David Sacks

So not only is this job not benefiting me, it's actually cost me a lot of money to serve.

But I did it because it's an honor to be asked by the president to serve, and it's something I wanted to do, and I thought I could make a difference.

So the whole premise here is just false.

And the New York Times, through its five months of investigations, knew this, but they just refused to budge on the premise of their story.

To your question here, if you look at one of the key paragraphs that, Jason, you mentioned, is when they try to mention that I have 449 investments tied to AI.

And they say their investigation uncovered this, and some of their reporters on podcasts have tried to portray themselves as Woodward and Bernstein here having uncovered these positions.

Yeah, how did they get this crazy list of companies, I wonder?

I disclosed them.

They didn't uncover them.

I disclosed them.

They're in my ethics letter.

So they're publicly available to everyone.

They're on the White House website in my ethics letter.

So every government employee, whether you're a full-time or SG, files disclosures with the government.

And my ethics letters basically contained these pages and pages of all these different

Now, in that ethics letter, they said that I had divested, I had initiated or completed divestment of over 99% of the positions that could pose a conflict for AI.

It's in there.

This is where I think, again, they were very deceptive.

It was the OGE, the Office of Government Ethics, the career civil servants, the lawyers, the accountants at OGE who approved that letter and all the contents of that letter, who reviewed all those disclosures.

And they're the ones who concluded that I did not have any conflicts.