wealthy individuals enter public service for profit.
Serving in an unpaid consultant role, he argued that his decision to join the administration reflects a commitment to public good, not merely just personal enrichment.
He added:
“It’s a lazy and stupid narrative to say that the reason why someone who’s already successful in business goes into government is to somehow make more money. This involves a substantial disruption of my business interests.”
Far from profiting, Sacks highlighted that his divestments have resulted in significant financial losses, either through taxes or discounted sales.
The allegations against Sacks stem from his high-profile role shaping Trump’s crypto and AI policies, including the creation of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a broader US digital asset stockpile, as outlined in a recent executive order.
Critics, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, have questioned whether Sacks could influence the selection of altcoins—such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Cardano, and XRP—for the reserve, potentially benefiting his past investments.
Sacks countered this in a Bloomberg TV interview, noting that President Donald Trump’s mentions of XRP, SOL, and ADA simply reflect their status among the top five crypto assets by market cap, not any personal agenda.
Ultimately, Sacks framed his actions as a necessary trade-off in order to maintain integrity in his public role.
He also mentioned:
“In divesting, I have to either pay taxes or take a significant discount. It costs you money.”