Sen. Warren Questions Sacks on Continued Role as Trump’s AI Advisor

David Sacks’s tenure as a special advisor to President Donald Trump on cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, initially intended as a short-term engagement, is facing scrutiny from key Democratic lawmakers. Critics question if Sacks has exceeded the permissible time limit for Special Government Employees (SGEs), a designation that allows private sector experts to contribute to government initiatives under less stringent conflict-of-interest regulations.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., alongside a coalition of progressive politicians, have formally requested a detailed accounting of Sacks’s time in office. In a letter released Wednesday, they demand full transparency regarding his days worked since January, locations where official duties were performed, and the White House personnel responsible for monitoring his compliance with SGE regulations. Specifically, the letter highlights the potential implications related to exceeding the SGE allowance of 130 days.

The lawmakers emphasize that exceeding the time limit “would raise additional ethics concerns,” particularly as the Trump administration proceeds with implementing recent cryptocurrency legislation and establishing new regulatory frameworks for the digital asset industry. This timing raises questions about potential conflicts of interest, given Sacks’s extensive prior involvement in the crypto space.

A representative for Sacks maintains that he is meticulously managing his SGE days to remain compliant with the 130-day limit, emphasizing that these days need not be consecutive. This approach potentially allows him to continue advising the administration while maintaining his private sector activities. However, critics argue that this arrangement could blur the lines between public service and private enterprise, raising concerns about undue influence.

Sacks, a prominent venture capitalist, was appointed by President Trump to spearhead policy development related to crypto and AI. His SGE designation provides him with considerable influence in shaping the future of these rapidly evolving sectors, yet concerns about oversight remain. This underscores the broader debate regarding the role of private sector expertise in government and the potential for regulatory capture.

In March, Sacks disclosed the sale of over $200 million in digital asset holdings, both personally and through his venture capital firm, Craft Ventures, before assuming his White House role, as outlined in a White House memo. This disclosure, while seemingly addressing potential conflicts, has not quelled concerns among some lawmakers who view this as a potential loophole that allows individuals to profit from policy decisions they help shape. The sale itself provided needed clarity for his position advising on crypto policy.

Reports suggest that Sacks has been balancing his time between Washington, D.C., and Silicon Valley, potentially in an effort to avoid exceeding the SGE time limit. Yet, conflicting accounts indicate his continued engagement with White House colleagues, further fueling the debate regarding his compliance with SGE regulations.

Warren and Stansbury argue that these alleged attempts to circumvent the rules undermine the integrity of the SGE category established by Congress. Their investigation aligns with previously proposed legislation aimed at strengthening transparency and ethical standards for temporary government advisors. The investigation highlights potential conflicts of interest as the administration grapples with ongoing regulation in the digital asset space.

The inquiry has garnered support from other prominent lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal, Chris Van Hollen and Jeff Merkley, along with Representatives Betty McCollum and Rashida Tlaib, reflecting the widespread concern over ethical considerations within the Trump administration.

The White House has not yet issued an official statement regarding the concerns surrounding Sacks’s status as an SGE.