David Sacks, the Trump administration’s AI and crypto czar and co-host of the All In Podcast, announced over the weekend that he’d hired Claire Locke (one of the largest law firms specializing in defamation in the US) to force the New York Times (NYT) to “abandon” its article concerning his conflicts of interest between his investments and role in the government.
The problem? Abandoning an article doesn’t mean anything in the realm of journalism and the legal threat letter doesn’t request a retraction.
The article in question, which showed that Sacks continues to have investments in over 400 crypto and AI-related companies despite his role within the government, relayed a general sentiment of opaqueness from the Trump administration and Special Government Employees.
Sacks’ disclosures hilariously state that Palantir is a software as a service (SaaS) company and allowed him to hold on to investments in crypto-related company BitGo, which benefitted from the GENIUS Act and plans to IPO shortly.
It’s clear that through Craft Ventures and his own personal investments that Sacks stands to gain financially from his influence within the federal government, in spite of the White House saying that he’s started or completed sales of “over 99 percent” of his “holdings in companies that could potentially raise a conflict of interest concern” with no proof.
The fact some of these holdings have not yet been sold a year after Sacks was given the title of AI and crypto czar is also head scratching.
Read more: Trump’s crypto reserve conveniently mirrors David Sacks-backed fund
All in on the Streisand effect
Sacks, who has unprecedented access to the White House, took to X shortly after the NYT published the article to, essentially, publish an article of his own.
The 250 plus-word tweet called the United States’ paper of record a “hoax factory” and referenced a “fabricated dinner with a leading tech CEO” and “nonexistent promises of access to the president.”
The posts from Sacks include a letter sent to the NYT from his attorneys at Claire Locke which states, “We demand that the Times abandon its article… At a minimum, the Times is under an ethical and legal obligation to reconsider the claims it intends to publish, including through further communications with Mr. Sacks or his representatives.”
While “abandonment” is a legal term, it’s rarely, if ever, used in journalism as it suggests that an entity should give up ownership of a material good.
This would leave the article available online, but without the NYT having control of it. This would mean it would be free and readily accessible to the general public.
What the post and letter specifically don’t mention is a retraction, which would force the NYT to remove the article and, possibly, provide an editorial note on why the decision was made.
Meanwhile, “reconsider” isn’t a legal or journalistic term, and while the letter suggests that Sacks must be contacted by journalists at the media outlet for more information, it’s also clear from his posts that the NYT already reached out numerous times for comment.
The legal threat states that the NYT should have published the article as an op-ed as opposed to a normal article.
It’s unclear what the repercussions would be if it doesn’t alter the article or change which section it’s published in, though it most likely doesn’t meet any legal definition of libel.
On a brighter note, Claire Locke isn’t a cheap legal firm to seek out and Sacks probably spent a not-insignificant amount of money to send a cheap, fake lion’s roar to the NYT. Expect it to either never go to court or immediately be thrown out if it does, despite David Sacks’s position in the Trump administration.
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.
Source: https://protos.com/david-sacks-sends-silly-legal-threat-to-the-new-york-times/
